In collective bargaining negotiations, there are many different ways that the ma

In collective bargaining negotiations, there are many different ways that the management team can approach working with the elected representatives of their employees (the union). In some cases, management views the union as partners in the business – there to help troubleshoot problems, improve employee morale, and generally help the business grow. In other cases, management views the union as a means to an end – necessary, but not preferred. In still other cases, management views the union as the enemy – something that should be eliminated if possible, but at least reduced in power so as to be inconsequential. Often, these attitudes are not permanent, and may change over time. However, the personalities of the individuals that make up the leadership for both sides will often play a large role in the attitude of management towards the union, for good or ill.
Below is an outline of 5 different philosophies that management may take towards the elected representatives of their employees. Consider each of these philosophies, and as we discuss each of the major sports, consider how the philosophy changes through time.
For this assignment, decide which one of these 5 philosophies bests describes the NBA management philosophy towards the NBAPA at one of the times below. In order to support your decision, you should provide an example for as many bullet points as you can, being as specific as possible. You can use outside sources to support your claim. You can also use specific language or articles from the period in question, or reactions by either side as guidance. Be sure to properly cite your resources. Pick one time period from the list below, and submit through the drop box function. Responses should be no more than 3 pages, double-spaced in Times New Roman 12pt font.
Time Period 1: 1995 – 1999
Time Period 2: 2005 – 2008
Time Period 3: 2011 to 2015
MANAGEMENT STYLES
CONFLICT
Battle the union in every arena
No acceptance of the union
Management seeks to limit or eradicate the union
Management decisions made to limit unions and union organizing
May close up plants or business to avoid unionization
Challenge labor laws or seek to eradicate union or fire union leaders
Slow to enact even court-ordered decisions if they help the union
ARMED TRUCE
Unions and companies have different and opposite interests
Containment of the union’s influence on employees is a primary goal
Strictly obey labor laws but stretch them when ever possible
Rigid negotiation positions, with little flexibility
Workable adversary relationship, but contentious
Engage in a power struggle with unions, including labor stoppages (e.g. locking out the employees, or allowing them to strike)
POWER BARGAINING
Acknowledge union legal rights and power
A realistic approach to collective bargaining, may be hard-lined at times
Tough but fair in labor relations
Seeks to win, but with minimal confrontation Delays bargaining to gain power, but doesn’t usually lockout workers
Accepts the existence of the union
ACCOMMODATION
Managers to meet the union halfway on a regular, ongoing basis
Union and firm are mutually dependent, beyond financially
Management adjusts to the union, and union offers solutions taken by management beyond just negotiations
Compromise, flexibility and tolerance are key features
A mature system for handling contract grievances and negotiations
Management actively engages in negotiations, and does not rely on lockouts to achieve bargaining goals
COOPERATION
Full acceptance of the union as a partner
Seeks union input on business decisions
Management believes that unions have much to offer
Willing to expand issues discussed in labor relations
Jointly deal with workplace issues in a proactive and progressive manner
Regularly shares ideas and information without concern for retribution or retaliation