This week’s case study tells us about Michael Bloomberg and the New York teachers union. It tells us that “In 2010, New York State passed a law that required its school districts to develop more stringent teacher-evaluation systems. Local school districts and their unions were assigned a task for specifying certain criteria of their new systems by January 17, 2013. New York City was going to receive benefits of $250 million in aid and another $200 million in grants if the agreement was reached on a new system, a 4% increase in state aid. However, as the January 17th deadline approached, Bloomberg and New York Teachers’ Union were not even close to reaching an agreement.” Our assignment wants us to design a strategy using a win-win situation for both parties and also to “Identify the four steps of Integrative Negotiation Process, and conduct analysis of how these four steps might help you in designing your negotiation strategy.” I am going to discuss the four steps of Integrative Negotiation and how they might help me in designing my negotiation strategy.” The first step is the compromiser, the one who always wants to split the difference, according to our lecture, this strategy works well when that statement is delivered at an appropriate time. However, the problem comes when the difference is split at the wrong moment and the end result is not a number or outcome that ultimately makes sense for one or both of the parties involved. . This step I will save for last in the negotiations, due to the fact that our case study tells us that “Bloomberg and New York Teachers’ Union were not even close to reaching an agreement” and the deadline almost upon them. We can pretty well see that an extension is needed on the amount of time. Then there is the accommodator, who is likely to have an innate focus on the interests of the party sitting across the negotiating table. They appear as someone saying “How might I further assist you?” We are told in our lecture that that party is well informed on their needs. Unless I am trying to sneak some sort of underhanded agreement in, I do not thing I would use this strategy. If I want to be sneaky and underhanded then maybe this is the perfect strategy, but I do not see any other reason to make everyone think I am trying to get everything the other side wants. Then there is the Collaborator who always seems to love a puzzle. The Collaborator is not necessarily in a rush, and what they are trying to do is put together the deal that others may not see. In doing so, they are looking to collaborate with the two sides in order to assemble a deal that works for both of them. On this strategy I feel I would also pass, the true puzzle here is what the teachers union and the school district have been doing for almost 3 years, that they still are nowhere close to an agreement. In fact if you read (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-17/nyc-schools-may-lose-450-million-as-evaluation-deadline-looms) you will see the so called adults here arguing like children, and it suggest that Mayor Bloomberg rejected the agreement on the expiration date that both sides had already agreed to. I feel that maybe if the teachers union and Mayor Bloomberg had allowed the cities citizens to come in, listen to the negotiations, and took part in them, since it was the cities children that would be effected either way, then maybe the city would have gotten the money instead of losing it over such silly, stupid, mess.
Last but no less an effective negotiator is the avoider, who believe that negotiation is a form of conflict. Our lecture states that generally they choose their negotiation battles very carefully, which is a very good thing. I agree with this strategy a lot. I would have truly enjoyed being the negotiator here using this strategy provided the children and their parents brought me in.
Now your asking for a win, win negotiation strategy, where both sides win. I think I would have tried it this way, first get a list from both the mayor and the teachers union. I would have also considered bringing in a professional mediator or other independent party to help find the wins on both sides and not let either side sit and worry about what they may be losing. But if a decent negotiator had a list from both sides, see if the list had any agreements on it, somethings both sides wanted, that would have been a giant first step.
By bringing in the children’s parents, let them remind the mayor of their power during the next election, and let him know his power is given him by the people, and also let the teachers union see the political strength these folks had, and have the parents talking about going to the state and federal legislators about the unions conduct, this would have taken a lot of the stupid hard headed fighting out of both sides.
By taking these steps, not only would there have been a chance at an agreement, and a chance for both sides to win, the children would have also had a chance at being the big winners in this debate.

REFERENCES: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-17/nyc-schools-may-lose-450-million-as-evaluation-deadline-looms http://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/top-business-negotiations-of-2013-michael-bloomberg-versus-the-new-york-teachers-union/