Clever Caucusing
|
"This article originally appeared in Track Two (Vol. 7 No. 2 April 1998) , a quarterly publication of the Centre for Conflict Resolution and the Media Peace Centre (South Africa)." |
There are often very strong positions and a display of power in labor-management disputes. Management wants to make very clear that they are not going to be controlled or dictated to by the unions, while workers are very clear that they are the means of production. In a democracy there are many policies and guidelines that govern the workplace in terms of the environment and salaries and those give a lot of room for power-play between management and unions. Such negotiations tend, therefore, to be based on bargaining opposing demands rather than on meeting different needs and interests.
What are the challenges and opportunities of such interventions?
The challenge is to help parties perceive the big picture. Often they each see it from their perspective only. Management views the situation from their budget, from a profits perspective. Unions, on the other hand, perceive that there is a never-ending pit of money, that the company makes sufficient money and is simply withholding it when refusing to compensate workers adequately. Workers also argue from a rights perspective. So the challenge is to make the parties shift their perspectives from either a power or a rights-based approach to a needs-based approach, to help them see the situation holistically.
You've mentioned that you used caucusing quite effectively in this intervention. How does, how did, caucusing actually work?
A mediator calls for a caucus when he wants to speak to parties separately. Caucusing is used when parties are not able to move beyond a particular point in the discussion – for instance, if they are focussing only on their own perspective, are too emotional, aren't listening, or are worried about making too many concessions and 'losing face'. By speaking to the parties separately, in caucus, the mediator has the chance to really understand the issues at stake, the parties' respective concerns and any proposals that might be formulating but are inhibited at that point by the negotiating table.
Also, caucusing can help parties deal with dissension within their own ranks. If different messages are coming from a certain group of representatives, they need to work through their differences and come up with a position before any decision is taken. A caucus gives them the space to do so.
When is it appropriate to call for a caucus?
For me, a caucus is needed when there is a particular issue on the table and it is very clear that parties are not listening to each other. Listening can be obstructed by a number of things – primarily, fear, anger or mistrust. Even if people are listening, it does not mean that they necessarily understand one another. They hear one another with different earphones, so their interpretation is completely different. At this point, one can sense that there is no more open discussion, the tension is escalating, accusations and demonising predominate. If you ever want to get a resolution, you have to stop that because it can damage future discussions. One also has to step in before it reaches the point where the parties don't perceive each other as credible partners anymore.
How do you evaluate the timing for going back to plenary?
In the caucus the mediator talks through the issues with the respective parties with the aim of getting an agreement or just a proposal. It can be a substantive proposal outlining what the party is prepared to do, or not do, or it can be a proposal on the process to be followed – any proposal that can positively influence the resolution process.
Do you address the parties in a different manner in the caucus than in the plenary?
I address them differently – I'm very direct within a caucus, I don't watch my p's and q's all the time. In this particular case, I was very direct with management: I asked them if they'd accept their own proposal if they were the other party – and if it was all they could offer. I also sketched scenarios for them to check if they could live with the consequences of a deadlock. With the unions I similarly asked if they believed they were being reasonable.
In a caucus I try very hard to understand where the parties are coming from. I also allow the parties to air their feelings. I give them the space and it shows them that they are being heard. The tension decreases and they are able to challenge again their own needs. Caucusing is very much a process where you get to the heart of the parties, it is an empowering process for them.
When you use caucus as a tool, which pitfalls do you have to be aware of?
It might seem to one party that you are colluding with the other, so you have to make sure not to do anything that could raise their suspicions. You also have to make sure that you don't make false and empty promises. Sometimes we are so keen to get parties back to the table that we give undertakings we can't really deliver on. So one has to be very clear and absolutely sure of what you're going to say when going back. I normally give a short run-down of what I'm going to say. Another risk is that parties feel antagonised during the caucus. The mediator needs to be honest and direct, but at no point should parties feel bulldozed into something they don't really want.
Biography
Comments
| Free subscription to comments on this article | Add Brief Comment |