Alternative Approaches to Interest Arbitration: Lessons from New York City
Scholars have not taken adequate account of variation in the interest arbitration process in their research on the effects of interest arbitration on bargaining outcomes. There are two fundamental approaches to interest arbitration, which they term the “judicial prototype” and the “negotiation proto...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Public personnel management 2006-12, Vol.35 (4), p.265-281 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 281 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 265 |
container_title | Public personnel management |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Lipsky, David B. Katz, Harry C. |
description | Scholars have not taken adequate account of variation in the interest arbitration process in their research on the effects of interest arbitration on bargaining outcomes. There are two fundamental approaches to interest arbitration, which they term the “judicial prototype” and the “negotiation prototype.” The recent cases involving the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) of New York City and the city of New York illustrate the differences in these two approaches. There is a relationship between the arbitration prototype and the bargaining power of the parties. A party with greater bargaining power should prefer the negotiation prototype in interest arbitration. The New York City police cases—especially the effects of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001—are analyzed to determine whether changes in the parties' bargaining power affected their approach to interest arbitration. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/009102600603500402 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_215948447</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A160542398</galeid><sage_id>10.1177_009102600603500402</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A160542398</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-d8ea5767c8f9f2cb2942621e404d7cf72d67b354c374ad2a5bc363997df122a53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0k1PwyAYB3BiNHFOv4An4s1DJ1BaWm_N4svMogf14Ikw-jA7uzKB-fLtZZkxWVyM4UCA35_wPAGhY0oGlApxRkhJCcsJyUmaEcIJ20E9WvIsEZzRXdRbgWQl9tGB9zNCCE0Z66Gbqg3gOhWaN8DVYuGs0s_gcbB41MUT8AFXbtIEF4ntzvEYvLedx8bZOb6Fd_xk3QseNuHzEO0Z1Xo4-p776PHy4mF4nYzvrkbDapzojNOQ1AWoTORCF6Y0TE9YyVnOKHDCa6GNYHUuJmnGdSq4qpnKJjrN07IUtaEsLtM-OlnfGx_7uowPlDO7jCW0XjKalbzgXESUrNFUtSCbzthYgZ5CB061tgPTxO2K5iTjLC2L6AdbfBw1zBu9NXC6EYgmwEeYqqX3cnR_-29bXI03bbLNatu2MAUZOzm82_Rs7bWz3jswcuGauXKfkhK5-hvy99-IobN1yKt450_7_kh8Aeyjs_Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>215948447</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Alternative Approaches to Interest Arbitration: Lessons from New York City</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Education Source</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Lipsky, David B. ; Katz, Harry C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lipsky, David B. ; Katz, Harry C.</creatorcontrib><description>Scholars have not taken adequate account of variation in the interest arbitration process in their research on the effects of interest arbitration on bargaining outcomes. There are two fundamental approaches to interest arbitration, which they term the “judicial prototype” and the “negotiation prototype.” The recent cases involving the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) of New York City and the city of New York illustrate the differences in these two approaches. There is a relationship between the arbitration prototype and the bargaining power of the parties. A party with greater bargaining power should prefer the negotiation prototype in interest arbitration. The New York City police cases—especially the effects of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001—are analyzed to determine whether changes in the parties' bargaining power affected their approach to interest arbitration.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0091-0260</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1945-7421</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/009102600603500402</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PPMNCX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Administrative arbitration ; Analysis ; Arbitration ; Arbitration (Administrative law) ; Collective bargaining ; Company personnel management ; Contract negotiations ; Employees ; Firefighters ; Fires ; Human resource management ; Incentives ; Labor negotiations ; Labor unions ; Methods ; Municipalities ; Organizing ; Police ; Public sector ; Researchers ; Unionization ; Wages & salaries</subject><ispartof>Public personnel management, 2006-12, Vol.35 (4), p.265-281</ispartof><rights>2006 SAGE Publications</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2006 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright International Public Management Association for Human Resources Winter 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-d8ea5767c8f9f2cb2942621e404d7cf72d67b354c374ad2a5bc363997df122a53</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/009102600603500402$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009102600603500402$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lipsky, David B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katz, Harry C.</creatorcontrib><title>Alternative Approaches to Interest Arbitration: Lessons from New York City</title><title>Public personnel management</title><addtitle>Public Personnel Management</addtitle><description>Scholars have not taken adequate account of variation in the interest arbitration process in their research on the effects of interest arbitration on bargaining outcomes. There are two fundamental approaches to interest arbitration, which they term the “judicial prototype” and the “negotiation prototype.” The recent cases involving the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) of New York City and the city of New York illustrate the differences in these two approaches. There is a relationship between the arbitration prototype and the bargaining power of the parties. A party with greater bargaining power should prefer the negotiation prototype in interest arbitration. The New York City police cases—especially the effects of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001—are analyzed to determine whether changes in the parties' bargaining power affected their approach to interest arbitration.</description><subject>Administrative arbitration</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Arbitration</subject><subject>Arbitration (Administrative law)</subject><subject>Collective bargaining</subject><subject>Company personnel management</subject><subject>Contract negotiations</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Firefighters</subject><subject>Fires</subject><subject>Human resource management</subject><subject>Incentives</subject><subject>Labor negotiations</subject><subject>Labor unions</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Municipalities</subject><subject>Organizing</subject><subject>Police</subject><subject>Public sector</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Unionization</subject><subject>Wages & salaries</subject><issn>0091-0260</issn><issn>1945-7421</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0k1PwyAYB3BiNHFOv4An4s1DJ1BaWm_N4svMogf14Ikw-jA7uzKB-fLtZZkxWVyM4UCA35_wPAGhY0oGlApxRkhJCcsJyUmaEcIJ20E9WvIsEZzRXdRbgWQl9tGB9zNCCE0Z66Gbqg3gOhWaN8DVYuGs0s_gcbB41MUT8AFXbtIEF4ntzvEYvLedx8bZOb6Fd_xk3QseNuHzEO0Z1Xo4-p776PHy4mF4nYzvrkbDapzojNOQ1AWoTORCF6Y0TE9YyVnOKHDCa6GNYHUuJmnGdSq4qpnKJjrN07IUtaEsLtM-OlnfGx_7uowPlDO7jCW0XjKalbzgXESUrNFUtSCbzthYgZ5CB061tgPTxO2K5iTjLC2L6AdbfBw1zBu9NXC6EYgmwEeYqqX3cnR_-29bXI03bbLNatu2MAUZOzm82_Rs7bWz3jswcuGauXKfkhK5-hvy99-IobN1yKt450_7_kh8Aeyjs_Q</recordid><startdate>20061222</startdate><enddate>20061222</enddate><creator>Lipsky, David B.</creator><creator>Katz, Harry C.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20061222</creationdate><title>Alternative Approaches to Interest Arbitration: Lessons from New York City</title><author>Lipsky, David B. ; Katz, Harry C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c541t-d8ea5767c8f9f2cb2942621e404d7cf72d67b354c374ad2a5bc363997df122a53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Administrative arbitration</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Arbitration</topic><topic>Arbitration (Administrative law)</topic><topic>Collective bargaining</topic><topic>Company personnel management</topic><topic>Contract negotiations</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Firefighters</topic><topic>Fires</topic><topic>Human resource management</topic><topic>Incentives</topic><topic>Labor negotiations</topic><topic>Labor unions</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Municipalities</topic><topic>Organizing</topic><topic>Police</topic><topic>Public sector</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Unionization</topic><topic>Wages & salaries</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lipsky, David B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Katz, Harry C.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Public personnel management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lipsky, David B.</au><au>Katz, Harry C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Alternative Approaches to Interest Arbitration: Lessons from New York City</atitle><jtitle>Public personnel management</jtitle><addtitle>Public Personnel Management</addtitle><date>2006-12-22</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>265</spage><epage>281</epage><pages>265-281</pages><issn>0091-0260</issn><eissn>1945-7421</eissn><coden>PPMNCX</coden><abstract>Scholars have not taken adequate account of variation in the interest arbitration process in their research on the effects of interest arbitration on bargaining outcomes. There are two fundamental approaches to interest arbitration, which they term the “judicial prototype” and the “negotiation prototype.” The recent cases involving the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) of New York City and the city of New York illustrate the differences in these two approaches. There is a relationship between the arbitration prototype and the bargaining power of the parties. A party with greater bargaining power should prefer the negotiation prototype in interest arbitration. The New York City police cases—especially the effects of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001—are analyzed to determine whether changes in the parties' bargaining power affected their approach to interest arbitration.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/009102600603500402</doi><tpages>17</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0091-0260 |
ispartof | Public personnel management, 2006-12, Vol.35 (4), p.265-281 |
issn | 0091-0260 1945-7421 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_215948447 |
source | SAGE Complete A-Z List; Education Source; Business Source Complete |
subjects | Administrative arbitration Analysis Arbitration Arbitration (Administrative law) Collective bargaining Company personnel management Contract negotiations Employees Firefighters Fires Human resource management Incentives Labor negotiations Labor unions Methods Municipalities Organizing Police Public sector Researchers Unionization Wages & salaries |
title | Alternative Approaches to Interest Arbitration: Lessons from New York City |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T07%3A22%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Alternative%20Approaches%20to%20Interest%20Arbitration:%20Lessons%20from%20New%20York%20City&rft.jtitle=Public%20personnel%20management&rft.au=Lipsky,%20David%20B.&rft.date=2006-12-22&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=265&rft.epage=281&rft.pages=265-281&rft.issn=0091-0260&rft.eissn=1945-7421&rft.coden=PPMNCX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/009102600603500402&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA160542398%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=215948447&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A160542398&rft_sage_id=10.1177_009102600603500402&rfr_iscdi=true |