Fallsburg School District and Fallsburg Teachers Association met when they wanted to negotiate on a new contract for the teachers and the goals of FSD. It was definite this was a win-win negotiation where the interests of the two parties were to be taken care of. On meeting for the negotiations, FTA wanted a change in the contract wording, which was viewed by FSD as a viable issue for negotiation. FTA proposed a budget where they reviewed the teachers-student ratio. FSD also presented their goals for negotiation to take care of the interests of all parties involved.
The goals for FSD were divided into various sections. This was supposed to help in negotiating for mutual interests between the two parties. They were presented after FTA had presented the proposed budget. The issues of concern presented by FSD were classified into economic and non-economic issues. The economic issues included cost of living, compensation goals while no-economic issues included layoff procedure or performance systems, leaves of absence, sick leave, teacher’s rights, terms of agreement and hugging policy. The issues were supposed to be negotiated so that the relations between the teachers association and FSD could be improved to the interests of both.
Each of the issues was discussed at length to come up with the terms that would be agreeable between FSD and FTA. The negotiations concluded that when the board considers a layoff, it must notify the president of the association. The board must also clarify the reason why they considered a layoff. There was also a negotiation on the rights of teachers. It was based on the grades of student, criticism in front of students, just cause and their personal lives. This would help in improving the working relations between the two parties. The two bodies also discussed on the workdays. The length of a workday would not exceed eight hours. The teachers also expected to be allocated some time to prepare for their lessons. This would mainly affect senior high and middle class teachers. They were also given a right of supervision over the students during class time, school trips and when within the school compound.
Having heard the proposed contract wording, FTA was given a chance by FSD to review their proposed budget and present it for negotiation. On the other hand, FSD had their goals, which they wanted to discuss with FTA for the mutual benefit of both parties. This shows that the two parties were ready to sacrifice where necessary. This has been indicated by the fact that FSD showed concern and viability of the issues raised in the contract wording by FTA. In addition, FSD helped FTA in coming up with the proposed budget. For example, FSD suggested that to solve the budget issue, an eight period schedule would work better. This was crucial because it helped FTA in coming up with a budget.
In the second meeting of the negotiations, FSD asked for the proposed budget for consideration. This led to discovery that the student-teacher ratio set in the budget was too high. This led to an alternative method by FTA, which would help in calculating the student-teacher ratio, which was dependent on the eight-period schedule. FSD and FTA run through the contract changes that both parties had proposed for deliberation. In the deliberations, FSD was able to convince FTA to return the superintendent to where they had removed him. FSD also negotiated their goals where some never ended as they had expected. For example, the eighth period schedule was rejected by the teachers. This led to coming up with an alternative method which helped in balancing the budget. However, the teacher- student ratio was raised but FSD had to accept it. This indicates the integrative negotiations where it is a win-win situation. Both parties have to sacrifice in order to come up with a conclusion that puts the interests of both parties into consideration.