English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The public has a large stake in labor relations. From V-J Day to June, 1946, the direct wage loss alone resulting from strikes within the United States amounted to $I,050,ooo,ooo.1 The economic repercussions from such a wage loss, felt as they are throughout our entire society, bring us directly to grips with the question: How can disputes arising out of the collective-bargaining process be minimized? Out of this process have come the disputes which have caused the strikes which, in turn, have torn our economy apart. Therefore, if we are to minimize the public injury which stems from strikes, we must analyze the collective-bargaining process to determine whether changes can be made in this process which will diminish disputes. But the mere diminishing of disputes is not enough. The public may be injured as seriously by the agreements reached between the parties at the collective-bargaining table as it is by the failure of the parties to agree. The injury caused by a wrong agreement is not as direct as that of the strike which results from a failure to agree, but in the long run it may be more serious. As Professor Sumner Slichter of Harvard University has pointed out, the establishment of collective bargaining during the last decade means that the whole country has entrusted its future standard of living to the bargaining representatives of both sides. Analysis of the current understanding of collective bargaining reveals that the process is completely unprincipled and has as its cornerstone the concept of "compromise." The statement that it is an unprincipled process means that each party approaches the conference table either with fear that the other party will attempt to take unfair advantage, or determined to assert unreasonable demands backed up by economic strength. The presence of latent fear on one side and unreasonable demands on the other, depending upon which side is in a dominant bargaining position, makes orderly bargaining difficult, if not impossible. Hence, the job to be done is to determine whether there are any basic principles which can be used as guideposts, so as to remove this fear and control unreasonableness. If collective bargaining is to be controlled by principles, they must be principles

Minimizing Disputes in Labor Contract Negotiations