| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 勞工所 === 95 === Abstract
The Taiwan Railway Administration (TRA) was in a deficit for years running due to some historical factors, therefore the Executive Yuan decided to privatize it. The Taiwan Railway Labor Union (TRLU) strongly resisted such an action. It called on an assembly in ways of collectively being on leave in 2003, and further voted for a strike in the next Chinese New Year. In order to solve the conflict, a series of negotiation between the union and management began. This research mainly discussed the negotiation subjects, issues, and the parties’ positions on each issue. Strategies and tactics conducted by the two parties during the negotiation were also analyzed.
The data collected for this research were mostly the original materials that included the meeting records and publications of the TRLU. Interviews with relevant entities were also conducted.
It was found that issues negotiated were under 5 categories: (1) three unsolved disputes; (2) the priority of law making for the “Organization for the Taiwan Railway Administration Act”; (3) historical debts settlement; (4) establishment of compensation mechanism for policy-based fare subsidies; (5) halting the corporatization and privatization of the TRA. On the issues of three unsolved disputes, the TRLU and the TRA took a contending position. The two parties had no great divergence on the three issues regarding the law making for the “Organization for the Taiwan Railway Administration Act,” historical debts settlement, and the establishment of compensation mechanism for policy-based fare subsidies. As for the issue of corporatization and privatization of the TRA, the TRLU insisted that the rights of the employees should be protected.
This research also discovered that the negotiation subjects were the TRLU versus the TRA and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Since the privatization of the TRA was involved in the government policies, therefore the Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan were in back of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.
In terms of negotiation strategies and tactics, the labor was expert at competitive strategy while the management responded with competitive and collaborative strategies. The labor tried to remove the power advantage of the management with negotiation tactics, such as coercion, threatening, tough stance, and time pressure. The management conducted tactics of threatening, coercion, placatory, sweetener, and neutral stance. The labor on the one hand forced the management to make a concession by time pressure, on the other hand continuous sought for the supports from the third party to increase their own resources.
|
|---|
