The author discusses current issues in interest arbitration, including the allocation of increasing health insurance costs, comparability criteria, retiree benefits, he use of med-arb, and the interest arbitration criteria that may pertain under the Employee Free Choice Act, should it become law.

A description of Michigan’s system of legislated, issue-by-issue, final-offer, police- and fire-service arbitration, under which arbitrators are to consider, among other things, “the interest and welfare of the public,” the “stipulations of the parties,” and a m?lange offactors, seemingly aimed at economic issues, such as vacations, holidays, excused time, insurance and pensions, medical andhospitalization benefits …

Professor Gershenfeld’s observations about interest arbitration. He examines the criteria for making monetary decisions, scope problems in the non-monetary areas, the “coercive comparison,” and the role of “public interest” factors (e.g., the effect of a settlement in one part of an organization on other upcoming bargains in the same organization). The “arb-med tool” is discussed.