Indian Journal of Industrial Relations: Economics & Social Dev.

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Dynamics in a Plant Level Bargaining Process & Wage Determination


Affiliations
1 XLRI Jamshedpur, Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur 831001, India
2 Minton Consulting Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad, 500081, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


In this paper, the authors narrate the experiences of union and management in six months long wage negotiations to explain if the factors that trigger a type of behavior displayed by parties across table are predictable and guided by sheer rationality. The narrative suggests that most behaviors displayed by parties, strategies adopted, tactics used and roles chosen were within the limits of rationality with very few exceptions. While we are aware of the determinants of the negotiated outcome that exists in extant literature, it is much needed to check if the behavioral manifestations that appear are truly unreasonable or falsely portrayed as irrational to reduce predictability of party’s demand or offer in subsequent rounds.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Allen, L. E. (1956). “Games Bargaining: A Proposed Application of the Theory of Games to Collective Bargaining”, Faculty Scholarship Series. 4520(http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4520)

  • Amernic, J. & Craig, R. (1992), “Employer Equivocality and Union Heterogeneity as Determinants of the Role of Accounting in Collective Bargaining”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 5(1):60-79.

  • Espinosa, M. P. & Rhee, C.(1989), “Efficient Wage Bargaining as a Repeated Game”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(3): 565–88.

  • Feuille, P., Hendricks, W.E. & Kahn, L.M. (1981), “Wage and Non-wage Outcomes in Collective Bargaining: Determinants and Tradeoffs”, Journal of Labor Research, 2(1): 39-53.

  • Katz, H.C. (1993), “The Decentralization of Collective Bargaining: A Literature Review and Comparative Analysis”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47: 3-22.

  • Meyer, A.S. (1960), “Function of the Mediator in Collective Bargaining”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 13(2): 159-65.

  • Mishel, L. (1986), “The Structural Determinants of Union Bargaining Power”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 40(1): 90-104.

  • Sarkar, Santanu (2008), “ BSWU: Case Study of Independent Trade Union in India”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations 44(3): 303-16.


Abstract Views: 240

PDF Views: 0




  • Dynamics in a Plant Level Bargaining Process & Wage Determination

Abstract Views: 240  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Santanu Sarkar
XLRI Jamshedpur, Xavier School of Management, Jamshedpur 831001, India
Aashish Singh
Minton Consulting Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad, 500081, India

Abstract


In this paper, the authors narrate the experiences of union and management in six months long wage negotiations to explain if the factors that trigger a type of behavior displayed by parties across table are predictable and guided by sheer rationality. The narrative suggests that most behaviors displayed by parties, strategies adopted, tactics used and roles chosen were within the limits of rationality with very few exceptions. While we are aware of the determinants of the negotiated outcome that exists in extant literature, it is much needed to check if the behavioral manifestations that appear are truly unreasonable or falsely portrayed as irrational to reduce predictability of party’s demand or offer in subsequent rounds.

References