daniel chigunweElliot Ziwira
At the Bookstore
The coronavirus has induced a new normal necessitated by the quest to curb its spread, while remaining alive to economic imperatives as the world absorbs unanticipated pressures.
As decisions are made, particularly in response to unforeseen future gravities, the employee appears to be hard done.
With employers burdened by the impact of both Covid-19 and new ways of doing business, the need arises to negotiate win-win outcomes that put bread on the table for workers’ families, without necessarily having to snatch it from the employer’s mouth.
Being the major employer, the Government is expected to set the tone for negotiations in response to prevailing inflationary forces.
Through the National Joint Negotiating Council (NJNC), the Government is in continuous dialogue with civil servants on their conditions of service.
In all instances, offers are put on the table, with both sides tussling towards acceptable outcomes, which is understandable in negotiations.
On the other hand, the private sector appears to dither when the issue of aligning wages with the cost of living is raised. Thus, putting the employee’s daily bread on a knife’s edge. So, what is bargaining as a form of negotiation?
Communicators have advanced different definitions in a quest to explain the spirit of bargaining, especially collective.
Although their presentations differ, their ideas seem to subscribe to the notion that bargaining is not an individual action, but a collective one.
The idea in collective bargaining is to arrive at a mutual consensus on a range of pressing issues affecting the entire group.
Owing to scarcity of resources, with issues forever boiling out of hand because of frustration, disgruntlement and impatience, it is crucial that bargaining as a form of negotiation is given a chance.
With so much at stake for both employees and employers, bargaining, where nothing is held back from the other, becomes vital.
Therefore, it is only appropriate to explore the essence of bargaining, particularly during these uncertain times.
Collective bargaining, according to Flippo (1984:442), “is a communication process in which representatives of two groups meet and attempt to negotiate an agreement which specifies the nature of the agreement between them.”
It is usually concerned with the existing relations between unions representing employers and employees to address issues such as wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment (Beach, 1985 in “Personnel: The Management of People At Work”).
Freeman (1992:125), posits that the phenomenon is “the process of negotiating and administering agreement between labour and management concerning wages, working conditions and other aspects of the work environment.”
And what is negotiation?
Bates (1993:158) affirms that negotiation is “a process through which an attempt is made by two parties with differing views to reach a mutually acceptable agreement”.
Thus, Beach (1985), Flippo (1984), Bates (1993) and Freeman (1992) concur that bargaining is the collective effort of individual groups with different interests concerning the same cake, the sharing of which should not be seen to jeopardise either party’s interests.
Hence, mutual agreement should be sought. Interpersonal relations and emotions must not be allowed to suffer since they are fundamental in bargaining.
At the end of the day, production, which benefits both employers and employees, needs to be increased or maintained. As such, either party should derive some satisfaction after a collective bargaining session. If a stalemate is reached, a third party should be handy to pass an unbiased verdict.
In the case of Zimbabwe, the third party or arbiter, is the Labour Court.
As a form of negotiation, collective bargaining falls into two categories; traditional and integrative bargaining.
Until recently the traditional approach was prevalent in Zimbabwe.
The traditional approach subscribes to coercive power in that either party tries to outwit the other. In the end, no agreement will be reached until an imposed action is effected.
Management might decide to withhold relevant information, preferring instead to use threats of dismissal or closing down the firm; with employees threatening industrial action or resorting to go-slows.
In such a scenario both parties stand to lose. They both desperately need the cake.
On the flipside, unlike traditional bargaining, integrative bargaining is less adversarial. In this approach, parties do not haggle to outdo each other. Instead, they seek a compromise by jointly searching for several solutions to a shared problem.
In such a slant, trust is paramount as both parties aim for a win-win outcome.
If increased production will automatically lead to improved wages, employees and employers will not find themselves scuffling.
Since collective bargaining is a mutual effort by conflicting parties not to kill the hen that lays golden eggs, but to preserve and feed it well for it to increase production, it is an important form of negotiation.
As bargaining exists exclusively in labour relations involving employees and employers, it is imperative that the interests of either party are respected. They both need each other in the same way that an offspring requires the genes of either parent.
Employers need their employees for the sake of production – the lifeline of their businesses.
Employees need their employers for their livelihoods, so they cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds them. Thus, both parties need to work collectively, because a united voice is usually heard, as compared to that of one calling out in the wilderness.
If an employee’s rights are infringed, a single voice from the workers’ committee will find a listening ear in management.
However, if the employee opts to voice his/her feelings as a lone soldier, he/she is likely to be ignored.
Hence, as a vital element of negotiation, collective bargaining comes in handy.
Management, representing employers and other stakeholders, and labour represented by respective bodies, should always meet to discuss pertinent issues affecting them.
Collective bargaining in Zimbabwe takes place at two levels; national and local.
At the national level, bodies like the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), Zimbabwe Federation of Trade Unions (ZFTU) and the Apex Council, meet with representative employer bodies like The Bakers Association of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union and the Bankers Association of Zimbabwe to negotiate on behalf of their affiliated member organisations.
At the local level, employee committees can directly engage in dialogue with their employers through management representatives.
If collective bargaining is conducted in good faith, conflict between employers and employees is mitigated, as problems are solved jointly through mutual trust.
If both parties lay their cards on the table, there is no need for haggling. If employers, especially in these trying economic times, are open to their employees about the rising costs of production, instead of arrogantly imposing their will on them, employees will take it in good faith.
They are not likely to raise outrageous demands.
If management, through its representatives, decides to play the wise owl in the eyes of the “dump” employees, situations are likely to get out of hand. Feeling betrayed, employees may be forced to take a leaf from the traditional approach of bargaining, which is rather confrontational and destructive.
Management should be mindful that happy employees are more productive than sulking and angry ones.
If bargaining is allowed to be a collective effort as it is wont to be, no casualties will be left in its wake; and no arbiter will be required.
However, because of the coercive nature of bargaining, as embraced by the traditional approach, an arbiter, like the Labour Court in Zimbabwe, or the International Labour Organisation (ILO), will be called upon to settle disputes.
However, although collective bargaining, unlike individual bargaining, or crisis bargaining used in war torn areas, is an important form of negotiation, it does not always produce desired fruits.
Negotiations are usually characterised by harsh words, cunning and sometimes intimidating tendencies, as parties feel their interests being encroached on.
When matters come to a head through accusations and counter-charges, nothing will be solved. Instead of solving genuine problems raised, the situation may get out of control, usually with disastrous consequences.
Threats on either party, no matter how genuine a matter raised could be, are never known to solve anything, for poking at each other’s eyes will only leave both parties blind.
Online Reporter