Some of my readers asked me to write something elaborate on negotiations between the managements and the unions. This is a topic which can’t be given a set pro forma containing advices like ‘do it’ and ‘don’t’ do it. Every thing depends on the individual issue –it’s merits and demerits. Stories and situations can’t be pre conceived on a notional basis, they are actually to be taken up the way they so emerge. In generality, volumes can be written on this topic, but in practical terms the specifics have to be provided as requisite narratives forming necessary feed back on a particular situation that generated the very issue so involved. One thing is of course very clear that both the parties –the management representatives and representatives from the side of the union concerned, have to be fully equipped with a logically trusted reasoning while putting forth their view points in course of talks. The party which lacks it is bound to flop in negotiations with a total nullity as a result. Any kind of prejudice on the part of any party is detrimental to the very result of the discussions. There are two types of prejudices –one on the part of the management where they suffer from the ego of their power, authority and resources, and the other one on the part of the union where they have enormous man power in the shape of work force behind them always prepared to launch any kind of a movement in support of their demands. Who has what strength at their command is a factor to be applied only when the talks fail, but the talks should not fail should be the point of approach for both the sides, as if talks succeed any action or movement is out of question. And to ensure that the talks are a success, the parties concerned must adhere to reasoning and logic based discussion instead of behaving in a free styled manner.