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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Public personnel management 2006-12, Vol.35 (4), p.265-281
Hauptverfasser: Lipsky, David B., Katz, Harry C.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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