By Charles Loiacono     

Reflections

The dust hasn’t quite settled, and the legislature is still trying to recover its equilibrium, but enough time has passed to reflect on the unsavory manner in which negotiations for this yet to be confirmed successor agreement was handled by the Board of Trustees.

Those who were players in these negotiations knew that last March the college president and I sat down and came to an understanding concerning the parameters of a new contract. We both reasoned that, considering our long working relationship, we should be able to avoid the stupidity that usually accompanies negotiations. We are all familiar with that scene:

            The union asks for the moon.

            The employer says things are dark.

            The union says it will accept a waning             

            gibbous.

            The employer lights up a few dollars.

            The union is insulted.

            The employer doesn’t care.

            The union rattles the sabers.

            The employer still doesn’t care.

            The union threatens a strike.

            The employer threatens proscriptions.

            The union doesn’t care.

            The 11^th hour comes.

            The employer seeks outside help.

            The help comes.

            The final settlement is worked out.

            The end.

This is the way most, if not all, negotiations are conducted. It’s stupid. But, that is the only method known to those authorized to conduct negotiations. So, whether experienced or

not, they bungle through all negotiations the same way.

             There is a smart way. But, it’s risky. The smart way requires that both sides tell the truth. That’s risky because each side has to trust the other.

If the employer tells the union the truth about how much money is realistically available to the union, the union, if untrustworthy, might use that figure as an opening gambit.

If the union tells the employer the truth concerning what increase it will accept, the employer, if untrustworthy, might use that figure to negotiate down to a lesser figure.

The latter is exactly what happened following the understanding the union and the administration had back in March. The Board of Trustees doubled the salary of the attorney they retained to represent them in negotiations and he proceeded to try to negotiate the AFA down from what we agreed would be reasonable.  We all know what that attempt precipitated. We immediately reverted to the time-honored stupidity the experts call collective negotiations. And we came close to a strike that would have cost both sides much money and much tsuris.

The Board’s attorney had to justify his $200,000 retainer by showing the trustees that he was worth his keep. The irony here is that in attempting to justify his worth as a cost-saving negotiator, the college came close to losing tens of millions of dollars. That’s what a prolonged strike would have cost the college.

So, what’s the lesson in all this? Trust will never again be an option when negotiating with this BOT and it’s high-priced hired gun!