Abstract
Many labor relations practitioners and theorists believe that final-offer arbitration by a neutral third party encourages union and management officials to resolve their bargaining differences. However, decision scientists have found that there is no median convergence between the parties. Using professional baseball in our model, we test the assumption that major league owners tend to maximize expected monetary value (EMV), finding that claims of divergence are invalidated in dispute management contexts where there is a broad range of other motivations for settling. Decision models offer even further support for the use of final-offer arbitration in such settings.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 238-247 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Industrial Relations |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 3 1993 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
Keywords
- industrial big data
- Labor arbitration
- Labor disputes
- Proactive Monitoring
- Sports arbitration baseball
Disciplines
- Economics
- Statistics and Probability
- Business Administration, Management, and Operations
- Law
- Public Relations and Advertising
- Labor Economics
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Convergence or Divergence in Final-Offer Arbitration in Professional Baseball'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS