Horse trading

Unlike the actual trading of horses, "horse trades" between workers and bosses usually involve future commitments: "If I can take my vacation in June, then I'll work up to Christmas."

As no union is likely to be willing or able to enforce private undertakings, integrity and reputation will be the "security" for any deal.

As you probably expected, I have suggestions:

• Never horse trade with the untrustworthy;
• negotiate for your advantage, but never resort to trickery;
• ensure the particulars of the deal are clear and unambiguous (see the June essay, "Follow-up emails");
• ensure there's a mutually accepted ending date for anything that might otherwise be interpreted as on-going;
• don't enter into any deal that could be interpreted as affecting your contract of employment (e.g., changing the nature of your duties);
• don't make an informal deal about something that should be formal (e.g., intellectual property or almost anything to do with money);
• whilst you shouldn't trumpet deals, be wary of any deal that's to be kept a secret;
• never make an arrangement that even potentially disadvantages either your colleagues or the organisation; and
• live up to your commitments.
  

And, sooner or later most "horse traders" will need to remind themselves, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." ▪

Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity;
whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd,
strives for obscurity.
For the crowd considers anything deep
if only it cannot see to the bottom:
the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

Misunderstandings

"Disputes" often turn out to be misunderstandings. Whether or not you feel that there's been a misunderstanding, before you institute any formal process it's useful to clarify the situation. In other contexts this might be done through a "letter of demand." But for garden-variety, intramural matters I suggest that you not entitle your letter (or email) as, "Letter of Demand."

Avoid blighting the chance of later compromise with confrontational or emotive language. It can go something like:

Thank you for discussing the matter of [issue] yesterday. I want to ensure I haven't misunderstood the situation. I understand you to be saying [the boss's position]. I'm asking about this because it seems to me that [your position]. For the reasons that I've mentioned I'm asking that [your "demand"].

It's a waste of room to plot the combinations of likely replies. Regardless, you'll minimise miscommunication. You'll avoid the occasionally sincere, "You should have come to me first...." And even with a negative reply you may discover the seeds of a useful compromise.

If there's no reply, it's enough to know that you made your position clear. No small thing. ▪

The difference between a job and a career
is the difference between forty and sixty hours a week.
—Robert Frost (1874 - 1963)

Compromise

Readers of the quotes that accompany these essays will recognise that I'm an admirer of Abraham Lincoln. Before he was president, however, Lincoln was a lawyer. And on compromise Lincoln wrote:

Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser — in fees, and expenses, and waste of time.

And so it is in industrial disputes.

But for the aggrieved, the inventory of hurts and harms is exquisitely and painfully exact. And, for that prospective "plaintiff," those injuries cry out for justice — and not the watered-down justice of halfway measures, but full restitution and correction. Anything less would reward evil and set dangerous precedents. "It's the principle."

So, how is it that the Great Emancipator thought so highly of compromise? In a word: Experience.

If Lincoln was in error, it was in the shortness of his list of possible tribulations. Missing seem to be:

• The psychological cost in pursuing a remedy;
• the disappointment of expected witnesses failing to come forward; and
• the possibility of ending up with a "compromise" anyway.

In representing employees, raising the possibility of compromise invites criticism. I get over it. ▪

What we hope ever to do with ease,
we must learn first to do with diligence.
—Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)