Labor Relations Negotiation Role-Play:

MAPO – Administration Negotiation

Mark Gordon, Elizabeth Gray, Tim Rieser, and Lynn Gerber
Two-team, multi-issue collective bargaining negotiation between three police union representatives and three municipal representatives over police salaries, benefits, and working conditions

Please note: you must order multiple copies in order to run this simulation. You should order a copy for every person participating in the simulation.

Read more.

Login or Register to download the free packages.

 

SCENARIO:

Negotiations between the Metropolitan Association of Police Officers (MAPO) and the Administration of Mayor Holmes of Metropolis are soon to begin. Discontent among MAPO is demanding an increase in the police budget, which is essential for the police to provide adequate police protection in the community. Rising crime statistics have placed Metropolis as the 10th most dangerous city in the nation. The leader of the Metropolis Association of Police Officers (MAPO) has threatened “some kind of protest activity” by the policemen if the budget is not increased substantially. Proposition 6, which will limit municipal budget increases for any department to a maximum of 6% over the previous year’s allocation, is on the ballot for elections taking place in two months. However, the mayoral budget can be enacted before that time. The Mayor (who is seeking another term) is anxious to have the whole affair behind him, and has arranged a meeting between his representatives and MAPO. In addition to overall budget increases, specific issues likely to be addressed include: starting salaries, maximum salaries, vacation days, sick leave, holidays, life insurance, pension benefits, health insurance, weapons upgrading, and drug testing proposal.

 

MECHANICS:

This negotiation is intended to be a team effort, though the size of the teams may vary from two to four persons. Extensive budget and salary information on other cities requires thorough preparation and analysis before teams can plan effectively for the negotiation.

Outside research can also be useful.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This simulation provides an ideal setting for concentrating on objective criteria. Standards can be derived from careful analysis of the data provided and other data collected through outside research. The general information for this case contains five appendices with comparative statistical data.
  • The complexity of the case provides enormous room for crafting more or less Pareto-efficient solutions. The power of creative options is highlighted.
  • The potential tension between preserving a good working relationship and pressing hard for what might be seen as substantive concessions is a central concern in the case (on both sides), and a good subject for discussion. This tension is exacerbated by the temptation on both sides to try to use the media to enhance that side’s bargaining power by courting public opinion.
  • As in any collective, representative negotiation, the questions of how much authority the negotiators have, whether they can really speak for their constituents, and how the chances of a revolution at home can be minimized, are ever-present and important.
  • The number of parties raises the range of issues about both intra- and inter- party multilateral negotiation. What is a good meeting design? How do you prepare? How do you organize the teams?

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information

 

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Instructions for the:
  • Administration Representatives
  • MAPO Representatives

 

Teacher’s Package (36 pages total)

  • All of the above
  • Draft Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Commitments; Communication, public vs. private; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Confidentiality; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Decision analysis; Fairness; Force; Group process; Information exchange; Joint gains; Legitimacy; Linkage; Meaning of “success”; Media; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Precedents; Preparation; Public opinion; Quantitative analysis; Systems of negotiation; Threats

 

MAPO – Administration Negotiation Attributes

Time required:
2-3 hours
Number of participants:
6
Teams involved:
Yes
Agent present:
Non-lawyer
Neutral third party present:
None
Scoreable:
No
Teaching notes available:
Yes

PON Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

Close window

Soft copy vs. hard copy

You may order this role simulation in either soft copy (electronic) or hard copy (paper) format. If you select the soft copy option, you will receive an e-mail with a URL (website address) from which you may download an electronic file in Adobe Acrobat PDF format. You will have one week to download your materials from when you receive the email. You are then only authorized to use, print, or share the materials as many times as the number of copies you purchase. The TNRC charges for use of this simulation on a per-participant basis. Therefore, you must purchase a separate copy of this simulation for each person who will be participating, regardless of the number of roles in the simulation. You will only receive a link to one electronic file, which includes all general instructions, confidential instructions, and any teaching notes for the simulation. You should separate out the instructions before distributing to participants.

If you select the hard copy option, you will receive paper copies of this role simulation via the shipping method you select.

For additional information about the soft copy option, please visit our FAQ section, or contact the PON Teaching Negotiation Resource Center at tnrc@law.harvard.edu or 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 301-528-2676 (outside the U.S.).

Please note: At the present time, Teaching Negotiation Resource Center soft copies are compatible with the following versions of the Adobe Acrobat Reader: English, German, French, Spanish, Swedish, Portuguese, Japanese, and Korean. If you have a different version of the Acrobat Reader, you may wish to download one of these at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html, or contact the PON Teaching Negotiation Resource Center at tnrc@law.harvard.edu, 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.), or 301-528-2676 (outside the U.S.) for further assistance. This restriction does not apply to the freely available Teacher’s Package Review Copies.

Ordering a single copy for review

If you wish to review the materials for a particular role simulation to decide whether you’d like to use it, a PDF, or soft copy, version of the Teacher’s Package for the simulation is available as a free download from the description page of most role simulations and case studies. All Teacher’s Packages include copies of all participant materials. In addition, some Teacher’s Packages (but not all) include additional teaching materials such as teaching notes or overhead masters.

Ordering copies for multiple participants

To order multiple copies of a role simulation for use in a course or workshop, simply enter the total number of participants in the box next to “Quantity.” There is no need to calculate how many of each role is required.

If you are ordering hard copies, the Teaching Negotiation Resource Center will calculate the appropriate numbers of each role to provide, based on the total number of participants. For example, if you wish to order a 2-party role simulation for use with a class of 30 students, you would enter “30” in the box next to “Quantity.” You then would receive 15 copies of one role and 15 copies of the other role, for use with your 30 participants. As another example, if you ordered 30 participant copies of a 6-party role simulation, you would receive 5 copies of each role.

In the event that the number of participant copies you order is not evenly divisible by the number of roles in the simulation, you will receive extra copies of one or more roles. Participants receiving the extra roles may partner with other participants playing the same role, thus negotiating as a team. So, for instance, if you ordered 31 copies of a 2-party role simulation, you would receive 15 copies of the first role and 16 copies of the second role. One of the participants playing the second role would partner with another participant playing that same role, and the two would negotiate as a team.