Industrial relations crises can be avoided if each side sees beyond its immediate objectives and considers its long-term interests, writes John O'Dowd
Recent high profile disputes in the ESB and Irish Ferries and the looming row in An Post pose crucial questions about the current practice of Irish industrial relations. Is might always right? Should power be the main basis upon which differences between employers and unions are resolved?
Are the goals of unions and employers so far apart that industrial action is necessary to settle their differences? Despite the ostensible commitment of employers and trade unions to "partnership", recent industrial disputes suggest that certain employers and unions are as tightly wedded as ever to power-based negotiation tactics that assume an inherently low-trust "them and us" relationship.
The ESB strike drew sharp criticism of the ATGWU from leader writers, business leaders and even their own members. But there are several examples of high pressure or "forcing" tactics on the part of employers.
These are the employer equivalent of industrial action. The recent ultimatum delivered by Irish Ferries to staff to take "voluntary" redundancy or face lay-offs is one example. The shoe is not always on the union foot when it comes to the use of power to gain bargaining advantage.
In the context of the recent skirmish between ATGWU and the ESB, one union leader has been quoted as saying that employers are duty bound to get as much work as possible out of their employees for as little as possible and that unions are duty bound to get the best deal possible for as little sacrifice as possible. This viewpoint suggests that employers and unions don't or can't have common interests and that their interests are necessarily in conflict with one another.
The type of adversarial bargaining associated with this viewpoint has been - and in many cases continues to be - the dominant means of communication between management and trade unions in Ireland.
Not alone does the settlement of disputes relating to pay, conditions of employment and job security take place this way, but frequently the discussion of important organisational changes also takes place through such bargaining. This type of bargaining is a product of low-trust "them and us" relationships but it also serves to perpetuate these relationships.
It has to be asked whether the adversarial bargaining model is capable of meeting the needs of employers, employees and trade unions in the present era of intensified competition and continuous change.
If we take "interests" to mean the underlying wants and concerns of employers and trade unions is it not likely that there are many common interests between the management and unions in the ESB? For example, wanting to succeed in the face of deregulation and competition, wanting to avoid privatisation and the break-up of the company.
This is not to suggest a simplistic view that if we dig deep enough we will always find easy solutions to very complex problems. For example, from press reports it is difficult to see many common interests between Irish Ferries and Siptu as far as the longer-term future of the company and management-union relationships are concerned.
On the other hand, the recent FGS-Ampersand report on Irish Ferries seems to have pointed in a direction that could address the separate short-term interests of the company and union around profitability and terms of employment as well as their common interest in longer-term survival and prosperity.
Negotiating on the basis of deeper and somewhat longer-term interests rather than on positions aimed at immediate gain is called "interest-based bargaining". Its use requires a significant shift in thinking on the part of employers and trade unions about the role of the negotiation process.
Interest-based bargaining is based on management and union negotiators seeking to understand each other's fundamental interests rather than their immediate positions.
It uses problem-solving tools such as joint data collection, brainstorming, joint task forces, and group facilitation.
It differs considerably from the more traditional or "positional" bargaining in which parties commonly exaggerate, bluff and threaten in the belief that such tactics can lead to better outcomes for them. It requires a high degree of openness from all parties and a reasonable degree of trust.
The focus of much media commentary around the recent spate of industrial disputes has tended to focus on personalities and power politics. Some time and consideration might usefully be spent debating the underlying methods that parties use when they sit down to negotiate deals.
It benefits us all as customers, services users and taxpayers.
• John O'Dowd is an industrial relations consultant. He teaches negotiation in the Smurfit Business School at UCD and has recently published Interest-Based Bargaining: A Users Guide, available at www.trafford.com