The issue of continuity of operations is an example. Kaiser could have stated this as a position - no strikes. However, their interest is not "no strikes" but rather a continuity of operations. The union could have responded to a position of "no strikes" by finding other means of protest, or by taking offense to the suggestion that they surrender one of their core rights. Rather, the union expressed their own interest and the two sides were able to agree on a framework whereby these key interests of both sides were met. 3) Kaiser's had a couple of key entering and exiting points. The first key entering point was when adoption of the initial proposal from DeCicco. The next was the creation of the framework for differentiating national and local issues. In the case of the former, the step was key because it recognized that not only did they have issues but the union did to and it was in everyone's best interest to work through them with a common goal in order to simplify their operating environment. The latter was key because it allowed the negotiations to progress. Whereas Kaiser undoubtedly felt that a national negotiation would be simpler for them, they understood clearly that the issue of national/local differentiation was one of the most crucial interests for the unions.

Kaiser's key exit point was when the...

This was a point where the management teams at Kaiser needed to decide if they were going to continue in building together or carve out their own separate fiefdoms ruled by issues particular to each business unit. It was strong consensus building work that averted this exit.
The union's key entry point was when DeCicco first proposed the partnership idea. It was the recognition that the old system was not the ideal, that the interests of the unions could be better served by engaging in a more co-operative model. This was undertaken knowing there would be considerable dissent within the different unions and that a whole new outlook would be required.

The key exit point for the unions was prior to be offered training in internet-based bargaining. Many in the unions were skeptical of the company's motives and in the validity of the process itself. However, they accepted the company's offer to be trained in the process. Were it not for that, the unions would likely have reverted to positional bargaining, as it was the only method they clearly understood.

Works Cited

Levanthal, Leib. (2006). Implementing Internet-Based Negotiation: Conditions for Success with Evidence from Kaiser Permanente. Dispute Resolution Journal. New York. 61, 3, pp50-57.