FAIR PAY ASSESSMENTS BY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS AND TEACHER ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS - IMPLICATIONS FOR INTEREST ARBITRATORS?
JANE GIACOBBE
DOI: 10.2190/N2P9-Y189-49RC-4EB6
Abstract
This study examines the criteria utilized by the parties to negotiations in formulating assessments of fair pay. The sample population included school superintendents and teacher association presidents from state with interest arbitration available as a final step in impasse resolution. The criteria utilized by the parties were compared with the results of a previous study by M. Bazerman of the criteria utilized by arbitrators in fashioning pay awards. A comparison of weights attached to criteria was also examined. Finally, respondents were asked to evaluate the criteria utilized by arbitrators, as well as the fairness of the awards they generate. The results indicate that while respondents in the aggregated analysis utilize a wide range of criteria, they attached the strongest weight to wage comparability, followed by the employer's ability to pay. These results differ slightly from the arbitral weighting scheme identified in the Bazerman study in which ability to pay is most heavily weighted, following by the present wage of the employees. Finally, superintendents were highly critical of arbitral decision making and awards. Teacher association presidents, however, felt that arbitral criteria are appropriate and their awards are fair.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.