Home » Blogs » Steve Dondley's blog

Do Webcams Belong at the Negotiating Table? One Union Thinks So

Steve Dondley's picture
Submitted by Steve Dondley on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 2:23pm

SEIU Local 615, a 17,000 member local out of Boston, MA, has proposed webcasting its upcoming negotiations with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). See the story here.

As far as I know, this would be a first for a union and it represents an extremely unorthodox move. Usually, the first thing labor and management do is agree to not publicize what goes on in the negotiation process. Is it possible that such agreements are going to become quaint when when the world of radical transparency the futurists say we are heading toward arrives? Or are there damn good practical reasons for these privacy agreements between labor and management?

Here's the benefits that I can see:

  • Opening up contract talks to the whole world is going to attract media attention, especially with a high profile employer like MIT. That's a good thing if your intention is to build a community campaign around the negotiations.
  • It shows the union has nothing to hide, giving it a position of strength.
  • It's less likely the union will be accused of "selling out" workers for a lousy contract, an accusation that has been leveled against Andy Stern, SEIU's President in Washington, DC.
  • Members might feel more connected to the negotiating process, which will help engage and mobilize them.
  • It will help educate members and the public how the negotiation process works. Of course, it's likely the negotiation process they'll watch will be much different than a negotiation process without cameras. 
On the other hand, I can think of some good arguments why this might ultimately hurt the union during negotiations. Although I'm certainly no master negotiator, here's some reasons I can think of:
 
First, the negotiation process is much like a game of poker. Even if all you have is a pair in your hand, you want to convince the other side you've got a full house. In order to do that, you have got to keep your cards secret. Usually, only the chief negotiator and negotiating committee knows what's truly in their hand and must protect the knowledge of their true positions at all costs. Therefore, the negotiating committee often cannot communicate everything back to the membership out of fear of tipping their hand to the employer. Therefore, conventional wisdom is that, for their own good, members should be kept largely in the dark about what's going on during negotiations. This obviously becomes impossible if you allow members to sit at the table with you.

Another potential pitfall is that it opens the chief negotiator up to second guessing and could weaken their position even if he or she is extremely competent. A chief negotiator must make tough calls and decisions about what to bargain away and what to fight for. And the reasons behind these tough decisions aren't going to be so apparent to members or to the outside world who may not understand union contracts. And so the chief negotiator might end up spending lots of time explaining and defending his or her decisions in public to try to shore up solidarity for the negotiating team's position. And again, this also leads to a huge risk of tipping the union's hand.

Finally, a lot of good deals are cut when the leaders of the two parties finally can look the other side in the eye on a human level instead of an adversarial one. They come to realize that though they are on opposite sides, they respect and need each other and only then do they find agreement. That could be a lot more difficult with the cameras turned on. Positions could harden with neither side wanting to lose face. We're seeing a lot of that right now between the Democrats and Republican in Washington.

What do you think, do webcams belong at the negotiating table?
»