Elliot Ziwira @The Book Store

A plethora of definitions has been advanced by different communicators in an attempt to explain bargaining, especially collective. Though they differ in their presentations, their ideas seem to subscribe to the notions that bargaining is not an individual action but a collective effort whose sole purpose is to come up with a mutual agreement on an entire range of pressing issues that touch the nerves of the group as a whole.In today’s world where resources are scarce and issues always boil out of hand because of frustration, impatience and despondency, it is imperative that bargaining as a form of negotiation is given a chance.

According to Flippo (1984:442) collective bargaining “is a communication process in which representatives of two groups meet and attempt to negotiate an agreement which specifies the nature of the agreement between them”. Collective bargaining is usually concerned with the relations existing between unions representing employers and employees in a quest to address pressing issues such as wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment (Beach, 1985 in “Personnel: The Management of People At Work”).

As posited by Freeman (1992:125) collective bargaining is “the process of negotiating and administering agreement between labour and management concerning wages, working conditions and other aspects of the work environment”.

Thus, collective bargaining as posited by Beach (1985), Flippo (1984) and Freeman (1992) is the collective effort of individual groups with different interests concerning the same cake, the sharing of which should not be seen to jeopardise either party’s interests.

As a result mutual agreement should be sought at all costs because interpersonal relations and emotions must not be allowed to suffer as they are crucial in bargaining. For production, which is beneficial to both employers and employees alike, to be increased or maintained either party should be seen to be smiling after a collective bargaining session. If they reach a stalemate, a third party should be handy to pass an equitable verdict. The third party or arbiter, as is the case in Zimbabwe, is the Labour Tribunal.

Two approaches have been advanced to expound collective bargaining and assess its importance as a form of negotiation. These are traditional and integrative bargaining. Until recently the traditional approach was prevalent in Zimbabwe.

The traditional approach subscribes to coercive power in that either party tries to outwit the other with the result that no agreement is in sight until an imposed action is effected. Management might decide to withhold relevant information, preferring instead, to use threats of dismissal or closing down the firm while, on the other hand, workers threaten industrial action or resort to go-slows or nationwide stayaways. In such a scenario both parties stand to lose as they desperately need the cake.

Integrative bargaining, unlike traditional bargaining, is vital in that it is less adversarial. In integrative bargaining parties do not haggle to outwit each other instead they seek to reach a consensus by jointly searching for several solutions to a shared problem. In such an approach trust is paramount as both parties seek to reach a win-win outcome.

If increased production will automatically lead to improved wages, workers and employers will not find themselves scuffling.

Because collective bargaining is a collective effort by conflicting parties, whose idea is not to kill the hen that lays golden eggs, but to preserve and feed it so that more eggs may be obtained, it is an important form of negotiation. As it exists exclusively in labour relations involving employees and employers, it is imperative that the interests of either party are respected; because they both need each other in the same way an offspring requires the genes of either parent.

Employers need their employees for the sake of production, for production is the lifeline of their businesses, and employees need their employers for their livelihood, so they cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds them. As such, both parties need to work collectively because a collective voice is usually heard, unlike that of one calling in the wilderness.

If one employee’s rights are infringed upon a single voice from the workers’ committee will find a listening ear in management, but if the worker elects to voice his/her feelings as a lone soldier, he/she is likely to be ignored. Hence, collective bargaining comes handy in such a situation as a crucial element of negotiation.

In Zimbabwe management, representing employers and other stakeholders, and labour represented by respective bodies should always meet to discuss pertinent issues that may be affecting them. Collective bargaining in Zimbabwe takes place at two levels; national and local. At national level the umbrella bodies like the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions and the Apex Council meet with representative employer bodies like the Bakers’ Association of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union and the Bankers’ Association of Zimbabwe and negotiate on behalf of their affiliated member organisations. At the local level workers’ committees can directly engage in dialogue with their employers through management.

If collective bargaining is conducted in good faith, conflict between employers and employees is mitigated, as problems are solved jointly through mutual trust. If both parties lay their cards on the table there is no need for haggling. If employers, especially in these trying economic times, are open to their employees about the rising costs of production which cut into their profits, the workers will take it in good faith and will not raise outrageous demands. But if management decides to play the wise owl in the eyes of the “dumb” workers, situations may get out of hand.

Feeling betrayed, workers may be forced to take a leaf from the traditional approach of bargaining which is rather confrontational and destructive. Management should know that happy workers are more productive than sulking and angry ones.

If collective bargaining is allowed to be a collective effort as it is wont to be, no casualties will be left in its wake and no arbiter will be needed. However, because of the coercive nature of bargaining, as espoused by the traditional approach, an arbiter like the Labour Court or the International Labour Organisation (ILO) will be called upon to settle disputes.

It is also worth noting, however, that although collective bargaining unlike individual bargaining, or crisis bargaining used in war-torn areas, is an important form of negotiation, it does not always produce the desired fruits.

Negotiations in collective bargaining are usually characterised by harsh words, cunning and sometimes intimidation as parties feel their interests being violated. When matters come to a head through accusations and counter-accusations, mostly where Government is involved, nothing will be solved. Instead of solving genuine problems raised, the situation may get out of hand, usually with disastrous consequences.

Threats on either party, no matter how genuine a matter raised may be, are never known to solve anything because poking each other’s eyes will only leave both parties blind.

 

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey