During a time where fire departments are facing an increasing number of external challenges, there seems to be the tendency to create internal challenges to complicate matters. One area of fire department business that creates a tremendous amount of conflict is the labor/management relationship, specifically the negotiation of labor contracts. Many of these external pressures, including reduced revenues, increased insurance premiums and mandated NFPA standards, seem to infiltrate the negotiating table.

We as an IAFF local had become frustrated with where our previous negotiations efforts had ended up and were looking for ways to improve the process. As we began to look at the components of the negotiating process that we as a local felt were undermining our progress, it became apparent that both parties were partially at fault for our tumultuous history at the negotiations table.

Unless labor and management are committed to preserving organizational harmony through effective negotiations, these internal and external pressures will become detrimental to the functional ability of the department.

Gearing up

I know what many of you are thinking: “Here is another union member trying to tell me that if management would just listen to labor, all our problems will be solved!” That is the last thing I want to do. Through my position as a union officer, I'm sometimes put in the position to defend some of the most ridiculous, self-serving arguments that our members sit around in their recliners dreaming up. I sometimes have a hard time going in to bargain something that I don't personally agree with, but I would be negligent in my responsibilities if I didn't adequately represent all of my membership equally. On the other hand, I realize that the fire service has some innovative and creative people who have some really valuable input that would benefit our departments tremendously if we would just listen.

As I began to write down everything that I thought was wrong with our past negotiations, I came to a realization. The perceived problems with our negotiations were not the result of any one person or stakeholder group; the problems were inherent to our negotiations process. We as a union were just as responsible for many of the same things that I had been raised to believe were “management's fault.” An ineffective process defined by confrontational win-lose attitudes on both sides was the single most identifiable factor in past negotiations failures.

By identifying the root cause of past negotiations failures, I was able to develop a set of several generalized guidelines that may help departments in similar bargaining environments. These principles form the groundwork of an effective labor/management relationship by defining how the negotiations process will be conducted. The recommendations can facilitate the creation of a culture of mutual respect and trust and help to eliminate many of the minor difficulties that seem to create major problems.

Treat each other with respect

This one should go without saying. Nothing will be gained by being condescending, obnoxious or rude to the other side. Each side of the equation has legitimate opinions, concerns and issues that need to be addressed and considered. If this principle can be followed throughout the entire negotiations process, many problems will be avoided or eliminated.

Have realistic expectations

Firefighters need to understand the financial ramifications of their proposals, just as management needs to realize that wages and benefits are driven by what comparable departments support. Both sides need to establish a comparable universe of departments in their area that closely mimic their own to have the most realistic comparison possible. Our department uses other departments with similar assessed valuations and populations served to determine which ones we use as comparables.

It's also important to set realistic timetables. Contracts will not be settled overnight, but they shouldn't take 18 months either. Establish a schedule of negotiations and formally set a block of meetings in advance to ensure that each side stays focused on maintaining progress. It may be extremely beneficial in the long run to use the first formal meeting to establish ground rules, determine how to use the comparable data, and develop a list of items that each side feels needs to be addressed with the current labor agreement.

Conduct thorough research

Each side should look into comparable departments, medical plans, benefits packages and the like. Preferably, labor and management will come together and ensure that the data gathered is from the same source, up-to-date and relevant. Starting from a mutually agreed-upon starting point will eliminate many future problems. Make sure that each side understands what the numbers really mean so as to not waste time and energy backing a position that wasn't accurate in the first place because of a misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

At the table

If you're approaching the negotiating table with the right mindset, the following suggestion will come more easily.

Establish ground rules

There should be a set of agreed-upon ground rules for how the negotiations may proceed. This can include items such as: notification for meetings, processes used for data analysis; defining who will participate and their roles; and establishing agendas, timelines and rules for conducting the proceedings. These rules should be established up front to set the parameters for future meetings.

Bargain interests, not positions

One of the most prominent works in the field of negotiating is Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton. One of the book's fundamental concepts is that bargaining over a position often is an ineffective method of negotiations. Positional bargaining locks the negotiator into those positions. Bargaining over a position also becomes inefficient as each side become more committed to defending its territory.

The book advocates a method called principle-centered bargaining. It uses a straightforward approach that:

• Separates the problem from the people,
• Focuses on interests instead of positions,
• Allows for the development of options to solve the problem, and
• Establishes criteria for solutions to be measured against.

Focus on the issues

This item is extremely important to successful negotiations. There are many topics that may seem like a problem to one side or the other, but in reality these topics may very well be a symptom of a larger issue. An example of this would be a grievance procedure that labor may view as selective and arbitrary. In reality, the organization may have conflicting polices and procedures on how to actually apply discipline, or the problem could be a training issue. The department members may not fully understand the implications of their actions when they conflict with the labor agreement, or management may not have a clear picture of how to apply the discipline. In this instance, the perceived selective application of discipline may be a symptom of a larger problem of inadequate or poorly written polices and procedures.

Personalities will always come into play during negotiations. Firefighters live, work and spend off-duty time with each other every day. There are bound to be personal issues between the members of the negotiating teams. These issues need to be set aside, and the focus needs to be directed at the process and the end product. In principle-centered bargaining, people must be separated from the problem. It's critical to develop an understanding of the perceptions and emotions held by the parties involved. It's also important to develop communications and working relationships in the negotiations to make for a more effective process.

Be wiling to compromise or adjust viewpoints

The bargaining process is just that, bargaining. There is a give and take in this process, as with any negotiation in life. Both sides will benefit by having an open mind, being flexible and being willing to consider new ideas. Don't be afraid to look at what other departments are doing in a particular area. Many problems may be a whole new can of worms for your department but have already been effectively dealt with by another agency.

Both sides should avoid all-or-nothing proposals and linking unrelated items together as “packages.” A proposal on sick-leave benefits should not be tied to a staffing article as a take-it-or-leave-it proposal unless there really is something tying those two totally unrelated components together. Issues should be looked at individually and bargained accordingly. Obviously, issues that have financial implications on the total compensation package will need to be looked at as a whole package as the contract is being completed.

Don't fix what isn't broken

Unless the labor contract needs to be completely redone, both sides should avoid trying to bargain issues that don't really require changing. Many articles in the typical collective bargaining agreement are fine as is or only need slight tweaking. There will always be small issues with language and wording, but for the most part these issues can be addressed and resolved relatively quickly. Articles that can be tentatively agreed upon with little or no changes should be tackled first to get them out of the way and provide momentum for more complex issues. The time and effort of the negotiating committee should be focused on the more complex issues of wages, benefits, hours of work and changes in working conditions.

All said and done

In the end, a contract is simply that: a contract. We must live and work with each other after that contract is signed. There's nothing to be gained from alienating members of labor or management during the negotiating process. We have to work together in a close-knit environment, and it's awfully hard to cross bridges that we burned at the table for the sake of being right.

Both sides should strive for a solution-based process to make negotiations successful and create an atmosphere of trust and respect. Both sides should be committed to keeping the negotiations out of the mediation and arbitration process. As any boxing fan will tell you, a boxer does not want the fight to go to the judges for a decision. The same can be said about arbitration. While each side may win a few items, they will also lose on some items. The chances of getting a labor contract that neither side is happy with becomes a very real possibility when a third party gets involved.

Above all, remember we are here to serve the public. In the end, no matter how contract negotiations progress, we will continue to get on the truck and respond every time the bell rings. Chiefs and union officers will come and go, but the public will always be there expecting the very best service from us for their tax dollar. As professionals, we owe it to our citizens to keep our bargaining issues and difficulties out of the public view. In a time of increased inflation, reduced benefits, and layoffs and cutbacks, the last thing we need is to erode our sacred public trust with a public fight over a pay increase or another day off.

There are some departments that will end up in contentious mediation and/or arbitration no matter what each side does due to personality conflicts, personal vendettas, past relations and big egos. There's really nothing that can be done in those cases; they either will perpetuate into a vitriolic day-to-day relationship or the parties will come to realize the harm that's being done.

As with any type of strategy, the guidelines alone will not help change past behavior. Both sides in the process need be committed to making the negotiation process a better one. These strategies will by no means cure every problem that an agency may face, but this will go a long way toward building a more collaborative environment and a healthier labor/management relationship.

---

Michael P. Charter is a lieutenant with the Spokane Valley (Wash.) Fire Department. He is currently assigned to a truck company and the department's technical-rescue team. Charter serves as the chairman of his IAFF local's negotiating committee and is active in the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters. He holds an associate's degree in fire command administration, a bachelor's degree in interdisciplinary studies and a master's degree in public administration.