[liberationtech] Do Webcams Belong at the Negotiating Table? One Union Thinks So (fwd)

[Todd Davies]

Do Webcams Belong at the Negotiating Table? One Union Thinks So
http://communicateordie.com/node/1331
Do Webcams Belong at the Negotiating Table? One Union Thinks So
Submitted by Steve Dondley on Fri, 04/16/2010 - 2:23pm
Best practices and techniques
SEIU Local 615, a 17,000 member local out of Boston, MA, has proposed
webcasting its upcoming negotiations with the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT). See the story here.
As far as I know, this would be a first for a union and it represents
an extremely unorthodox move. Usually, the first thing labor and
management do is agree to not publicize what goes on in the
negotiation process. Is it possible that such agreements are going to
become quaint when when the world of radical transparency the
futurists say we are heading toward arrives? Or are there damn good
practical reasons for these privacy agreements between labor and
management?
Here's the benefits that I can see:
Opening up contract talks to the whole world is going to attract media
attention, especially with a high profile employer like MIT. That's a
good thing if your intention is to build a community campaign around
the negotiations.
It shows the union has nothing to hide, giving it a position of
strength.
It's less likely the union will be accused of "selling out" workers
for a lousy contract, an accusation that has been leveled against Andy
Stern, SEIU's President in Washington, DC.
Members might feel more connected to the negotiating process, which
will help engage and mobilize them.
It will help educate members and the public how the negotiation
process works. Of course, it's likely the negotiation process they'll
watch will be much different than a negotiation process without cameras.
On the other hand, I can think of some good arguments why this might
ultimately hurt the union during negotiations. Although I'm certainly
no master negotiator, here's some reasons I can think of:

First, the negotiation process is much like a game of poker. Even if
all you have is a pair in your hand, you want to convince the other
side you've got a full house. In order to do that, you have got to
keep your cards secret. Usually, only the chief negotiator and
negotiating committee knows what's truly in their hand and must
protect the knowledge of their true positions at all costs. Therefore,
the negotiating committee often cannot communicate everything back to
the membership out of fear of tipping their hand to the employer.
Therefore, conventional wisdom is that, for their own good, members
should be kept largely in the dark about what's going on during
negotiations. This obviously becomes impossible if you allow members
to sit at the table with you.
Another potential pitfall is that it opens the chief negotiator up to
second guessing and could weaken their position even if he or she is
extremely competent. A chief negotiator must make tough calls and
decisions about what to bargain away and what to fight for. And the
reasons behind these tough decisions aren't going to be so apparent to
members or to the outside world who may not understand union
contracts. And so the chief negotiator might end up spending lots of
time explaining and defending his or her decisions in public to try to
shore up solidarity for the negotiating team's position. And again,
this also leads to a huge risk of tipping the union's hand.
Finally, a lot of good deals are cut when the leaders of the two
parties finally can look the other side in the eye on a human level
instead of an adversarial one. They come to realize that though they
are on opposite sides, they respect and need each other and only then
do they find agreement. That could be a lot more difficult with the
cameras turned on. Positions could harden with neither side wanting to
lose face. We're seeing a lot of that right now between the Democrats
and Republican in Washington.
What do you think, do webcams belong at the negotiating table?