Opinions & Letters from UDW Members

Employee e-mail

Frequently Asked
Questions

UDW Member Hotline

UDW in Your County

Provider Resources

Client Resources

About Union Dues

Members Only
Benefit Programs

Events and
Community Actions

Urgent Issues

IHSS Legislation

UDW Campaigns

In the Media

UDW Newsletter

Opinions & Letters

Contact Us

About UDW

UDW Offices

Local Meetings

Union Jurisdiction

UDW Leadership

UDW Constitution

UDW Employment
Opportunities

Webmaster

Opinion's and Letters

The Art of Bargaining
by Kristine Loomis August 1 2004

I am a client of IHSS (disabled person). This is a personal perspective on my experiences with being on the bargaining committee for Riverside. I thought that it might possibly help others with their own efforts at negotiations.

There is an ancient American Indian proverb I want to quote, but I can't remember the exact wording so I've conveyed it's essence in my own language - I think it describes the bargaining process in a nutshell:

An elder of the tribe is talking with a young boy. He says to the boy "I am so very tired, because I have these two wolves inside of me and they are having a ferocious fight." The child looks up at him with eyes that are wide with fright and curiosity. "What are they fighting about?" The elder says "One is full of rage, humiliation, envy and violence because he has been mistreated. The other wants justice, nurture, love, and prosperity." The little boy is very concerned for his old friend. He asks, "What wolf will win?" The elder man replies "Which ever one I feed."

When I first looked at the hard expressionless faces of the county employees across the bargaining table, I shuddered at the thought that my quality of life (or more!) might actually be at their mercy. We were in negotiations for almost a year. During and after this process, I came to know that some of these people are actually good people that were stuck in a difficult position. They had literally been instructed not to show emotion on their faces, and in most circumstances were not allowed to speak during that process.

It is time for a new perspective on what bargaining is about. Every one of us has those two wolves inside of us. And every one of us has the opportunity to choose which one we feed.

We won our contract in Riverside. Partly because we were patient and relentless. We kept going to every Board of Supervisors meeting and stating our case over and over again, using a different example or personal story for them each time we spoke. And partly because our union talked with key people who put pressure on the County Supervisors from above. But I think mostly we won because truth and justice and fairness was fed through communication.

Now we are in the process of setting up a Labor Relations Committee. I was sent to a two day training for that Committee, which was paid for by the federal government - the "Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service" to be precise. I had a great deal of skepticism going in to this training. In the course of living with a disability I have dealt with a lot of government programs and have a healthy disrespect for their effectiveness - many of them are saddled with so many regulations that by the time the help is filtered down to us it is sometimes worse than nothing - the net result is actually obstructive. However, I was hugely surprised at the substance and quality of that training. The instructor told us that it was a high-level federal program, using the some of the same techniques employed for training CIA agents and foreign diplomats! I was even more surprised by this fact I found out from the facilitator:

My question: "Why would the government pay to train and empower us since we are (on the surface) seen as opponents, or at the very least in competition for resources?"

His answer: "I would look to the bottom line. The government has determined that it actually saves them money, when you are trained in problem solving."

So you might be wondering at this point, did they brainwash you? And the answer is no. Mind you, they are focused on Labor - Management Relations, not bargaining per se. But I think that the two are really part of the same process.

"Interest Based Problem Solving" (the approach they are suggesting) is a different way of bargaining and a different approach to how we talk with each other - they have all these names for it like "non-defensive communications", and "active listening". But what it boils down to is this; in the traditional negotiating process both parties hold their cards to their chest like poker players. There is an assumption of conflict and opposition. Each group is focused on what they want, and they assume that they will have to fight the other for limited resources. In "Interest Based" negotiations, the focus is on how to get the most out of available assets, through mutual brainstorming. This involves a difference in perception. For instance if a county is focused on saving money and will not budge off that point, it may miss the impact of federal and state dollars that come in to the community through this program, and the union's very real contribution towards getting them this resource (and more recently, keeping it from getting cut)!

When the focus is on the interest of the parties rather than what they say they want, it expands the number of possible solutions. There may actually be many ways to address a particular interest - not only the one stated as a "demand."

In the case of In Home Support Services, we are dealing with a badly needed service that requires better funding. And in that respect, homecare workers, clients, the union, and the county are actually in agreement and could work together with mutual respect. And seeing each other as possible allies in a search for solutions, rather than adversaries fighting for control, is something worth accomplishing.

If the feds are training their employees in "Interest Based Problem Solving" and obviously recognize its value, then we can probably use these same methods in county negotiations. Simply put, this is the technique of using cooperation instead of competition and focusing on the actual interest behind our respective positions rather than stated demands.

I'm not saying we don't still have a lot of ground to cover. But in the end truth will always win if it can be seen and stated plainly enough.

Top of Page