29
GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 1 OF 29 The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations F or the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting information about the types of bargaining relationships Oregon school districts have with their union counterparts. In looking at the data, we've noticed that labor-management relation- ships tend to cycle back and forth between adversarial and cooperative styles of bargaining. Early in the past decade, we saw a dramatic increase in the use of alternative/collaborative models. This trend has been followed by a period of relative stability in the dif- ferential use of traditional/adversarial and alternative/ collaborative models. We believe traditional and alternative bargaining techniques lie along a single continuum, with any number of hybrid models between the two extremes. (A hybrid model is not purely collaborative nor purely adversarial, but a deliberate mixture of the two techniques.) It's important to note that the traditional/ adversarial and alternative/collaborative techniques are not totally separate techniques: there are adversarial/ distributive elements in collaborative techniques as well as collaborative/integrative techniques in adver- sarial models. (See Figure 1.) In mature adversarial bargaining (usually after the parties have found that simply taking positions will not yield a settlement), some accommodation or problem solving may occur. Similarly, in collaborative bargaining, some distributive bargaining over econom- ic issues (e.g., salary, insurance) may occur. On a practical level there may be no pure traditional or collaborative technique, but only mixtures of both with one technique predominating. There are some “hybrid models” that deliberately take elements from both techniques and attempt to mold them together. Let's take a closer look at some of these negotiations techniques. Figure 1 The Traditional Model The traditional model of negotiations assumes that management and labor have clearly defined sets of opposing tasks and interests and that every gain is offset by a loss. This is called "zero-sum" bargaining: + gain - loss = zero The goal of “zero-sum” bargaining is to distribute resources. Distributive bargaining is most useful if there is a fixed resource, a single issue, or the outcome or content of the negotiations outweighs relationship issues. Traditional negotiations involve a highly

The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 1 OF 29

The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations

For the past 10 years the OSBA has beencollecting information about the types ofbargaining relationships Oregon school districts

have with their union counterparts. In looking at thedata, we've noticed that labor-management relation-ships tend to cycle back and forth between adversarialand cooperative styles of bargaining. Early in the pastdecade, we saw a dramatic increase in the use ofalternative/collaborative models. This trend has beenfollowed by a period of relative stability in the dif-ferential use of traditional/adversarial and alternative/collaborative models.

We believe traditional and alternative bargainingtechniques lie along a single continuum, with anynumber of hybrid models between the two extremes.(A hybrid model is not purely collaborative nor purelyadversarial, but a deliberate mixture of the twotechniques.) It's important to note that the traditional/adversarial and alternative/collaborative techniques arenot totally separate techniques: there are adversarial/distributive elements in collaborative techniques aswell as collaborative/integrative techniques in adver-sarial models. (See Figure 1.)

In mature adversarial bargaining (usually after theparties have found that simply taking positions will notyield a settlement), some accommodation or problemsolving may occur. Similarly, in collaborativebargaining, some distributive bargaining over econom-ic issues (e.g., salary, insurance) may occur. On apractical level there may be no pure traditional orcollaborative technique, but only mixtures of both withone technique predominating. There are some “hybridmodels” that deliberately take elements from both

techniques and attempt to mold them together. Let'stake a closer look at some of these negotiationstechniques.

Figure 1

The Traditional ModelThe traditional model of negotiations assumes that

management and labor have clearly defined sets ofopposing tasks and interests and that every gain isoffset by a loss. This is called "zero-sum" bargaining:+ gain - loss = zero

The goal of “zero-sum” bargaining is to distributeresources. Distributive bargaining is most useful ifthere is a fixed resource, a single issue, or the outcomeor content of the negotiations outweighs relationshipissues.

Traditional negotiations involve a highly

Page 2: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 2 OF 29

structured process, with each party exchanging writtenproposals and counterproposals. The proposals ofteninclude position statements that rationalize and justifypositions taken by the parties. Each party demandsconcessions and pressures the other party to agree tothose demands. Proposals are often packaged andissues are traded off. Both parties strive to maximizegains and minimize losses.

At the end of bargaining, the parties establish aformal contract to regulate the impact of managementdecisions and the rights of employees. Conflicts areresolved by uniform application of work rules andpractices, and contract language is interpreted in alegislative fashion.

There are many different models of traditionalbargaining, but four are used by Oregon school dis-tricts. (See Appendix A-1.)

R Adversarial negotiations are characterized bycompeting interests. The chief spokesperson typicallyis a professional negotiator. Written proposals andcounterproposals are used. Concessions are made in-frequently and many issues are linked together tomake concessions more palatable.

R Process-oriented adversarial negotiations arecharacterized by the use of the collective bargainingprocess itself to focus on a narrow number of issues,usually economics. Mediation and the cooling-offperiod are used to gain strategic advantage to pressurethe opposing party into concessions. Bargaining oftenis characterized by marathon sessions, or the use ofbrinkmanship bargaining during mediation or the 30-day cooling-off period.

R Informal adversarial negotiations usually do notinvolve a professional negotiator, but typically involveunion presidents and superintendents engaging in in-formal discussions of bottom-line positions. Both par-ties apply gentle pressure and there usually is sometype of gradual concession or movement. Issues arepackaged early in the discussions. Written proposalsusually are made only after considerable discussion.Sessions usually are of short duration and relativelylow frequency.

R Expedited traditional negotiations typically

involve a limited number of issues discussed by bothparties in a marathon bargaining session. The super-intendent or board representative usually serves as thesole spokesperson. A professional negotiator often isnot present but may be advising behind the scenes.

Collaborative BargainingAt the other end of the continuum is collaborative

bargaining. Collaborative bargaining is a generic termthat describes a variety of bargaining methods: win-win bargaining, collegial bargaining, consensusbargaining, cooperative bargaining, integrative barg-aining, mutual gains bargaining, collective gaining,and interest-based negotiations.1 Collaborativebargaining involves a two-way discussion aimed at:

R increasing the quality and quantity of communi-cation between the parties;

R focusing on joint resolution of problems;R resolving issues with respect and dignity;R improving working relationships between the

parties; andR enhancing the probability of successful

negotiations.Collaborative bargaining models place high value

on individual participation and cooperation in theprocess. Instead of a competitive bargaining method-ology, a joint problem-solving strategy is used for re-solving conflicts between the parties. The structuresand procedures are flexible, as opposed to the highlystylized conversations and debates in traditional mo-dels.

Continual communication problem solving andconsultation characterize the atmosphere. Trust is es-tablished throughout the participatory process, withless reliance on specific contractual obligations andduties. Collaborative/integrative bargaining establish-es comprehensive ongoing communications and prob-lem-solving forums characterized by:

R consulting the other party before proceeding;R understanding and being understood;R being co-partners; and

1“Interest-Based Bargaining” (IBB) or “Interest-Based Strategy”(IBS) appears to be the most popular terms in the late 1990s.

Page 3: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 3 OF 29

R developing a relationship that survives thedifferences between the parties.

There are four collaborative bargaining modelsused by Oregon school districts. (See Appendix A-2.)

1. Informal collaborative/cooperative bargainingis an informal style of bargaining similar to theinformal adversarial model used in traditional barg-aining. Typically, there are no extensive teams of in-dividuals from either party. Negotiations are looselystructured, of short duration, with few meetings. Rep-resentation is by a union president and the superin-tendent or board chairperson. Issues tend to be limitedand focused on solving problems rather than takingpositions.

Differences between informal collaborative/cooperative negotiations and the informal adversarialnegotiations are found in the:

R attitudes of the participants;R working relationships of the parties;R amount of trust between the parties;R number of issues raised during the negotiations;R participants' personalities;R balance and nature of the contract;R ability to continue informal communications;

andR relative stability of the district's environment.2. Formal collaborative bargaining involves

some actual training in the interest-based process butdoes not require the presence of facilitators. Districtsuse a number of specific procedures geared to theirown cultures. Districts feel considerable ownershipover the extent and nature of the process. Writtenproposals and counterproposals may be used, butconsiderable time is spent identifying issues, clarify-ing mutual interests, and using some type of problem-solving technique. Typically, there is a mini-malmeeting structure. Marathon negotiation sessions,however, are common.

The Employment Relations Board's State Concilia-tion Service (ERB) uses a formal collaborative model,which includes a two-day joint training workshop ininterest-based bargaining. The training includes anintroduction to the principles of interest-based problem

solving using materials from Getting to Yes2 as well astraining on consensus decision-making. Duringtraining the parties develop written ground rules, andthe ERB offers a facilitation option during actualnegotiations. The ERB offers an interest-basedmediation service if the parties request mediationunder PECBA.

3. U.S. Department of Labor interest-basednegotiations program. This model is a joint problem-solving process based on the parties' interest and amutual stake in the future. The model requires anexpedited procedure with one- to two-day marathonsessions and completion of the entire bargainingprocess within 30 days.

This program requires the parties to participate ina two-day training program. The training includesinstruction on how the parties can self-facilitate thenegotiations and if they agree, advocates from bothsides may double as facilitators. The program requiresthe parties to formally identify issues, and emphasizescommunications and clarification of interests. There isa structured problem-solving and brainstorming pro-cess, as well as options to establish written standardsfor judging the options in advance. There are nowritten proposals, and hard issues are tackled first. Theprocess has a defined structure and the short timeframe discourages the parties from raising a largenumber of issues. This model is most often used withclassified employee bargaining units.

4. The OEA-OSBA Collaborative BargainingModel is the most highly structured of thecollaborative bargaining models used in Oregon. Thismodel provides parties with a team of two facilitators,one from the Oregon Education Association and theother from the Oregon School Boards Association.Each facilitator has a background in bargaining andspecific training in this non-traditional process.

Facilitators advocate for the process, not theparties. Advocates (Do you mean facilitators?) some-times are present during negotiations, but their

2Getting to Yes, Roger Risher and William Ury, Penguin Books2nd Edition, 1983.

Page 4: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 4 OF 29

presence is optional and controlled by written groundrules. The facilitators conduct an unbiased assessmentwith each party to determine the school district'scircumstances and to determine the parties' chances forsuccess. Facilitators may make recommendationsand/or describe the parties' strengths and weaknessesfor embarking on this style of bargaining.

Typically, the bargaining takes place over a 9–12week period, with an initial two-day (weekend) barg-aining session. The parties then identify topics anddivide into subcommittees to work on specific issuesduring a six- to eight-week period. At the end of thisperiod the parties come together for a final two-day(weekend) session to reach agreement on a totalcontract settlement. The process specifies writtenground rules.

Details on the OEA-OSBA Collaborative Barg-aining Model can be found on pages 15–17 of theNegotiator's Notebook article "Examining Collabora-tive Bargaining Techniques," June 1995. Facilitatorsare present for the first weekend's bargaining sessionand are on call for subcommittee bargaining during thesecond weekend bargaining session. They also conducta two-day training session to familiarize the partieswith each step of the process.

Labor-Management Roles and Relationships

Labor and management take on various roles dur-ing the life of an agreement. The parties may interactin highly adversarial situations but also work to formstrategic partnerships to further the mission of theorganization. Their ability to play different roles,depending on the circumstances, creates inherent ten-sion in the workplace. Specific internal or externalfactors may impact this dynamic tension.

For example, changes to the tenure law in 1997caused increased teacher anxiety, which was then re-flected in labor-management relations. The 1999 FernRidge strike took place because teachers mistakenlybelieved they needed to increase job protections tooffset losses resulting from SB 880. This “externalfactor” (the passage of tenure legislation) impacted thelabor relations of a district that had not dismissed a

teacher in more than a decade.Internal changes can also affect the level of

tension in the workplace. Leadership changes in theunion or the district can impact the relationship be-tween the parties. A particularly contested disciplinaryaction or transfer also can act as a flash point. How theparties react to an event can move them backward orforward along the adversarial-collaborative contin-uum.

For example, at the end of the 1996-97 schoolyear, the Portland School District superintendentannounced the reconstitution (or re-staffing) ofHumbolt Elementary School in an attempt to turnaround disappointing student achievement growth.There was an immediate adversarial response fromteachers who called the controversial decision a "knee-jerk" reaction. Members of the school board expressedtheir support for reconstitution, and even U.S.Secretary of Education Richard Riley got invol-ved,saying, "If a school is bad and can't be changed,reconstitute it or close it down."

The union immediately filed a grievance trying tohalt the action but agreed to an expedited hearing. Afew days before the start of the 1997-98 school year,an arbitrator issued a decision in favor of the district;however, the controversy continued. Two years later,when a new superintendent was hired, he declared hewould not use reconstitution again.

The roles the parties play under an existing agree-ment impact the roles they play during bargaining (andvice-versa). These roles will shape their views ofwhich bargaining model is most useful to support theirinterests.

Appendix B shows some of the roles labor andmanagement may play during the life of a contract.The roles each party plays reflect the relationshipbetween labor and management, but they also may bechosen for their strategic value. For example, it mayserve one of the parties' interests to collaborate onsome issues but remain intractable on others. The keyis whether the parties believe the roles they assumewill help them to achieve their overall goals.

Page 5: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 5 OF 29

Stages of Collective Bargaining3

Why is collective bargaining cyclical in nature?Analyzing the process may provide some answers.There are four basic stages in collective bargaining:

R Conflict usually exists at the beginning of thebargaining relationship. It is characterized by the em-ployer trying to maintain control, while the union re-sponds with aggressive action in an effort to be re-cognized and strengthen its position.

R Containment follows, during which theemployer recognizes that a relationship with the unionis necessary. The union also recognizes the need tolearn to live with the employer and begins to moderateits demands and rhetoric. Mutual suspicion and dis-trust from earlier conflicts remains, however.

R Accommodation is reached when both partiesattempt to achieve an agreement through reason andpersuasion, rather than economic warfare. Typically,this stage begins when the parties begin to focus onlocal issues as opposed to regional or statewide issues.The emphasis shifts to building a relationship that re-cognizes both parties' needs.

R Cooperation sees collaborative behavior at itshighest level. The trust level is high and the parties aremotivated to solve problems. Both sides work toprotect and build the relationship. Communication isopen and direct with informal discussions of realproblems.

These stages describe the series of interactionswhen the parties use a traditional bargaining model.When a collaborative model is used, both parties agreeto focus on stage four (cooperation) from the be-ginning. Appendix C represents the nature ofbargaining dynamics.

The Cyclical Nature of Collective Bargaining

Over the course of negotiations, bargainingrelationships may cycle from one model to another.These shifts may occur during a single bargaining ses-sion. Negotiators need to be aware of the models andstages of collective bargaining so they can understandwhy these shifts take place. They may even choose tochange from one model to another. For example, theparties may decide at the outset to use a collaborativemodel throughout the negotiations, but when it comesto a particular issue (e.g., money) traditional elementsmay be used. Appendix D shows a diagram of thecycle between traditional and alternative bargaining.

A number of patterns have emerged from our 10-year study of school district relationships. Some dis-tricts have cultures of collaboration that sustain the useof formal or informal interest-based strategies. Theremay be some positional bargaining, but for the mostpart the relationships are cooperative. Other dis-trictsuse a traditional approach over multiple con-tracts.This approach seems to fit them well and any efforts atcollaboration are placed in a traditional framework.Other districts cycle toward the extremes of thecontinuum. We have identified three patterns:

1. the transition from traditional to collabor-ative;

2. the transition from collaborative to tradition-al; and

3. the impact of a strike or near-strike activity.

The Impetus For Change

OSBA survey data and our experience in collab-orative and traditional bargaining offer some insightsinto why parties cycle between bargaining models.

Adoption of a Collaborative ModelFirst, the survey indicates districts are more

inclined to change from traditional to collaborativebargaining because they believe the parties will reacha better outcome by working together. In many cases,the union initiates this change. Second, the surveyindicates the shift to collaborative bargaining mayresult from prior contentious negotiations. Several re-

3Namit, Chuck, Checking Your Negotiations Style: TheSituational Negotiations Approach to Bargaining, WashingtonSchool Directors’ Association, 1981, pg 8-17. Adapted from:Beavers, Mabry, B., Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining,The Ronald Press Co., 1966, pg. 66-67.

Page 6: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 6 OF 29

sponses note that previous negotiations left a bruisedrelationship between the district and the union andstaff.

Third, change is brought on by the hiring of a newsuperintendent or the election of a new associationpresident. Many survey responses indicate that per-sonnel responsible for the negotiations initiate thechange. Some shifts are the result of changes in boardmembership. Fourth, change is brought on by a strikeor a near strike.

Fifth, change is brought on by a change in nego-tiators. In some instances the parties to the agreementeither get rid of their professional negotiators or aban-don the lead negotiator model for a team negotiationmodel.

Finally, change is brought on because financialconstraints require the parties to negotiate collabor-atively. A few respondents to the survey mention thatmutual concerns about PERS made both parties movetoward using the collaborative model.

In summary, the reasons for the adoption of acollaborative approach are:

1. Both parties believe alternative models will bemore successful.

2. Past negotiations have failed to meet theparties' goals.

3. New leadership promotes trust and risk-taking.4. After high-conflict negotiations or a strike, the

parties want labor peace.5. Negotiators have new or different sets of skills.

Adoption of a Traditional ModelThe research and our experience also shed some

light on why parties move from a collaborative to atraditional model. In some instances the parties beginwith a collaborative approach at the outset. Duringnegotiations, however, this approach breaks down andthe parties decide to revert back to a traditional modelof bargaining. In other instances new personnel notfamiliar with collaborative bargaining or suspicious ofthe process choose to switch. In a few instances, achange occurs when some members of either party donot believe the collaborative process is meeting theirneeds and consequently become critical of the process.

Finally, some districts change because of a financial orother crisis in the district, which is used to rationalizethe change. In summary, the reasons for adopting atraditional approach are:

1. The process breaks down through lack oftraining or facilitation.

2. Personnel changes raise power and/or govern-ance issues.

3. Members of either party believe the processdoes not reflect their interests.

4. A crisis, financial or otherwise, disrupts inter-nal power relationships.

Impact of Strike

The impact of strikes or near-strikes on collectivebargaining is of particular interest. Since 1974 Oregonschool districts have been involved in only 18 strikes.As Appendix E shows, school districts have exper-ienced a great deal of labor peace, considering thenumber of contracts negotiated each year. Although astrike or near-strike may bring a shift in the bargainingmodel, typically it is not the major impetus for change.Its collateral effect may be more significant, however.The most common reaction to a strike in anotherdistrict is, "We sure don't want to do that. We need toavoid a strike at all costs!"

The Shift from the Traditional to theCollaborative Model

Each year the OSBA surveys school districts onthe results of their bargaining, including whether theyuse a collaborative or traditional model. These surveyshave been conducted since 1993 and are completed byan average 81 percent of districts each year. For thepurposes of the survey, traditional bargaining isdefined as: "A bargaining process often characterizedby adversarial and confrontational strategies."Alternative/ collaborative bargaining is defined as: "Abargaining process incorporating problem-solving,trust, and co-operation."

As Appendix F shows, there was a dramatic in-

Page 7: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 7 OF 29

crease in districts reporting the use of an alternativemodel of bargaining from the 1993-94 school year.Interest in alternative models among school districtswas high in the late 1980s. Work on the developmentof the OEA-OSBA model started in 1989, and themodel debuted in the 1990-91 school year. Asknowledge of different models increased, moredistricts started to use them.

After this initial surge, the growth in alternativebargaining plateaued with at least 56 percent of dis-tricts using a collaborative model, which has onlyincreased to 59% by 2000-2001. We do not know howmany districts use a purely collaborative model andhow many use a hybrid model. Despite an increase inthe use of collaborative techniques, they have nottotally replaced traditional techniques. As the chartindicates, traditional bargaining is still chosen by 49%of Oregon’s school districts in 2000-2001. (See Ap-pendix G for data).

Does Collaborative Bargaining Affect Wages?

The bargaining model chosen by a district does notnecessarily determine the size of wage increases.Appendix H shows the average increase from 1994-2001 according to size of district. Statewide averagesshow that in the seven years this survey has been con-ducted, alternative methods have resulted in higherwage increases four times. The difference is less thana percent, however.

There are some differences based on size ofdistrict, however. The larger the district, the morelikely it is that alternative bargaining brought largerwage increases. In the 3000+ ADM category, this istrue every year; in the 1000-2999 ADM category, fiveyears; in the 500-999 ADM category, three years; inthe 100-499 ADM category, four years; and in the 1-99ADM category, two years.

Putting it all Together

Based on the data gathered from surveys and ourown experience in labor-management relations, we be-lieve the following to be true:

1. Traditional/adversarial and alternative/ colla-borative strategies are points along the same continu-um, rather than totally separate techniques.

2. Collaborative or interest-based strategies havenot replaced traditional/adversarial models but seem toexist in dynamic tension with them.

3. Growth in the use of collaborative techniquesappears to have plateaued in Oregon.

4. There appears to be a life cycle to labor-management relations and the use of a particular barg-aining model.

5. School districts have a choice among differentbargaining models within a traditional or collaborativeframework, as well as hybrid models.

6. On a practical level, there may be no puretraditional or pure collaborative techniques, but simplymixtures of both with one technique predom-inating.

7. Labor and management play various rolesduring the life of an agreement, ranging from highlyadversarial to strategic partnerships.

8. The differing roles create inherent tension inthe workplace. Internal or external factors may causethe parties to alter this dynamic tension.

9. The labor-management relationship and colle-ctive bargaining are cyclical over time. Three patternshave emerged from the data:

a) Adoption of a collaborative modelb) Adoption of a traditional modelc) Impact of a strike

10. The effect of collaborative vs. traditionalbargaining on economics (as reflected by the averageBA percent increase to salary schedules) appears to bemixed. In larger districts, collaborative bargaining ap-pears to give unions a modest advantage over tradi-tional methods.

By: Ron Wilson, Director of Labor Relations

Page 8: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 8 OF 29

[This page is purposely left blank]

Page 9: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix A-1

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 9 OF 29

Traditional Bargaining Models in Oregon School DistrictsCharacteristics of Models

Type Origins AdvocatePresence/

Input

Team Structure

ParticipantTraining

Process Sessions\ TimeFrame

GroundRules

AdversarialNegotiationsModel

• Private SectorManufacturing• Trade Union StyleBargaining

Outside professionalnegotiator usuallypresent

• Professionalnegotiator• Team participationusually limited tocaucuses

Structure/Participation

• Highly Structured• Written proposals• Positional statements• Rationalize and justify positions• Maximize gains • Minimize losses• Demand concessions• Apply pressure• Few and small concessions• Packaging proposals

• Sessions typically scheduled for everyother week for 2-3hours at a time• Typically 8-12meetings prior tomediation• 2 to 12 monthstypically

• Usually avoided• Can be submitted for strategic purposes

Process-OrientedAdverserialModel

• Private SectorManufacturing• Trade Union Style Bargaining

Outside professionalnegotiator usuallypresent

• Professionalnegotiator• Team participationusually limited tocaucuses

Genericnegotiationstraining

• Process usedstrategically• Focus oneconomics• Apply pressure• Written proposals• Positionalstatements• Maximize gains • Minimize losses• Demandconcessions• Few and small concessions• Distributivebargaining

• 1-2 day marathon sessions• 30 day option• Option for non-expedited format• 6-7 monthsdepending on thenumber of issues

• Usually avoided• Can be submitted for strategic purposes

Informal,AdversarialModel

• Private SectorManufacturing• Trade Union StyleBargaining• Limited ProblemSolving• Limited IssueBargaining• Personality based

Behind the scenes, ifat all

• Superintendent/board chair/board representativeserves as solespokesperson• Team participationand discussion at thetable

Genericnegotiationstraining, if any

• Informal,personable• Written proposalsproposals optional• Discussion ofbottomline positions • Maximize gains • Minimize losses• Problem solve• Apply pressuregently• Gradualconcessions/ movement• Package issuesearly

• Loosely structured,short duration, lowfrequency sessions• Typically 2-8sessions total• Variable, usually 2to 4 months

• Usually no

ExpeditedTraditionalModel

• Private SectorManufacturing• Trade Union Style Bargaining• Limited issues

Variable,professionalnegotiator may bepresent or advisingbehind the scenes

• If present,, usuallythe professionalnegotiator isspokesperson;otherwise, thesuperintendent/board chair/boardrepresentative servesas sole spokesperson• Team participationand discussion at thetable

Genericnegotiationstraining, if any

• District-specific procedures• Limited issues• Marathon sessions• Limited number of sessions• Written proposals• Discussion ofbottom-line positions

• 1-2 day marathon sessions/weekends• 30/60/90 day options• Variable

• Variable, mostly yes

© 1993 OSBA Labor Relations Department, All Rights Reserved

Page 10: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix A-2

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 10 OF 29

Alternative Bargaining Models in Oregon School DistrictsCharacteristics of Collaborative Models

Type Origins DistrictsUtilizing

FacilitatorIntervention

AdvocatePresence/

Input

ParticipantTraining

Process Sessions\Time

Frame

GroundRules

Informal,Collaborative/Cooperative Model

• Problem Solving• Limited Issues• Relationship based

• Gore• Newberg• Pilot Rock• Silverton Elem.• Linn-Benton ESD• West Union• Central Linn•Damascus- Union• Central• Oakridge

• Outside facilitators rarely used• No intervention during actual negotiations

Behind thescenes, if at all

Usually none • Informal • Friendly, • "Bottom line" discussions• Usually no formal written proposals• Limited participation by parties

• Loosely structured, short duration, low frequency•Variable, usually 1 to 5 sessions

No

Formal,Collaborative Model

• Problem Solving• Interest Based• Mutual Gains Bargaining• Principled Negotiations

• Albany• Corvalis• Eugene• Beaverton• Hermiston• Junction City• Scio• Redland• Gladstone

• Facilitators usually not present• Usually none during actual negotiations

Yes active, ifpresent

Facilitatorprovidedtraining

•District- specific procedures• Written proposals may be used• Issue identification• Mutual Interests• Problem solving• Win/Win solutions• May use chief spokespersons

• Minimal structure, 3-4 hour sessions• Variable

Variable, mostlyno

U.S .Department ofLabor: Interest-BasedNegotiations

• Private Sector Manufacturing•Interest-Based Bargaining• Principled Negotiations• Win/Win Bargaining• Expedited Bargaining•Mutual Interest Bargaining

• Springfield• Bend-LaPine• South Lane• Lebanon• Rainier• Ontario

•Self-facilitation•May use one facilitator•Advocates may facilitate•Minimal content interventions, focus on process

Yes, active incontent andprocess

Two daytraining

• Expedited• Issue identification• Structured problemsolving/ Brainstorming• Focus on hard issues first• Establish written standards for judging options in advance• No written proposals• Active participation by participants

• 1-2 day marathon sessions• 30 day option• Option for non-expedited format• 48 hour marathon• 30-day option

Optional, but ifpresent areminimal

OEA-OSBACollaborativeBargaining Model

• Win/Win Goldaber Approach• Mutual Gains Bargaining• Relationship Issues• Problem Solving• Principled Negotiations

• Bethel• Rainier• Jewell• Hillsboro Elem.• South Lane•Barlow-Gresham• Sandy UH• LaGrande• St. Helens• Lebanon• Warrenton- Hammond• Scappoose• Corbett• Tillamook

•Two-Union and Management in tandem•Process related input only

Optional andcontrolled byground rules

1 day minimum;1 to 3 daysavailable

• Highly Structured• Meet off site• Extensive discussion of interests and issue identification•Problem-solving strategy• Brainstorming• Emphasis on communication by participants• No written

• Two "weekends"• Multiple Subcommittee meetings• High intensity activity• 10-12 weeks duration

Yes, extensive

© 1993 OSBA Labor Relations Department, All Rights Reserved

Page 11: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix B

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 11 OF 29

Labor-Management RelationsLife Cycle

RolesIssue specific disagreements (grievances)

Open warfare (strikes, near strikes)

Staunch adversaries (the battle of wills)

Loyal opposition/Humane managers

Issue specific collaborative partnerships

Strategic partnerships in the mission of theorganizations

Page 12: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 12 OF 29

[This page is purposely left blank]

Page 13: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix C

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 13 OF 29

Page 14: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 14 OF 29

[This page is purposely left blank]

Page 15: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix D

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 15 OF 29

Page 16: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 16 OF 29

[This page is purposely left blank]

Page 17: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix E

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 17 OF 29

Oregon Teachers Union Strikes Since 1973+

0 1 2 3 4

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Year

Number of Striking Districts

Page 18: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 18 OF 29

[This page is purposely left blank]

Page 19: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix F

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 19 OF 29

DNR=DidNot

Respond

* As of November 15, 2000

Page 20: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 20 OF 29

[This page is purposely left blank]

Page 21: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix G-1

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 21 OF 29

1994-1995 Statewide Bargaining Survey

Districts using Traditional Bargaining Districts using Alternative Bargaining

ADM 1-99Adel 21Annex 29Bethany 63Bonneville 46Burnt River 30Crane 4Drewsey 13Mitchell 55Ophir 12Pratum 50South Harney 33Tennessee 102Wamic 42Wasco UH1

ADM 100-499Adrian 61Arlington 3Blachly 90Camas Valley 21Central Howell 540Condon 25Cove 15Crane UH1JCulver 4Farmington View 58Gold Beach UH1Gold Beach Elementary 3Harrisburg Elementary 42Harrisburg UH5Imbler 11Lowell 71Monitor 142Monroe 1JMonroe Elementary 25JOlney 11Perrydale 21JPrairie City 4Sauvie Island 19St. Paul 45Sublimity 7Victor Point 42Wallowa 12

ADM 500-999Athena-Weston 29Banks 13Chenowith 9Colton 53Enterprise 21Gaston 511Gervais 1Lakeview 7Mill City-Gates 129Mt. Angel 91Neah-Kah-Nie 56Oakridge 76Pilot Rock 2Riddle 70Sisters 6

ADM 500-999 (cont.)Stanfield 61Stayton Elementary 77Stayton UH4Welches 13Yamhill-Carlton 1

ADM 1000-2999Astoria 1Brookings-Harbor 17Coquille 8Grant ESDHarney 3Lake ESDMadras 509Myrtle Point 41North Bend 13North Marion 15Nyssa 26Ontario 8Philomath 17Reedsport 105Rogue River 35Seaside 10Sherwood 88JSilverton UH7Sweet Home 55The Dalles 12Woodburn 103

ADM 3000 & UPBend-LaPine 1Bethel 52Canby 86Centennial 28Central Point 6Clatsop ESDColumbia ESDCoos ESDCorvallis 509Grants Pass 7Hillsboro UH3Klamath CULane ESDLincoln CUMcMinnville 40North Clackamas 12Pendleton 16Portland 1Salem-Keizer 24JTillamook ESDUmatilla ESDWasco ESDWashington ESD

ADM 1-99Brothers 15Harper 66Long Creek 17Olex 11Pinehurst 94Ukiah 80Union 5Upper Chetco 23

ADM 100-499Butte Falls 91Cottrell 107Crow-Applegate-Lorane 66Echo 5Fossil 21JGilliam ESDGroner 39Hamilton Creek 33Helix 1Huntington 16Jewell 8Jordan Valley 3Lacomb 73Marcola 79JMari-Linn 29Monroe UH1JNorth Lake 14North Plains 70North Powder 8Powers 31Riverdale 51JSilver Crest 93Sodaville 13

ADM 500-999Amity 4Bandon 54Central Linn 552Crowfoot 89Dayton 8Elgin 23Glendale 77Jefferson 14JScio 95Sheridan 48Vernonia 47Warrenton-Hammond 30West Union 1Willamina 30

ADM 1000-2999Baker 5Central 13JColumbia 5Dallas 2

ADM 1000-2999 (cont.)

Gladstone 115Glide 12Harney ESDJohn Day 3Junction City 69Klamath Falls 1Klamath UH2La Grande 1Lebanon 16Lebanon UH1Molalla RiverMorrow CUPhoenix-Talent 4Pleasant Hill 1Rainier 13ReedvilleSandy UH2Scappoose 1JSiuslaw 97South Lane 45Sutherlin 130Tillamook 9Wallowa ESDWinston-Dillard 116

ADM 3000 & UPAshland 5Beaverton 48Clackamas ESDCurry ESDDavid Douglas 40Deschutes ESDDouglas ESDEagle Point 9Eugene 4Forest GroveGreater Albany 8Hermiston 8Hillsboro Elementary 7Jackson ESDLake Oswego 7Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESDMalheur ESDMarion ESDMedford 549Multnomah ESDNewberg 29Oregon City 62Parkrose 3Reynolds 7Roseburg 4Springfield 19Three Rivers/Josephine CUTigard-Tualatin 23JUnion ESDWest Linn-Wilsonville 3

Page 22: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix G-2

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 22 OF 29

1995-1996 Statewide Bargaining Survey

Districts using Traditional Bargaining Districts using Alternative Bargaining

ADM 1-99Adel 21Ashwood 8Burnt River 30Mitchell 55Ophir 12Pratum 50Suntex 10Upper Chetco 23

ADM 100-499Adrian 61Annex 29Blachly 90Camas Valley 21Central Howell 540Cove 15Days Creek 15Dufur 29Echo 5Elkton 34Farmington View 58Gilliam ESDGold Beach Elementary 3Gold Beach UH1Harrisburg Elementary 42Huntington 16Jordan Valley 3Marcola 79JMcKenzie 68Perrydale 21JPowers 31Prairie City 4Prospect 59Sherman 1Sherman ESDSt. Paul 45Wasco UH1

ADM 500-999Athena-Weston 29Colton 53Dayton 8Lowell 71Neah-Kah-Nie 56Oakridge 76Port Orford-LangloisRiddle 70Santiam Canyon 129Umatilla 6Welches 13Yamhill-Carlton 1

ADM 1000-2999Astoria 1Brookings-Harbor 17Cascade 5Chenowith 9Crook CUGrant ESDHarney 3

ADM 1000-2999 (cont.)Lake ESDMadras 509Milton-Freewater 7Myrtle Point 41North Marion 15Nyssa 26Ontario 8Pleasant Hill 1Reedsport 105Rogue River 35Sandy 46Seaside 10Sherwood 88JSilverton Elementary 4Silverton UH7South Umpqua 19

ADM 3000 & UPBethel 52Canby 86Centennial 28Central Point 6Clatsop ESDColumbia ESDCoos Bay 9Coos ESDHillsboro UH3Hood River CULane ESDMalheur ESDRedmond 2JTigard-Tualatin 23JWest Linn-Wilsonville 3Yamhill ESD

ADM 1-99Bethany 63Bonneville 46Crane 4Crane UH1JDayville 16JHarper 66Ukiah 80

ADM 100-499Alsea 7JArlington 3Butte Falls 91Condon 25Crow-Applegate 66Culver 4Falls City 57Fossil 21JGroner 39Harrisburg UH5Helix 1Jewell 8Long Creek 17Mapleton 32Mari-Linn 29Monitor 142North Lake 14North Plains 70North Powder 8Paisley 11Riverdale 51JScotts Mills 73Silver Crest 93Wallowa 12

ADM 500-999Amity 4Bandon 54Elgin 23Glendale 77Jefferson 14JNestucca Valley 101JPilot Rock 2Scio 95Sheridan 48Union 5Warrenton-Hammond 30West Union 1

ADM 1000-2999Baker 5Central 13JColumbia 5Coquille 8Dallas 2Estacada 108Fern Ridge 28

ADM 1000-2999 (cont.)Gladstone 115Glide 12John Day 3Junction City 69Klamath Falls 1Klamath Union/Mazama HighLa Grande 1Lakeview 7Molalla RiverMorrow CUNorth Bend 13Phoenix-Talent 4Rainier 13Reedville 29Sandy UH2Scappoose 1JSiuslaw 97South Lane 45Sutherlin 130The Dalles 12Tillamook 9Vale 84Wallowa ESDWinston-Dillard 116

ADM 3000 & UPAshland 5Beaverton 48Bend-LaPine 1Clackamas ESDCurry ESDDavid Douglas 40Deschutes ESDEagle Point 9Eugene 4Forest GroveGrants Pass 7Greater Albany 8Gresham-Barlow 10Hermiston 8Hillsboro Elementary 7Jackson ESDJefferson ESDLake Oswego 7Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESDMcMinnville 40Medford 549Multnomah ESDNewberg 29Oregon City 62Pendleton 16Polk ESDReynolds 7Roseburg 4Three Rivers/Josephine CUTillamook ESDUmatilla-Morrow ESDUnion ESDWasco ESDWashington ESD

Page 23: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix G-3

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 23 OF 29

1996-1997 Statewide Bargaining Survey

Districts using Traditional Bargaining Districts using Alternative Bargaining

ADM 1-99Burnt River 30Crane 4Crane UH1JMitchell 55Ophir 12Pratum 50Union 5Upper Chetco 23

ADM 100-499Adrian 61Annex 29Blachly 90Cove 15Days Creek 15Dufur 29Echo 5Gilliam ESDGold Beach UH1Huntington 16Imbler 11Jordan Valley 3Long Creek 17McKenzie 68North Lake 14Pilot Rock 2Pine Eagle 61Prairie City 4Prospect 59Riverdale 51JSherman 1Sherman ESDVictor Point 42

ADM 500-999Colton 53Corbett 39Monroe 1JNeah-Kah-Nie 56Nestucca Valley 101JNorth Douglas 22Oakridge 76Riddle 70Stanfield 61Umatilla 6Welches 13

ADM 1000-2999Astoria 1Cascade 5Chenowith 9Creswell 40Crook CountyFern Ridge 28Gervais 1Glide 12

ADM 1000-2999 (cont.)Grant ESDHarney 3Madras 509North Marion 15Nyssa 26Ontario 8Pleasant Hill 1Reedsport 105Rogue River 35Seaside 10Sherwood 88JSilverton UH7Sisters 6South Umpqua 19Sutherlin 130Willamina 30Winston-Dillard 116

ADM 3000 & UPCentennial 28Grants Pass 7Gresham-Barlow 10Hillsboro 1JHood River CountyLebanon Community SchoolsNorth Clackamas 12Northwest Regional ESDPendleton 16Portland 1Redmond 2JSouth Coast ESD 7West Linn-Wilsonville 3

ADM 1-99Bethany 63Fossil 21JHarper 66Monument 8Petersburg 14Ukiah 80

ADM 100-499Alsea 7JArlington 3Butte Falls 91Central Howell 540Condon 25Culver 4Elkton 34Falls City 57Helix 1Jewell 8Mapleton 32Perrydale 21JPowers 31Sauvie Island 19Scotts Mills 73Silver Crest 93Wallowa 12

ADM 500-999Amity 4Athena-Weston 29Bandon 54Dayton 8Elgin 23Enterprise 21Glendale 77Harrisburg 7Jefferson 14JJohn Day 3Mt. Angel 91Oakland 1Santiam Canyon 129Scio 95Sheridan 48Vernonia 47Warrenton-Hammond 30Yamhill-Carlton 1

ADM 1000-2999Baker 5Brookings-Harbor 17Central 13JCoquille 8Dallas 2Klamath Falls 1Klamath Union/MazamaLa Grande 1Lakeview 7

ADM 1000-2999 (cont.)Molalla RiverMorrow CUMyrtle Point 41North Bend 13Philomath 17Phoenix-Talent 4Rainier 13Region 18 ESDScappoose 1JSilverton Elementary 4Siuslaw 97South Lane 45St. Helens 502The Dalles 12Tillamook 9Vale 84

ADM 3000 & UPAshland 5Beaverton 48Bend-LaPine 1Bethel 52Central Point 6Clackamas ESDCorvallis 509Crook-Deschutes ESDDavid Douglas 40Douglas ESDEagle Point 9Eugene 4Forest GroveGreater Albany 8Hermiston 8Klamath CULake Oswego 7Lane ESDLincoln CULinn-Benton-Lincoln ESDMalheur ESD 14McMinnville 40Medford 549Multnomah ESDNewberg 29Oregon City 62Parkrose 3Region 9 ESDReynolds 7Roseburg 4Salem-Keizer 24JSpringfield 19Three Rivers/Josephine CUTigard-Tualatin 23JUmatilla-Morrow ESDUnion-Baker Region 13 ESDWillamette Regional ESDWoodburn 103

Page 24: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix G-4

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 24 OF 29

1997-1998 Statewide Bargaining Survey

Districts using Traditional Bargaining Districts using Alternative Bargaining

ADM 1-99Dayville 16JMitchell 55Monument 8Spray 1

ADM 100-499Adrian 61Annex 29Burnt River 30Camas Valley 21Cove 15Crow-Applegate 66Days Creek 15Echo 5Elkton 34Falls City 57Marcola 79JMcKenzie 68North Lake 14Pine Eagle 61Prairie City 4Prospect 59Riverdale 51JSherman 1St. Paul 45

ADM 500-999Amity 4Athena-Weston 29Central Linn 552Colton 53Corbett 39Harrisburg 7Monroe 1JNestucca Valley 101JOakland 1Oakridge 76Port Orford-LangloisStanfield 61

ADM 1000-2999Astoria 1Chenowith 9Creswell 40Estacada 108Glide 12Grant ESDHarney 3North Marion 15North Santiam 29Nyssa 26Philomath 17Rogue River 35Seaside 10

Sherwood 88JSisters 6

ADM 1000-2999 (cont.)Siuslaw 97Sutherlin 130Winston-Dillard 116

ADM 3000 & UPBend-LaPine 1Canby 86Centennial 28Coos Bay 9Jackson ESDJefferson ESDLebanon Comm. SchoolsNorth Clackamas 12Oregon Trail 46Pendleton 16Portland 1South Coast ESD 7Yamhill ESD

ADM 1-99Crane 4Crane UH1JHarper 66Ukiah 80

ADM 100-499Arlington 3Condon 25Fossil 21JHuntington 16Jewell 8Jordan Valley 3Long Creek 17Mapleton 32Paisley 11Perrydale 21JPetersburg 14Pilot Rock 2Powers 31Sauvie Island 19South Wasco County 1Wallowa 12

ADM 500-999Bandon 54Banks 13Dayton 8Elgin 23Enterprise 21Gervais 1Glendale 77Jefferson 14JMt. Angel 91Santiam Canyon 129Sheridan 48Union 5

ADM 1000-2999Central 13JColumbia 5Coquille 8Fern Ridge 28John Day 3La Grande 1Lakeview 7Molalla RiverMorrow CUMyrtle Point 41North Bend 13Phoenix-Talent 4Pleasant Hill 1Rainier 13Reedsport 105Region 18 ESD

Scappoose 1JSouth Umpqua 19

ADM 1000-2999 (cont.)St. Helens 502The Dalles 12Tillamook 9Umatilla 6Vale 84Willamina 30Yamhill-Carlton 1

ADM 3000 & UPAshland 5Beaverton 48Central Point 6Clackamas ESDDavid Douglas 40Douglas ESDEugene 4Forest GroveGrants Pass 7Greater Albany 8Gresham-Barlow 10Hermiston 8Hillsboro 1JHood River CountyKlamath CUKlamath Falls City SchoolsLake Oswego 7Lincoln CULinn-Benton-Lincoln ESDMalheur ESD 14McMinnville 40Medford 549Multnomah ESDNewberg 29Oregon City 62Reynolds 7Roseburg 4Salem-Keizer 24JThree Rivers/Josephine CUTigard-Tualatin 23JUmatilla-Morrow ESDUnion-Baker Region 13 ESDWest Linn-Wilsonville 3Willamette Regional ESDWoodburn 103

Page 25: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix G-5

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 25 OF 29

1998-1999 Statewide Bargaining Survey

Districts using Traditional Bargaining Districts using Alternative Bargaining

ADM 1-99Annex 29Dayville 16JMitchell 55Monument 8

ADM 100-499Adrian 61Butte Falls 91Culver 4Days Creek 15Echo 5Elgin 23Lowell 71Marcola 79JNorth Lake 14Paisley 11Riverdale 51JSherman 1St. Paul 45

ADM 500-999Amity 4Athena-Weston 29Corbett 39Gaston 511Harrisburg 7Monroe 1JNeah-Kah-Nie 56Oakridge 76

ADM 1000-2999Astoria 1Brookings-Harbor 17Cascade 5ClatskanieGlide 12Harney 3Jefferson County 509JLakeview 7North Central ESDNorth Marion 15Nyssa 26Ontario 8Reedsport 105Seaside 10Sherwood 88JSisters 6South Lane 45Sutherlin 130Sweet Home 55Winston-Dillard 116

ADM 3000 & UPBethel 52Canby 86Centennial 28

ADM 3000 & UP (cont.)Coos Bay 9Corvallis 509Eugene 4Hillsboro 1JJackson ESDKlamath CUMalheur ESD 14Northwest Regional ESDOregon Trail 46Pendleton 16Silver Falls 4Springfield 19Woodburn 103Yamhill ESD

ADM 1-99Fossil 21JSpray 1

ADM 100-499Arlington 3Burnt River 30Condon 25Helix 1Huntington 16Imbler 11Jewell 8Long Creek 17Mapleton 32Pilot Rock 2Pine Eagle 61Powers 31South Wasco County 1Union 5Wallowa 12Wasco County 29

ADM 500-999Bandon 54Banks 13Central Linn 552Colton 53Dayton 8Enterprise 21Jefferson 14JMt. Angel 91Myrtle Point 41Santiam Canyon 129Scio 95Stanfield 61Vernonia 47Warrenton-Hammond 30

ADM 1000-2999Chenowith 9Coquille 8Estacada 108Gervais 1Gladstone 115John Day 3La Grande 1Molalla RiverNorth Santiam 29Philomath 17Phoenix-Talent 4Pleasant Hill 1Region 18 ESDScappoose 1JSiuslaw 97South Umpqua 19St. Helens 502The Dalles 12Umatilla 6Vale 84

ADM 3000 & UPAshland 5Central Point 6Clackamas ESDDallas 2David Douglas 40Douglas ESDEagle Point 9Grants Pass 7Greater Albany 8Hermiston 8Jefferson ESDKlamath Falls City SchoolsLake Oswego 7Lebanon Community SchoolsLincoln CULinn-Benton-Lincoln ESDMcMinnville 40Medford 549Multnomah ESDNorth Clackamas 12Oregon City 62Redmond 2JReynolds 7Roseburg 4Salem-Keizer 24JSouth Coast ESD 7Three Rivers/Josephine CUUmatilla-MorrowUnion-Baker Region 13 ESDWest Linn-Wilsonville 3Willamette Regional ESD

Page 26: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix G-6

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 26 OF 29

1999-2000 Statewide Bargaining Survey

Districts using Traditional Bargaining Districts using Alternative Bargaining

ADM 1-99Dayville 16JMitchell 55

ADM 100-499Adrian 61Annex 29Burnt River 30Butte Falls 91Camas Valley 21Cove 15Crow-Applegate 66Echo 5Elton 34Huntington 16Joseph 6Lowell 71North Lake 14Prospect 59Riverdale 51JSherman 1Yoncalla 32

ADM 500-999Athena-Weston 29Central Curry 1Corbett 39Neah-Kah-Nie 56Oakland 1Stanfields 61

ADM 1000-2999Astoria 1Brookings-Harbor 17Cascade 5Central 13JCreswell 40Crook Co.Estacada 108Fern Ridge 28Harney 3Jefferson County 509JJunction City 69Morrow 1Nyssa 26Rogue River 35Seaside 10Sherwood 88JSouth Lane 45Sutherlin 130Vale 84Willamina 30Yamhill-Carlton 1

ADM 3000 & UPBethel 52Centennial 28Forest GroveGresham-Barlow 10Hillsboro 1JNewburg 29

ADM 3000 & UP (cont.)Oregon Trail 46Parkrose 3Portland 1Roseburg 4Silver Falls 4Springfield 19Tigard-Tualatin 23J

ADM 1-99Fossil 21JHarper 66Long Creek 17Monument 8Ukiah 44

ADM 100-499Arlington 3Condon 25Culver 4Days Creek 15Elgin 23Falls City 57Helix 1Jordan Valley 3Paisley 11Perrydale 21JPilot Rock 2Pine Eagle 61Powers 31South Wasco County 1Wallowa 12Wasco County 29

ADM 500-999Bandon 54Colton 53Dayton 8Jefferson 14JMonroe 1JNestucca Valley 101JOakridge 76Reedsport 105Santiam Canyon 129Vernonia 47Warrenton-Hammond 30

ADM 1000-2999Chenowith 9Coquille 8Gervais 1Gladstone 115John Day 3La Grande 1Lakeview 7Molalla RiverNorth Bend 13North Marion 15North Santiam 29Philomath 17Phoenix-Talent 4Scappoose 1JSisters 6Siuslaw 97South Umpqua 19Sweet Home 55The Dalles 12Tillamook 9

ADM 3000 & UP

Ashland 5Beaverton 48Bend-Lapine 1Canby 86Central Point 6Clackamas ESDCoos Bay 9Dallas 2David Douglas 40Douglas ESDEagle Point 9Eugene 4Grants Pass 7Greater Albany 8Hermiston 8Hood River 6Klamath Falls City SchoolsLake Oswego 7Lebanon Community SchoolsLincoln CULinn-Benton-Lincoln ESDMalheur ESDMcMinnville 40Medford 549Multnomah ESDNorth Clackamas 12Oregon City 62Pendleton 16Redmond 2JRegion 18 ESDReynolds 7Roseburg 4Salem-Keizer 24JSouth Coast ESD 7St. Helens 502Three Rivers/Josephine CUUmatilla-Morrow ESDUnion-Baker Region 13 ESDWest Linn-Wilsonville 3Willamette Regional ESDWoodburn 103

Page 27: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix G-7

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 27 OF 29

2000-2001 Statewide Bargaining Survey[Note: Data is collected as of 12/14/00]

Districts using Traditional Bargaining Districts using Alternative Bargaining

ADM 1-99Annex 29Dayville 16JJordan Valley 3Long Creek 17Mitchell 55Ukiah 80

ADM 100-499Adrian 61Butte Falls 91Cove 15Elkton 34Jewell 8Lowell 71McKenzie 68Monroe 1JNorth Lake 14North Douglas 22Perrydale 21JPrairie City 4Prospect 59Riverdale 51JSt. Paul 45

ADM 500-999Bandon 54Corbett 39Enterprise 21Harrisburg 7John Day 3Myrtle Point 41Oakland 1Stanfield 61Willamina 30

ADM 1000-2999Baker 5Central 13JCoquille 8Creswell 40Estacada 108Fern Ridge 28Morrow Co.North Santiam 29North Marion 15Nyssa 26Ontario 8Phoenix-Talent 4Pleasant Hill 1Rogue River 35Seaside 10Sherwood 88JSiuslaw 97South Lane 45Sutherlin 130Umatilla 6Vale 84Winston-Dillard 116

ADM 3000 & UPGresham-Barlow 10Hillsboro 1JKlamath CULane ESDNewburg 29North Clackamas 12Northwest Regional ESDOregon Trail 46Parkrose 3Portland 1JSilver Falls 4Springfield 19Tigard-Tualatin 23JWoodburn 103

ADM 1-99Crane 4Crane UH1JFossil 21JHarper 66Monument 8Paisley 11Spray 1

ADM 100-499Alsea 7JBlachly 90Camas Valley 21Condon 25Days Creek 15Echo 5Elgin 23Glendale 77Helix 1Huntington 16Imbler 11Joseph 6Mapleton 32Marcola 79JPilot Rock 2Pine Eagle 61Port-Orford LangloisPowers 31Sherman 1South Wasco County 1Wallowa 12

ADM 500-999Amity 4Athena-Weston 29Clatskanie 6JColton 53Culver 4Dayton 8Gaston 511Glide 12Jefferson 14JKnappa 4Lakeview 7Neah-Kah-Nie 56Nestucca Valley 101JOakridge 76Reedsport 105Santiam Canyon 129Scio 95Sheridan 48Union 5Vernonia 47Warrenton-Hammond 30

ADM 1000-2999Banks 13Chenowith 9Crook CountyGervais 1Gladstone 115Harney Co. 3

ADM 1000-2999 (cont.)La Grande 1Milton-Freewater 7Molalla RiverNorth Bend 13Philomath 17Rainier 13Scappoose 1JSisters 6South Umpqua 19Sweet Home 55Tillamook 9Yamhill-Carlton 1

ADM 3000 & UPBeaverton 48Bend-Lapine 1Canby 86Central Point 6Clackamas ESDCoos Bay 6Dallas 2David Douglas 40Eagle Point 9Grants Pass 7Greater Albany 8Hermiston 8Klamath Falls City SchoolsLake ESDLake Oswego 7Lebanon Community SchoolsLinn-Benton-Lincoln ESDMalheur ESDMcMinnville 40Medford 549Multnomah ESDOregon City 62Pendleton 16Redmond 2JRegion 18 ESDRegion 9 ESDReynolds 7Roseburg 4Salem-Keizer 24JSouth Coast ESD 7St. Helens 502Three Rivers/Josephine CUUmatilla-Morrow ESDUnion-Baker Region 13 ESDWest Linn-Wilsonville 3JWillamette Regional ESDYamhill ESD

Page 28: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 28 OF 29

[This page is purposely left blank]

Page 29: The Life Cycle of Labor Management Relations - NAEN Life Cycle of Labor Management... · The Life Cycle of Labor and Management Relations For the past 10 years the OSBA has been collecting

Appendix H

GENERAL INFORMATION March 1999 (rev’d December 2000) 29 OF 29

Traditional v. Alternative BargainingAverage BA% Increase

1994-2001

1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01*

ADM Alt Trad Alt Trad Alt Trad Alt Trad Alt Trad Alt Trad Alt Trad

3000 & UP 5.90 5.63 3.45 3.38 3.22 2.88 3.12 2.75 2.97 2.94 3.07 2.50 3.04 2.74

1000-2999 5.68 5.47 3.19 3.48 3.32 3.00 3.28 2.78 3.10 2.65 2.98 2.86 3.11 2.56

500-999 5.15 5.22 3.58 5.00 4.13 3.00 2.82 3.00 2.71 2.63 2.78 2.82 2.77 2.38

100-499 5.29 5.61 3.33 3.89 4.73 2.86 3.56 3.82 2.75 2.23 2.27 2.09 2.17 2.05

1-99 4.67 5.31 2.43 7.00 3.17 2.00 1.50 2.75 3.00 2.75 3.20 0.60 1.50 2.43

Average 5.34% 5.45% 3.20% 4.55% 3.71% 2.75% 2.86% 3.03% 2.91% 2.64% 2.86% 2.17% 2.52% 2.43%

Statewide 5.44% 3.57% 3.19% 3.08% 2.79% 2.52% 2.48%

* As of 11/15/00