Testing the Effects of Striker Replacement and Employer Implementation of Final Offers on Employer and Union Bargaining Power

E. Dannin, T. Wagar, Gangaram Singh, M. Dean
{"title":"Testing the Effects of Striker Replacement and Employer Implementation of Final Offers on Employer and Union Bargaining Power","authors":"E. Dannin, T. Wagar, Gangaram Singh, M. Dean","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2150863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many sorts of quantitative and qualitative empirical research are regularly used to answer questions related to work and workplace issues. However, some issues involving human behavior may be difficult to capture using standard empirical methods. Common barriers include access to people or information; problems with accurate or honest reporting; behavior that occurs over long periods of time; cost; and ethical barriers as to research using human subjects. Important information related to collective bargaining can be difficult to collect for all of these reasons. Participants in collective bargaining may not want outsiders present for all or critical parts of negotiations. They may not be candid about motives or actions, or they may be honest but not fully self-aware as to motives or actions. Bargaining sessions may be long and extend over months or years. In the case of gathering information about collective bargaining within the larger union-employer-employee contexts may require decades of access and involvement. As a result, costs in terms of time and funding and other issues may rule out examining certain sorts of questions using actual participants engaged in collective bargaining. Thus, one important area that would benefit from empirical research – testing the effects of law and proposals for law reform in general and collective bargaining law reform in particular – has so many of these problems that many important issues cannot be tested using standard methods. In addition, testing law reform proposals requires gathering data on actions that have not yet happened. Simulations provide one useful way to overcome many of these problems. In effect, simulations create a law reform laboratory. Of course, simulations are only useful if they are reflect reality. This article examines evidence as to participants’ actions in a simulation used to test various iterations of laws governing how collective bargaining impasses are to be resolved and whether those actions sufficiently mirror those of employer and union negotiators as to provide reliable data on the likely effects of law reform.","PeriodicalId":413086,"journal":{"name":"Penn State Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Penn State Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2150863","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many sorts of quantitative and qualitative empirical research are regularly used to answer questions related to work and workplace issues. However, some issues involving human behavior may be difficult to capture using standard empirical methods. Common barriers include access to people or information; problems with accurate or honest reporting; behavior that occurs over long periods of time; cost; and ethical barriers as to research using human subjects. Important information related to collective bargaining can be difficult to collect for all of these reasons. Participants in collective bargaining may not want outsiders present for all or critical parts of negotiations. They may not be candid about motives or actions, or they may be honest but not fully self-aware as to motives or actions. Bargaining sessions may be long and extend over months or years. In the case of gathering information about collective bargaining within the larger union-employer-employee contexts may require decades of access and involvement. As a result, costs in terms of time and funding and other issues may rule out examining certain sorts of questions using actual participants engaged in collective bargaining. Thus, one important area that would benefit from empirical research – testing the effects of law and proposals for law reform in general and collective bargaining law reform in particular – has so many of these problems that many important issues cannot be tested using standard methods. In addition, testing law reform proposals requires gathering data on actions that have not yet happened. Simulations provide one useful way to overcome many of these problems. In effect, simulations create a law reform laboratory. Of course, simulations are only useful if they are reflect reality. This article examines evidence as to participants’ actions in a simulation used to test various iterations of laws governing how collective bargaining impasses are to be resolved and whether those actions sufficiently mirror those of employer and union negotiators as to provide reliable data on the likely effects of law reform.
检验罢工置换和雇主实施最终报价对雇主和工会议价能力的影响
许多种类的定量和定性实证研究经常用于回答与工作和工作场所问题相关的问题。然而,一些涉及人类行为的问题可能很难用标准的经验方法来捕捉。常见的障碍包括接触人员或获取信息;准确或诚实报道的问题;长期行为:在很长一段时间内发生的行为;成本;以及使用人体作为研究对象的伦理障碍。由于所有这些原因,与集体谈判有关的重要信息可能难以收集。集体谈判的参与者可能不希望外人参与谈判的全部或关键部分。他们可能对动机或行为不坦诚,或者他们可能诚实,但对动机或行为没有完全的自我意识。谈判可能会持续数月或数年。在更大的工会-雇主-雇员背景下收集关于集体谈判的信息可能需要数十年的接触和参与。因此,由于时间和资金方面的成本以及其他问题,可能无法利用参与集体谈判的实际参与者来审查某些类型的问题。因此,可以从实证研究中获益的一个重要领域- -检验一般法律和法律改革建议的效果,特别是集体谈判法改革- -有许多这样的问题,以致许多重要问题无法用标准方法加以检验。此外,测试法律改革建议需要收集尚未发生的行动的数据。模拟为克服这些问题提供了一种有用的方法。实际上,模拟创造了一个法律改革实验室。当然,模拟只有在反映现实时才有用。本文研究了模拟中参与者行为的证据,该模拟用于测试关于如何解决集体谈判僵局的各种法律迭代,以及这些行为是否充分反映了雇主和工会谈判代表的行为,以提供有关法律改革可能影响的可靠数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信