Reflections on public sector‐based integrative collective bargaining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to understand better how specific conditions such as the degree of trust developed from previous negotiations, the level of expertise/style demonstrated by the negotiators, the clarity of the bargaining issues and the ability of facilitators to use problem solving‐based techniques affect the success of an integrative collective bargaining process. Design/methodology/approach The researchers propose that cooperation may be affected by specific conditions. These key conditions were used in the analysis of two Canadian public sector collective bargaining experiences where two of the authors served as consultants and lead negotiators within the British Columbia public sector. Findings Based on the analysis of two public sector collective bargaining experiences, it is suggested that ensuring the clarity of the bargaining issues was an important catalyst in moving the bargaining agenda forward. In addition, the previous negotiations and the expertise/style of the negotiators were important in the fragile level of trust which developed. No one condition was responsible for the success of collective bargaining. Rather, various conditions are jointly important and supportive to the overall success of the collective bargaining process. Research limitations/implications As a limitation, this research is exploratory in nature and cannot be generalized to other collective bargaining situations. However, the case studies and its subsequent analysis are intended to provide a template for expanded study of collective bargaining and the mutual gain process by suggesting that the process (medium) surrounding the intervention is as important as the intervention itself. Practical implications For practitioners, particularly labor relation specialists, the article provides a suite of conditions and practical strategies that may influence the cooperative nature of bargaining within their respective organization. Originality/value This case study paper provides a conceptual framework for both scholars and practitioners to deconstruct and analyze inter‐organizational dynamics within a collective bargaining process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".