A bargaining impasse occurs when the two sides negotiating an agreement are unable to reach an agreement and become deadlocked. An impasse is almost invariably mutually harmful, either as a result of direct action which may be taken such as a strike in employment negotiation or sanctions/military action in international relations, or simply due to the resulting delay in negotiating a mutually beneficial agreement.
Some theorists contend that impasses are used by negotiating parties in situations of imperfect information as a method of signalling to the other side the seriousness of their position.[citation needed] Impasse provides a credible signal that a party’s position is genuine and not merely an ambit claim.
Impasse may also arise if parties suffer from self-serving bias. Most disputes arise in situations where facts are able to be interpreted in multiple ways, and if parties interpret the facts to their own benefit they may be unable to accept the opposing party’s claim as reasonable. They may believe the other side is either bluffing or acting unfairly and deserve to be "punished".
As bargaining impasse is mutually harmful, it may be beneficial for the parties to accept binding arbitration or mediation to settle their dispute, or the state may impose such a solution. Indeed, compulsory arbitration following impasse is a common feature of industrial relations law in the United States[1] and elsewhere.
The word impasse may also refer to any situation in which no progress can be made. A stalemate in chess is a common example.
SOURCE: Wikipedia
Posts
2 comments:
Why should the Times make any concessions? I guess they weren't as impressed with an international representative as RP was. Not many choices here, you can't strike, there are over 100 laid off pressmen that could and would step in, so it sounds like you just take it. I guess all those months of paying dues was money in the wind.
I disagree, the Pressman can strike. Those laid off may step in, but I suspect most have found other jobs by now. However, from everything I have ever heard or read about strikers is that they are the ones that lose, because for whatever they may gain in waiting for their requests to be ratified, they lose in lost wages. The strike wage is so minimal that the bank accounts go down quickly, especially around the holidays, which management prefers - so they hit at a time that is the hardest for these employees. I support you, but wonder if it is in worth a strike? Past history tells me management may have alternate ways to keep the presses going. Such a risk for what?
Post a Comment