Two Different Negotiations

Negotiation Strategy The first of the two articles outlines a situation in Las Cruces, NM, where teachers have had their work year cut by three days, apparently in violation of state law. This move was done seemingly to close a budget gap, but is outside of the collective bargaining agreement, and is one of a series of moves of a similar nature (KRWG, 2015). These moves are a negotiating tactic, not only to reopen the deal that has already been made, but to frame the issues for the next negotiation.

Seen in this context, their legality is actually irrelevant -- the city here is simply trying to set the tone for a takeaway negotiation next time, building a case for both the poverty argument and to point out that the reduced work hours did not have any negative effect. The second of the articles is with respect to the Mattoon, IL collective bargaining agreement that was reached with its teachers.

This was a successful negotiation, in which both sides were able to present their interests and bargain to a compromise point. There is an underlying issue of financial insecurity on the government side, but the two sides bargained in good faith throughout the process (Burgstahler, 2015). The two articles feature the same type of negotiation -- between a teacher's union and the government agency that is responsible for negotiating with that union. In both cases, there are apparently cash constraints, but the two approaches to the negotiation are entirely different.

The Las Cruces example uses what are basically dirty tricks, in that they are technically illegal, to influence the tone of the negotiations. The Mattoon example is a more vanilla negotiation where the two sides come together without acrimony in order to reach an agreement that works for both parties. In my work setting, the second strategy is definitely going to work better. The first strategy is risky in a few ways. First, it exposes the organization to risk associated with the breaking of the existing agreement.

Second, it creates a tremendous amount of acrimony, and mistrust. Trust is such an important part of any negotiation that such actions threaten to poison future negotiations before they even begin. This does not mean that an agreement cannot be reached, but it reduces the likelihood, because it steels the union for a battle from the outset. The actions taken in Las Cruces would be a detriment to our organization, because our negotiations are typically with ongoing partners, and we have worked hard to build positive relationships with those entities.

Thus, it is important to ensure that the negotiations in the future are not threatened by short-sighted action. So the second approach is the one that is recommended for my company. There is a lot of mutual interest when dealing with suppliers or labor providers, and finding an agreement that suits everybody's interest is definitely something that should be encouraged. Building and maintaining trust is an essential part of this process.

In seeking a new job, for example, in medical imaging sales, it is important to approach this job from a sales perspective. You are expected in such a position to showcase your negotiating skills. First, that negotiation begins with the formation of trust and a business relationship. The next step in the process is to establish the interests of each side. The other side may have other candidates, and is probably seeking to find the best value. The cost of candidates will probably be within a fairly narrow.