Mollie H. Bowers received her Ph.D. degree in collective bargaining and comparative labor relations from Cornell University. She has been a researcher and teaching assistant at Cornell University, a labor relations specialist with the U.S. Department of Labor, a research consultant to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and is currently an Assistant Professor of Labor Relations in the College of Business and Management at the University of Maryland, College Park. David M. Cohen is a graduate of the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. He is a candidate for the degree of Juris Doctor from the National Law Center of the George Washington University. He is employed in the Public Safety Labor Center of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Final and binding interest arbitration is one of the most widely discussed issues in contemporary labor relations. Twenty public sector jurisdictions have enacted legislation requiring arbitration of contract disputes involving some or all employees. Much of this legislation has been patterned after a few "model" statutes. It is our impression that much of a legislator's time is spent reviewing the competing testimony of interest groups lobbying for or against arbitration legislation per se. The literature contains no thorough analysis of system design to provide practical guidelines for drafting arbitration legislation. Consequently, both legislators and lobbyists may have limited information to make informed choices in formulating arbitration provisions.