Pressures on the parties to reach a resolution and bring the negotiations to a close become more intense as contract deadlines approach and the contract campaign heats up. This means that most of the key issues are usually left towards the end.
When the other side takes a hard line on key issues, especially regarding union mandates, the most important thing we can do is not at the table. The collective actions of workers and allies and the contract campaign are most important. The problem is not usually a failure to communicate at the table, but rather a failure to get the employer(s) to want to settle through effective and strategic campaign and organising work.
Empty threats or promises of action show weakness. If you are going to inform the employer of campaign actions or the decision to take a strike vote, do so only after a thorough discussion and commitments from workers and the full knowledge that you can deliver what you say and more. When the actions occur, they should be stronger than what the employer(s) were expecting.
The United Workers Union faced a difficult situation during contract negotiations when the employer tried to create a two-tier system with the potential to divide workers.
After originally proposing 49 cuts to conditions for the South Australian unionised winery workers, the company, in their last, best and final offer, agreed to all of the union demands except for one, the continuation of an income protection program which was costing the company approximately AUD 6,000 per worker. Under the companies last offer, only existing workers would continue to receive the costly income protection programme where they were paid full wages in the event of illness or injury outside of work.
The current workers were organised, united and had been preparing to strike, but the company’s final proposal was planned to divide the strike vote. It is sometimes difficult to get workers to fight for future conditions for new workers when they themselves have been grandfathered in, especially when all their other demands have been met.
The union prepared for the vote ratification with a campaign plan. If the workers accepted the two-tier, the delegates explained that they would need to commit to organising for a strike at the next contract. The workplace delegates prepared each worker to commit to a written pledge to strike in three years if the company refused to end the two-tier system at the next contract.
With help from the delegates and union leadership, the current workers began to understand that they would become possible targets under the proposed two-tier system. Older workers would become too expensive to employ if the company could engage new workers for less and their union would be weakened.
The workers made plans to march through the small regional town informing the community of the company’s position (no matter how the workers voted). They planned how they could keep a strike promise alive for both the company and the workers by asking each new worker brought in at the lower tier to commit to the strike pledge upon hiring.
The union delegates made the choices very clear and provided a clear plan to fight back now, or in the future. In the end, the workers voted unanimously to strike immediately over the two-tier system rather than wait for the next contract.
When the union met the company to bargain, the company was not prepared for the union response. They thought the workers would roll over and accept the compromise.
The workers protected all their conditions and won wage increases with no concessions, as well as stronger union rights including the right for our delegates to induct new workers to the union. None of the company’s 49 original proposals for cuts in conditions were agreed to.
Following the negotiations, the workers conducted a survey to help them create a narrative about what the union stands for and to set the stage for asking new workers to join the union. The survey contained two questions: What was the most important condition workers won in this contract campaign? What is the one thing we need to win at the next bargaining?
The Sindicato Unico de Trabajadoras Domésticas (SUTD) in Uruguay was established in 1985 when democracy returned to Uruguay and the ban on union activity was lifted. In November 2006, Law 18.065 was adopted by the Uruguayan legislature. The law gave domestic workers the same basic labour rights as other workers. The law also said that there must be a wage council for domestic service. The wage council for domestic service was eventually created in July 2008. The government had three representatives, and the workers and employers each chose two representatives and two substitutes.
Negotiations for the second agreement began in August 2010. The negotiations lasted for four months, in which time 14 meetings were held. The SUTD presented 14 demands, some of which were new, while others were from the 2008 list. The Liga eventually only accepted (at least in part) four of the demands. There was serious conflict over the issues of union leave, wage categories, and wage increases.
After nearly three months of negotiation, the SUTD decided to move to collective action. Workers distributed leaflets in the residential neigbourhoods, criticising the employers for “starving” domestic workers. The SUTD sent a formal protest and demanded an interview with the President, the Minister of Economy and Finance, and the Minister of Labour and Social Security.
The union accepted an offer that exceeded the SUTD’s expectations, including a 37.6 per cent wage increase for workers at the lowest pay level. In the end, the agreement covered a period of two years, as demanded by workers. In December 2010, the second collective agreement was signed.
Review the current status of the bargaining campaign and the arbolito and workplace delegate structures (link)
Review the legal frameworks surrounding dispute resolution, mediation, arbitration, fact-finding and impasse. (link)
Identify the key negotiating proposals that remain unresolved and deadlocked or imagine the proposals that might become deadlocked in the future.
Are there particular proposals that would benefit from collective action by workers and allies?
Are there key proposals that need more input, surveys, meetings and conversations with workers?
Are there collective actions that can create significant impact on the employer(s)?
Would a strike vote (or a vote to take a specific industrial action) result in a sign of strength or weakness to the employer(s) at this time?
If workers are not ready to take a particular action at this moment, what collective action would they take?
Do workers need more information about the status of the negotiations?
How can the arbolito structures be utilised?
Revisit the Tool Kit materials on “Campaigning and Organising”, particularly “Targets and Allies”(link), Strategies (link) and “Tactics” (link) to help identify additional strong actions that workers can take.
Are any of these scenarios likely to occur with your bargaining?
☐ No decision-making authority on the employer’s bargaining team. They have to take everything back to another decision-maker.
☐ The employer(s) are in no hurry. The union team is concerned that negotiations could take a long time.
☐ The employer(s) want to increase or introduce a casual workforce.
☐ The employer team refuses to say yes to high-priority union proposals or mandates.
☐ The employer(s) want to weaken or get rid of the union.
☐ The employer(s) say that they are not afraid of industrial actions or strikes
☐ Other____________
If so, discuss ways that you could break the deadlock by involving workers and engaging in contract campaign actions.
While you are ramping up the contract campaign, you may also be able to use some of these methods to create more movement at the negotiating table.
In Nicaragua, vendors were being evicted from the Metro Central stop area. The authorities refused to look for a negotiated solution. 2,500 workers marched against the evictions and to demand a meeting with the municipal authorities. The union leadership used the press to denounce this violation of workers’ rights. This forced the mayor to meet with worker leaders. They negotiated and signed an agreement that came into force the same day.
www.wiego.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/ICC4-Collective-Bargaining-English.pdf
Identify a possible future deadlock in your negotiations or use an actual deadlock that is currently occurring.
Divide into two bargaining teams, one for the employer side and one for the union.
Begin by each team presenting a summary of how they perceive the current deadlock.
Practice breaking the deadlock. Look for ways to involve workers and contract campaign actions.