This paper highlights some of the similarities and differences in the labor-management experiences of Boston University (Massachusetts), Temple University (Pennsylvania), the University of Bridgeport (Connecticut), and Yeshiva University (New York) to determine which may represent failures and which do not. In comparing the Yeshiva and Boston University cases, it is argued that collective bargaining did not fail. Rather these cases point to the need for changes in the National Labor Relations Act as it applies to union organizing drives and unit determinations. It is suggested, however, that the Temple University case did represent a failure of collective bargaining when one side clearly misused the bargaining process by knowingly hurting bystanders who were not part of the negotiations in order to achieve its ends. Finally, it is argued that the University of Bridgeport case, more than any of the others, represents a tragic failure of collective bargaining by using devices to cut costs in the face of a severe financial crisis which effectively blocked members of the faculty association from providing meaningful input to help cope with the particular crisis. The paper concludes with the observation that today's labor laws discourage mature dialogue between management and labor and foster destructive adversarial relationships. (Contains 12 references.) (GLR)