Contrasts can be drawn between two fundamentally different approaches to collective bargaining. Distributive bargaining is where one side's gain is seen as the other's loss. The money to be distributed as a result of this bargaining process is essentially seen as a ‘cake’ of a fixed size. This sort of bargaining is inevitably adversarial as each side seeks to minimize the concessions it makes to the other. In integrative bargaining by contrast, the parties seek ways of increasing the size of cake. For instance, the money available for wage increases could be enlarged by agreeing changes to working practices. This approach therefore tends to be more cooperative in character.
In the UK, integrative bargaining is more widely known as productivity bargaining. This involves employers offering to improve pay or conditions of employment in return for the relaxation by the workforce and trade union of DEMARCATION LINES, ‘RESTRICTIVE LABOUR PRACTICES’ and other restraints on the efficient utilization of labour (see LABOUR FLEXIBILITY). SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP, whereby employers and unions agree to flexibility in return for job security, is a form of integrative bargaining. Productivity bargaining enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1980s because of the imperative for many firms to secure improvements in productivity. An alternative approach known as concession bargaining also occurred in the 1980s. Whereas productivity bargaining trades extra payments for changes in working practices, this form involves no offer of payment, management arguing instead that unemployment will result if changes are not agreed. It can, therefore, involve a more confrontational approach and can be viewed as a form of distributive bargaining.
To compare patterns of collective bargaining between firms, various dimensions of collective bargaining are used in INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS analysis:
These dimensions taken together are said to form the bargaining structure.
Industrial relations research in the UK has been especially concerned with the level of bargaining over pay. Three levels are most important:
Broadly speaking, there has been a trend in UK industry away from industry-wide bargaining to company and plant bargaining.
In practice the structure of bargaining in the UK is highly complex. Collective bargaining on behalf of a given set of employees may occur at more than one level. Some issues may be determined in industry-wide bargaining, others by plant bargaining, whilst particular issues may be subject to negotiations at more than one level. Where collective bargaining breaks down, the parties may refer the issue to a third party for ARBITRATION. If this is not done it is possible that a STRIKE or some other form of INDUSTRIAL ACTION could occur. See SINGLE TABLE BARGAINING.
Industry-wide bargaining can have inflationary consequences when trade unions use comparability arguments for wage increases with high percentage wage increases in industries that have experienced large productivity gains being extended on comparability grounds to other industries where the increases are not entirely justified on efficiency grounds. The selective use of comparability arguments for wage increases and pressures to maintain traditional WAGE DIFFERENTIALS can lead to COST-PUSH INFLATION. See TRADE UNION, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE.