The authors investigate whether negotiated settlements differ from arbitrated ones under final-offer arbitration. Examining the salaries of all major league baseball players eligible to participate in final-offer arbitration between 1986 and 1991, they find that arbitration awards won by players are higher and those won by management are lower than negotiated settlements for players of comparable value. This evidence suggests that arbitrated settlements are of "low quality" relative to negotiated ones, in the sense that they tend to fall outside the bounds of potential negotiated settlements. Another implication of these findings, however, is that the bargaining agents retain substantial freedom to negotiate salaries that are not determined solely by arbitrator preferences. (Abstract courtesy JSTOR.)
Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Publisher Info
Article provided by ILR Review, ILR School, Cornell University in its journal ILR Review.
Volume (Year): 46 (1993) Issue (Month): 3 (April) Pages: 548-559 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Jami Carlacio).
Related research
Keywords:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)