The engagement between the employer and the trade union, with the latter acting as the representative body or bargaining agent for employees, is a legal process that falls under the practice of collective bargaining. The International Labour Convention No. 98 stipulates that workers have the right to bargain collectively with the employer to set wages, working hours and terms of employment. It is right that the government has a responsibility to safeguard and protect.
In the process of collective bargaining, the parties engage in discussions with the sole intention of reaching an amicable agreement. The process is built on the spirit of goodwill, reaching an understanding based on compromise, rather than on the premise that an agreement is reached through the unilateral imposition by either party. The unilateral approach is more commonly associated with governments, which resort to legislating wages and salaries for public sector workers. This is often done under the guise that negotiations are deadlocked.
A deadlock in wage and salary negotiations is a stalemate in which an employer and employees/labour unions reach a standstill over compensation terms. This occurs when neither party is willing or able to compromise further on their demands, causing discussions to stall completely. Past experiences in which the government is involved as the employer suggest a readiness on its part to wield a big-stick policy approach to resolving the matter. This is where the government brings the matter before Parliament for a decision. Here, the elected members of the Lower House, by a majority vote, impose the government’s will. In the contemporary world, some would describe this as a bullying tactic. There are questions to be raised about whether the government’s process for breaking a deadlock in the negotiations is right or wrong.
It goes without saying that resorting to a tactic that imposes one party’s will over the other’s is a first step toward breaking the bond of trust. It is customary to have a third party mediate in deadlocked negotiations with the private sector. Why isn’t this explored in public-sector wage and salary negotiations? It is understandable that negotiations can sometimes be contentious. Deadlocked negotiations can be avoided, provided the parties do not assume rigid, inflexible positions. A better outcome is likely when there is a willingness to focus on shared goals, use objective criteria, and be prepared to make concessions.
A deadlock negotiation is normally not a preferred option. The law provides for a deadlock, which it describes as an irreconcilable standoff in which decision-makers or voting factions are equally split, resulting in a standstill and thus completely paralysing the ability to act.
Trade unions have good grounds for strenuous objection to the legislative approach to settle any negotiation, and in particular, that of wages and salaries. In the first place, it undermines collective bargaining and weakens unions’ leverage in negotiating fair wages. The adoption of blanket legislation strips away the flexibility to adapt to changing inflation and sector-specific needs, ignores workers’ demands, and limits their right to strike for better terms.
One casualty of the move to legislate any negotiation, as happens in public-sector wage and salary negotiations, is the engagement of the democratic process. By removing the workers’ voice in reaching an agreement and imposing a unilateral will, this amounts to the denial of a fundamental human right.
Dennis De Peiza is a Labour Relations & Employment Relations Consultant with Regional Management Services Inc.
