This thesis is a study of how three negotiating parties modernized two negotiation processes during the collective negotiations in the public sector in 2013 (OK13) and how this might affect the public negotiation model. The parties wanted to shift from the traditional distributive negotiation model to the integrative negotiation model. The ambition was to provide a basis for settle better agreements and thus establish a better relationship between them. The empirical data consists of qualitative interviews with the central negotiators in the three organisations: Regionernes Lønnings- og Takstnævn (RLTN), Yngre Læger (YL) and Forening af Speciallæger (FAS). The analytical framework consists of theory of labour negotiations and literature on the public negotiation model. This is used to analyse why, how and with what result the parties worked to modernize the negotiation processes. They succeeded in varying degrees and the differences between the two processes indicate what challenges that may arise when changing the negotiation model. Furthermore there are some challenges in relation to the public negotiation model which the parties must deal with. The discussion shows that the parties among others should be aware of how the ritual elements of a negotiation can be handled together with the integrative negotiation model. The conclusion is that the integrative negotiation model provides a basis for better agreements simultaneously with a better relation between the parties. With integrative negotiations the parties are able to handle the conflicting interests at the same time as they establish a better relationship. There are some challenges which the parties must handle in relation to both the negotiations and the public negotiation model, but if they do so in a successful manner they modernize and maintain both the collective negotiations and the public negotiation model.
|Uddannelser||Forvaltning, (Bachelor/kandidatuddannelse) Kandidat|
|Udgivelsesdato||30 aug. 2014|
|Vejledere||Flemming Juul Christiansen|