In 2012, about 350,000 students in Chicago had to stay home for at least 10 days owing to the intense teachers strike. The striking teachers cited among other reasons, smaller class sizes, a decrease in high-stake student testing, better benefits, better pay, and protection from irregular payoffs. The efforts by Chicago’s City council were met with resistance on two occasions, as the council was not ready to give in to the union's demands. At one point Mayor Emanuel threatened to get a legal injunction to force the teachers back to work. It is not until September 19, 2012, that Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) delegates voted to go back to work after reaching a consensus. An analysis of the events leading to the strike and the end of the strike shed light on the effectiveness of dispute resolution strategies adopted by both parties.
Description of the situation that precipitated this strike
The 2012 CTU’s strike was precipitated by a lack of consensus between the union and the city council on various issues. Prior to the strike, CTU had wanted the city council to expand music and art programs to the most underfunded schools in the city. In months prior to the strike, there had been a simmering conflict between the mayor and the union concerning the former's promise to reform the Chicago public school system. The union voiced concern over the teacher evaluation strategies, which was biased as it relied on students' teachers' scores (Pearson, 2012). The failure to reach a consensus on these and other issues precipitated the strike with the aim of finding a middle ground.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Description of the methods that could have been used to prevent this strike and why they may not have been used
The Chicago city council and the union of teachers used varied methods to prevent the strike that was sure to paralyze learning. They held negotiations prior to the strike with an aim of reaching a consensus but this was not to be. Rahm Emanuel, Chicago’s mayor should have embraced negotiations instead of making unilateral decisions fearing that negotiations would not yield the desired outcomes. Instead of engaging the union on the way forward, the mayor lobbied Illinois state legislature to pass the SB7 bill that prevented CTU from striking on issues rather than teachers' salaries. More so, the bill raised the percentage of CTU members who were supposed to vote in support of a strike from 50 to 75 percent (Program on Negotiation Staff, 2019). Looking back at the bill one could say, that the mayor ought to have engaged the teachers so that he could get their output instead of enforcing a law that is definitely biased.
Description of the negotiation tactics used by both parties
The CTU and Chicago city council were keen on getting a deal that was favorable as evidenced by the negotiation tactic each embraced. Both parties were involved in closed-door negotiations where the mayor established that the strike was unavoidable and he termed it a ‘strike of choice’ (Davey, 2012). The mayor even expressed that he needed to get a legal injunction to force the teachers back to work. At one point, the mayor had to compromise on the issue of teachers' evaluation being too reliant on students' test scores. On the other hand, the union representatives chose to walk out of the negotiations to express their dissatisfaction with the deal the city council was offering. Finally, both parties had to reach a consensus with the delegates voting to end the 10-day strike.
Assessment of the effectiveness of the tactics
The tactics that were used in ending the stalemate are not as effective considering it took both parties 10 days to end the strike. The city council should have been more considerate of the teacher's demand instead of using the state legislature to limit teachers' demand. The threat to use a court order on the teachers shows that the city was not ready for negotiations (Scott, 2019). The walkout that was staged by the union delegates proves that they were not ready to give negotiation a chance, as they too were keen on reaching unilateral agreements.
Given a chance what I would have done differently or the same in this negotiation
If I were in the city Chicago’s place, I would have consulted the union's delegates before ratifying the education-reform bill. I would have embraced dialogue instead of threatening the teachers with a legal injunction as this shows a weakness in the city's part. Finally, I would have allowed more room for compromises instead of assuming a win-win outcome, which does not guarantee effective dispute resolution.
References
Davey, M. (2012, September 10). Teachers’ Strike in Chicago Tests Mayor and Union. The New York Times . Retrieved on 2 October 2019, from https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/education/teacher-strike-begins-in-chicago-amid-signs-that-deal-isnt-close.html
Pearson, M. (2012, September 19). Wins losses and draws in Chicago school strike. CNN. Retrieved on 2 October 2019, from https://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/19/us/illinois-chicago-teachers-strike/index.html
Program on Negotiation Staff. (2019, September 3). Union Strikes and Dispute Resolution Strategies. Harvard Law School. Retrieved on 2 October 2019, from https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-and-the-chicago-teachers-union-strike/
Scott, D. (2019, June 28). The strike that brought teachers unions back from the dead. Vox. Retrieved on 2 October 2019, from https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/28/18662706/chicago-teachers-unions-strike-labor-movement
