The bargaining committee had to negotiate with the membership to ratify the contract, and even within the negotiating committee there were differences between members. Collective bargaining seems to have an image of distributive bargaining where there is a fixed amount that has to be distributed between employer and employees. In this situation, if one side wins, the other side loses. This definitely does not promote freedom or autonomy of either the employer or employee. It would be very difficult to reach a resolution to an issue because both sides think if they lose the other wins - and neither side wants to lose.
Integrative bargaining occurs when parties face a common problem.
This would appear to be a process that would maintain the freedom and autonomy of the participants and a resolution would easily be reached. Attitudinal structuring is not a good way to negotiate. The bulk of the negotiating time is spent on one side trying to convince the other side they are cooperating and trustworthy and if they would only agree, issues would be solved quickly and fairly. This outcome could be good or bad, but either way, it s a risky negotiating tool to use. Final Offer was a good example of intraorganizational bargaining .