On January 1, 1978, new procedures became effective to resolve impasses in collective bargaining between Wisconsin's nonuniformed municipal employees and their employers.' Prior to this time, these employees were governed by a more limited statutory process and, in sharp contrast to private sector unionists, they had no legal right to strike. The history of public unions has been brief and rapidly changing, especially in Wisconsin. In 1959, Wisconsin became the first state allowing municipal employees to organize and bargain collectively. 2 Three years later, mediation and factfinding were established5 Throughout the sixties, state employment laws were amended many times.4 Public labor and management groups were progressively given more power to choose their own means for resolving disputes. The 1977 law continued this trend. The new law gave Wisconsin nonuniformed municipal employees a limited strike right previously permitted in only seven other states.5 Most importantly, the law instituted a system of single package, final offer interest arbitration. Interest arbitration is a system for resolving impasses in collective bargaining.8 It is distinguished from grievance arbitration, which is an arbitral system for interpreting the rights of parties under an existing collective agreement." Under single package, final offer interest arbitration, once the parties have bargained and mediated to impasse, they make their "best" final offers to an arbitrator. The arbitrator then must choose the entire contract offered by one side or the other as the binding contract between the parties. The new law favored labor unions; hence, it is not surprising that the drive for the law was labor's. The testimony of both management and labor representatives before the Wisconsin Legislature during the period preceding the passage of the new law reflected the prolabor nature of the bill.8 Both parties' perception of this legislative debate was clear: any legislation giving public sector unions more "process rights" would improve the bargaining position of labor. This article examines attitudes of labor and management after their first year of experience with the new law to determine if attitudes changed after some experience with the new impasse procedures. Part II explains the rationale for an attitude survey and defines major concepts. Part III sets forth statistically significant and important findings. Part IV is an in-depth analysis and interpretation of the findings. Finally, Part V examines some trends which may affect the attitudes of labor and management in future years. Through an analysis of changing political, social, and legal conditions, questions are raised about the assumption that the new "process rights" will continue to benefit labor.
