<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE Publisher PUBLIC "-//MetaPress//DTD MetaPress 2.0//EN" "http://public.metapress.com/dtd/MPRESS/MetaPressv2.dtd">
<Publisher>
	<PublisherInfo>
		<PublisherName>Baywood Publishing Company</PublisherName>
	</PublisherInfo>
	<Journal>
		<JournalInfo JournalType="Journals">
			<JournalPrintISSN>2167-7816</JournalPrintISSN>
			<JournalElectronicISSN>2167-7824</JournalElectronicISSN>
			<JournalTitle>Journal of Collective Negotiations (formerly Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector)</JournalTitle>
			<JournalCode>BWCN</JournalCode>
			<JournalID>300318</JournalID>
			<JournalURL>http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=journal&amp;id=300318</JournalURL>
		</JournalInfo>
		<Volume>
			<VolumeInfo>
				<VolumeNumber>17</VolumeNumber>
			</VolumeInfo>
			<Issue>
				<IssueInfo IssueType="Regular">
					<IssueNumberBegin>3</IssueNumberBegin>
					<IssueNumberEnd>3</IssueNumberEnd>
					<IssueSupplement>0</IssueSupplement>
					<IssuePartStart>0</IssuePartStart>
					<IssuePartEnd>0</IssuePartEnd>
					<IssueSequence>000017000319880901</IssueSequence>
					<IssuePublicationDate>
						<CoverDate Year="1988" Month="9" Day="1"/>
						<CoverDisplay>Number 3/1988</CoverDisplay>
					</IssuePublicationDate>
					<IssueID>5GNFYAW6L72E</IssueID>
					<IssueURL>http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=issue&amp;id=5GNFYAW6L72E</IssueURL>
				</IssueInfo>
				<Article ArticleType="Original">
					<ArticleInfo Free="No" ESM="No">
						<ArticleDOI>10.2190/81VL-0FX8-1AK7-PLUQ</ArticleDOI>
						<ArticlePII>81VL0FX81AK7PLUQ</ArticlePII>
						<ArticleSequenceNumber>0</ArticleSequenceNumber>
						<ArticleTitle Language="En">PUBLIC SECTOR INTEREST ARBITRATION: AN EXAMINATION OF RELEVANT NORMATIVE PREMISES AND A TEST OF UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS</ArticleTitle>
						<ArticleFirstPage/>
						<ArticleLastPage/>
						<ArticleHistory>
							<RegistrationDate>20020509</RegistrationDate>
							<ReceivedDate>20020509</ReceivedDate>
							<Accepted>20020509</Accepted>
							<OnlineDate>20020509</OnlineDate>
						</ArticleHistory>
						<FullTextURL>http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&amp;id=81VL0FX81AK7PLUQ</FullTextURL>
						<Composite>3</Composite>
					</ArticleInfo>
					<ArticleHeader>
						<AuthorGroup>
							<Author>
								<GivenName>M. SUSAN RUESCHHOFF</GivenName>
								<Initials/>
								<FamilyName/>
								<Degrees/>
								<Roles/>
							</Author>
						</AuthorGroup>
						<Abstract Language="En">There are a number of arguments for and against public sector interest arbitration (PSIA) as an effective means of resolving impasse. However, the arguments are based on untested assumptions. Testing these assumptions is an important step in assessing the value of PSIA. This study identified four of these assumptions and surveyed four interest groups to determine their levels and patterns of acceptance of these assumptions as they apply to six categories of public employees. It was found that there is general acceptance of the premises by the interest groups, and that level of acceptance varies with group membership in discernable patterns. The findings of this study provide a foundation for further assessing the value of PSIA.</Abstract>
					</ArticleHeader>
				</Article>
			</Issue>
		</Volume>
	</Journal>
</Publisher>
