Verdict
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 27,397
- Reaction score
- 21,855
As an attorney, the majority of what I do on a daily basis is problem solving, and negotiating settlements in many different kinds of cases. There are several negotiating tactics than can be employed in negotiating a settlement of a case or dispute.
Some parties ask for the moon, and then retreat as negotiations go on, and approach something the parties can live with. A second school of thought is to ask for slightly more than you want and then hold your ground and move very grudgingly, if at all.
The problem with shooting for the moon (I think the players association has taken this approach) is that unless that you show that you are willing to move toward the middle ground at a fairly good pace, then you become viewed as unreasonable, and the other side usually becomes more firmly entrenched and less willing to concede anything. If neither side flinches, then things reach an impasse quickly.
The biggest problem with this approach is that "usually" one side or the other has a stronger position than the other, and when the weaker side flinches, it is all over but the crying, and the weaker side will usually get less than than they would if they had built a bridge in negotiations.
This form of negotiating is more of a "give me what I want or I am going to kill a hostage" scenario. The problem with this type of negotiation is if you threaten to kill a hostage, you had better be willing to pull the trigger and shoot him dead, or you are "done" as a credible negotiator.
The more reasonable approach tends to build coalitions better with all sides feeling better about things in the end, and more trust between them after the negotiations are over. The risk in not shooting for more (or in this case the moon) is it gives you little wiggle room to give any at all if the other side doesn't see things your way and the negotiation may fail because you appear inflexible.
Usually somewhere in the middle is best, but since it is an inexact science, you never know exactly where to start, since where you start often has a bearing on how much you get when you settle.
But once again, the parties are seldom in a position of equal bargaining power, and one side usually has an edge. In an employer-employee relationship, usually it is the employer who will have that advantage. The problem of representing a party who is negotiating a position of weakness (usually the employees) is that if you work too hard at trying to get every dollar that could potentially be on the table for too long, the weakness of your bargaining position starts working against you, giving you less than if you had been more reasonable to begin with.
I believe that legally, and practically, the players are in a weaker position than the owners, and as time goes on that weakness will begin to work against them more and more. When you add the disparity of the interests between the various tiers of players, it is a recipe for disaster.
I think that the players will get more in the long run if their demands become more reasonable. In fact, one might argue that it is in the players' best interests to send a different negotiator to the table and switch up their negotiating tactics from a "kill a hostage mode" to more of a coalition building style.
If they stick with their current negotiating team, and stance, they had better be right or it is going to cost them a lot in current dollars and also hamper their efforts in future negotiations, since the faces change, but the issues will probably remain the same.
Some parties ask for the moon, and then retreat as negotiations go on, and approach something the parties can live with. A second school of thought is to ask for slightly more than you want and then hold your ground and move very grudgingly, if at all.
The problem with shooting for the moon (I think the players association has taken this approach) is that unless that you show that you are willing to move toward the middle ground at a fairly good pace, then you become viewed as unreasonable, and the other side usually becomes more firmly entrenched and less willing to concede anything. If neither side flinches, then things reach an impasse quickly.
The biggest problem with this approach is that "usually" one side or the other has a stronger position than the other, and when the weaker side flinches, it is all over but the crying, and the weaker side will usually get less than than they would if they had built a bridge in negotiations.
This form of negotiating is more of a "give me what I want or I am going to kill a hostage" scenario. The problem with this type of negotiation is if you threaten to kill a hostage, you had better be willing to pull the trigger and shoot him dead, or you are "done" as a credible negotiator.
The more reasonable approach tends to build coalitions better with all sides feeling better about things in the end, and more trust between them after the negotiations are over. The risk in not shooting for more (or in this case the moon) is it gives you little wiggle room to give any at all if the other side doesn't see things your way and the negotiation may fail because you appear inflexible.
Usually somewhere in the middle is best, but since it is an inexact science, you never know exactly where to start, since where you start often has a bearing on how much you get when you settle.
But once again, the parties are seldom in a position of equal bargaining power, and one side usually has an edge. In an employer-employee relationship, usually it is the employer who will have that advantage. The problem of representing a party who is negotiating a position of weakness (usually the employees) is that if you work too hard at trying to get every dollar that could potentially be on the table for too long, the weakness of your bargaining position starts working against you, giving you less than if you had been more reasonable to begin with.
I believe that legally, and practically, the players are in a weaker position than the owners, and as time goes on that weakness will begin to work against them more and more. When you add the disparity of the interests between the various tiers of players, it is a recipe for disaster.
I think that the players will get more in the long run if their demands become more reasonable. In fact, one might argue that it is in the players' best interests to send a different negotiator to the table and switch up their negotiating tactics from a "kill a hostage mode" to more of a coalition building style.
If they stick with their current negotiating team, and stance, they had better be right or it is going to cost them a lot in current dollars and also hamper their efforts in future negotiations, since the faces change, but the issues will probably remain the same.
ost:
