Scholarly Representations of Collective Bargaining and the Work of Negotiation
This article sets two objectives that correspond to its two parts: 1- to discuss Allan Flanders’ analysis (1968) of “collective bargaining theories” developed by Neil Chamberlain (1951); and 2- to build on Flanders’ conclusion about the union’s “participation in job regulation” to extend this reasoning to two negotiators—unionists and employers. The article suggests that it be read as real work—the ‘work of negotiation’. In the first part, the author suggests renaming the three ‘collective bargaining theories’ of Chamberlain and Flanders, and adding two other theories to them: ‘market’, ‘constitutional’, ‘decisional’, ‘rational’ and ‘radical’ approaches. In the second part, the author comments on the specificities of this “work of negotiation”. Its originality is emphasized: it cannot be done alone, each is an adversary of the other, but their joint work will transform them into interacting partners; a combination of intra and internegotiation. Then, there are the constraints weighing on the negotiators, the ‘work of negotiation’ reducing their weight and turning them into resources. They are named as follows: the constraints of ‘normativity’, ‘cooperation’, ‘reciprocity’ and ‘efficiency’. The author finally draws some lessons from his approach: one, it allows for comparison to be made with other social activities, to understand the originality. Two, looked at as work, collective bargaining lends itself less to an ideological reading, oscillating between lamentation and denunciation. Third, the new approach elucidates the ‘failures’ of the joint work of regulation. Four, enquiry into the work of collective bargaining can be combined with that of scholarly representations, bringing to light the practical dilemmas they generate for negotiators.