Publication Date

2006

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

Comments

Required Publisher’s Statement
© SAGE. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. Final version published as: Lipsky, D. B., & Katz, H. C. (2006). Alternative approaches to interest arbitration: Lessons from New York City. Public Personnel Management, 35(4), 265-281.

Suggested Citation
Lipsky, D. B., & Katz, H. C. (2006). Alternative approaches to interest arbitration: Lessons from New York City [Electronic version]. Retrieved [insert date], from Cornell University, ILR School site: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/1278

Share

COinS