s and fund productivity deals, they have gained increases in productivity, worker flexibility and industrial harmony. In the negotiation of these 'win-win' deals, one added bonus is the extension of trust. Where both parties to the negotiation stand to gain, communications between them tend to be more open than would occur in an adversarial situation. If agreements are made under good faith, both parties to the negotiation may feel a moral obligation to follow the agreement. This can cause dual loyalties in staff, that is loyalty to both the Union and the company. This can become a problem should the good relationship between management and unions break down. (Fox 1985). I must say that although I believe that collective bargaining's origins lie mainly in an economic arena, had it been a social invention it would have been a good one. In an Irish context, where the prevailing ideology and public opinion has allowed collective bargaining to flourish, its social impact, while not as great as some would have hoped, has been for the better. When collective bargaining addresses a range of issues which are inter-related, and addresses the interactions between them, the benefits can be great. But when collective bargaining focuses on one issue, without regard for its effects on other issues that the effects can be disastrous, as seen in the case of the national wage agreements.. Collective bargaining is not however, and never will be, a revolutionary force. As Fox wrote in 1985: "Collective bargaining... emerges as a process through which employee collectives aspire, not to transform their work situation, but to bend it somewhat in their favour" (Fox, 1985;153) In conclusion then, while I believe that collective bargaining has many good social influences, it cannot hope to change society in any dramatic way....
