y, MGB has been an extremely successful tool for both union and management. It has improved relationships, production, work environment, and overall job satisfaction. Studies have shown that successful MGB has improved productivity, profitability, customer service, and employee satisfaction (Abbey, 1996, pp 22). On the other hand, when MGB is not successful, relationships become even more distant, trust among opponents further decreases, and more time is wasted. For some, MGB is a significant advancement that will allow the bargaining procedure to keep pace with other organizational advancements such as "work systems, new information technologies, and strategic alliances" (Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al, 2001, pp 1). Others feel it is just a fad that will not be used in industrial relations ten years from now.
             The purpose of this paper is to not only describe in detail the process of MGB but to also provide evidence that suggests MGB works more efficiently in the public sector in comparison to the private sector. In this paper each section will describe the following. The next section will describe how MGB differs from the traditional approach to bargaining. The third section of this paper will give an overview of the actual process of MGB and give examples of processes that have been used in actual cases of MGB. The forth section will illustrate the different benefits and problems MGB can produce. The fifth section will provide survey data on MGB. This section includes data on MGB from both the union and management and gives detailed statistics on different areas of MGB. The sixth section will outline six real-life cases where MGB was the primary method of bargaining. It is no coincidence that all three of the cases that were successful were from the public sector, and all three that were unsuccessful are cases from the private sector. In the seventh and final section, I will conclude with my thoughts on MGB as well as wrap ...