When conflict looms, each side may be tempted to make unilateral decisions on key issues—often driven by the belief that negotiations with the other party will lead nowhere. This dispute-resolution strategy can appear to pay off in the short term. Yet it is essential to consider the long-term costs such moves can impose on the resolution of conflict, including damaged relationships, hardened positions, and prolonged disputes.
The following case from a high-profile union strike illustrates how limiting negotiation and acting unilaterally can escalate conflict—and how a more inclusive approach ultimately proved necessary.
Claim your FREE copy: Dispute Resolution
Discover how to improve your dispute resolution skills in this free report, Dispute Resolution: Working Together Toward Conflict Resolution on the Job and at Home, from Harvard Law School.
Labor Negotiations in Chicago
Consider the mid-2012 union negotiations between the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and the City of Chicago, which culminated in a 10-day teachers’ strike in September of that year.
After being elected mayor in February 2011, Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, pushed aggressively for an education-reform bill aimed at Chicago’s struggling public-school system. The legislation, passed by the Illinois state legislature in May 2011 and known as Senate Bill 7 (SB7), reshaped collective bargaining rules between the city and the CTU.
Among other provisions, SB7 raised the percentage of union members required to authorize a strike from 50% to 75%. The law also sharply limited the range of issues over which the CTU could legally strike or bargain—excluding topics such as class size and working conditions, and focusing negotiations primarily on salaries.
The legislation deeply angered the union, which interpreted it as a clear signal that the new mayor was hostile to organized labor. Rumors circulated that Emanuel’s longer-term plan involved closing public schools and replacing them with non-unionized charter schools, further eroding trust between the parties.
Rahm Emmanuel’s School Board and Teacher Salary Negotiations: Don’t Alienate Your Bargaining Counterparts
Tensions escalated when Emanuel’s appointed school board rescinded a previously promised 4% teacher pay raise—while simultaneously increasing compensation for newly installed Chicago Public Schools executives. From the union’s perspective, this move reinforced the perception that teachers were being asked to make sacrifices that leadership was not sharing.
Emanuel then launched a high-profile campaign around a single education issue: extending the length of the school day. Rather than negotiating this change directly with the CTU, however, the city pursued discussions with individual schools, effectively bypassing the union as a bargaining partner.
The result was predictable. On June 6, 2012, roughly 90% of CTU members voted in favor of a strike—far exceeding the 75% threshold required by the new law. When thousands of Chicago teachers walked picket lines on September 10, parents across the city scrambled to arrange child care and adjust work schedules.
Ten days later, the CTU and the city reached an agreement that delivered gains to both sides. The contract included a longer school day, one of Emanuel’s signature goals, along with annual salary increases and other concessions for teachers.
A Negotiation Strategy That Prolonged the Conflict
A strong case can be made that significant reforms were needed to improve the quality and long-term viability of Chicago’s public schools. But if one of Emanuel’s objectives was to avoid a teachers’ strike, then his approach to conflict management—delaying direct negotiations with the CTU and narrowing the scope of issues under discussion—was counterproductive.
By limiting the bargaining agenda and attempting to move forward unilaterally, the city reduced opportunities for creative tradeoffs, intensified distrust, and ultimately triggered the very disruption it appeared to be trying to prevent.
Dispute Resolution Tip
Engaging your counterpart as early as possible in the timeline of a negotiation signals a willingness to build rapport and explore solutions jointly. Just as important, refusing to artificially limit the number of issues on the table dramatically increases the chances of discovering mutually beneficial tradeoffs.
In complex disputes, broadening the conversation—rather than narrowing it—can be the key to resolving conflict and heading off costly stalemates such as strikes.
Share your successful dispute resolution stories with us in the comments.
Related Dispute Resolution Article: Negotiation Techniques and Negotiation Tips – Diagnose Your Negotiating Style – What impact does your bargaining style have on your able to negotiate effectively at the bargaining table with your counterparts? In this article are methods for identifying a negotiator’s style and some advice for grappling with different negotiators who can exhibit a wide-range of bargaining strategies.
Claim your FREE copy: Dispute Resolution
Discover how to improve your dispute resolution skills in this free report, Dispute Resolution: Working Together Toward Conflict Resolution on the Job and at Home, from Harvard Law School.
Originally published in 2012.