Question

A criticism of public-sector interest arbitration is that it:

a. Has no finality.
b. Has a "narcotic effect" on the parties.
c. Ends with a recommendation only but is not binding.
d. Should be more formalized.
e. Can go on almost indefinitely.

Answer 1

The criticism that public-sector interest arbitration "has a 'narcotic effect' on the parties," refers to the reliance on arbitration to solve disputes instead of direct negotiation, leading to potential costs and loss of negotiation skills.

Step-by-step explanation:

A criticism of public-sector interest arbitration is that it "has a 'narcotic effect' on the parties." This term suggests that parties may become overly reliant on arbitration to resolve disputes rather than working proactively to negotiate solutions. This criticism addresses the tendency of interest arbitration to be used as a default mechanism, potentially inhibiting the parties' incentives to reach an agreement through direct negotiation and increasing dependency on arbitrators to make decisions that should, ideally, be agreed upon by the parties involved.

Moreover, this dependency can lead to a series of additional challenges, such as the process potentially becoming costly and time-consuming. Frequent reliance on arbitration might also detract from parties developing robust negotiation skills, as they may anticipate the arbitrator to resolve disputes instead.