Is Pacific A Quicker Negotiation Process? Essay

To: Boss From: Re: American Dream Analysis Date 12/5/2014 Subject: Local Union P-9 vs Hormel Meat packing Company. Preparation is key when it comes to negotiating an agreement and a prefect example would be the Hormel Company vs the Local Union P-9 workers(meat packing). The Local Union and Hormel Company both were placed at the negotiation table due to wage cut and “unfair treatment” that was conducted by the management team. This disagreement caused the Local Union to rally up members from the meat packing department that influence the workers and workers from other factories to go on strike. During this negotiation both parties made a few mistakes that are costly and time consuming. Hormel Company

This strategy is quite bold and could lead the company to feel that they were not given a chance. In return MCA could have harsh feelings toward the Union and not compromise as easily. The fourth strategy was to only settle issues with unanimous consent from the negotiating committee. The union planned on every person in the committee being at every meeting and they set the rule that everyone had to agree to proceed. This is definitely not reasonable because there may be situations when a member can’t make a meeting. It is also not reasonable to say that everyone must agree. There are times when this is not possible and it should have been planned for. Maybe the union should have had a majority vote or even a 75% vote minimum.

Pacific was not willing to walk away from Relient which I felt they had unreasonable request. .

There were three primary changes that I would make if given the opportunity to redo this negotiation. First, I would more immediately suggest that a contingent contract be used to address the quality of product vs. long-term contract debate. In hindsight, it could have been very efficient to propose an agreement that allowed for Rawmat’s longer term deal while also recognizing Myti-Pet’s desire for higher quality. By not initially considering a contingency contract, our group fell into the trap discussed in Bazerman and Gillespie (1999). We simply did not allow ourselves to consider a contingency contract, and when the idea was first proposed we initially felt uncomfortable with the concept. In hindsight, this reaction was highly unproductive.

Power in the negotiations was very important. People have power when they have “the ability to bring about outcomes they desire” or “the ability to get things done the way they want them to be done” (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011). Both Greystar and Carmel had informational power. They had the expertise of two very tenured

There was breach of faith by withholding information and not being upfront during the communication process between different parties. This situation was also caused by cultural differences like relationship building, “Guanxi”, emphasis on personal relationships versus factual-based legalistic approach, completely varied styles of doing business, and also

A draft of a top-secret piece of interstate agreement on the Trans- Pacific Partnership leaked online causing a hot status to its discussion. Trans -Pacific Partnership (TPP) - is the largest supra-trade and economic organization, the creation of which is scheduled for completion by the end of 2013. In an agreement on the TPP participating countries, generating more than 40% of global GDP: the U.S., Australia, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, Chile, Vietnam and Peru. China and Russia are not included to this list.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Michael Froman (United States Trade Representative) need to decide whether it is necessary to reduce tariffs to benefit Americans and the economy or keep the tariffs in order to keep certain manufacturing jobs in the United States.

a. Describe the problem that Pacific Oil Company faced as it reopened negotiations with Reliant Chemical Company in early 1985.

The initial defense from warner should have come from the initial agreement, anticipating the Pfizer proposal and leaving no room to Pfizer to legal actions or hostile proposals. In my view, the standstill clause must have been reinforced by not allowing Pfizer any merge proposal even though, the third party proposals

When Anne Burns, an American expatriate, moved to Jordan with her husband to promote female entrepreneurship through the non-profit organization ExportJordan, she had no idea that her American style of communication and negotiation would clash so severely with the Jordanian culture. As she settled into her new office aided by a western educated female employee named Hayat, she quickly ran into a number of minor differences such as men not shaking her hand. Major issues soon started happening, as evidenced by her less than warm welcome by Jafar, a male employee who warned her about her attitude and actions with cryptic phrases and obvious disapproval.

Brewing since 2006, a revolutionary free trade agreement has been held under discussion by twelve of the Pacific Rim countries, including the United States, Chile, and Australia (Friel, Sharon, Gleeson, Thow, Labonte, Stuckler, Kay, and Snowdon 1). This agreement is known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and while it shows potential to be a decisive economic deal, there exist outstanding issues. Of these issues are unjust intellectual rights laws, hindrance of the advancement of affordable medicine, and possible harm with U.S.-China relations. Until issues like these are solved this partnership poses to be a burden and should not be approved.

Since 2010, government and corporate representatives have been meeting, frequently in extreme secrecy, to outline their plans for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a substantial expansion and revision of the original 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement between Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore (Hsieh 368). The new agreement would include at least five other countries (Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam), with the potential for Japan and South Korea to join as well (Office of the United States Trade Representative). The Trans-Pacific Partnership represents the single most important development in the area of economic globalization since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. However, the extreme secrecy with which the agreement is being negotiated has led many to believe that its contents would likely prove unpopular with the general public. Exploring the limited information available via public announcements and leaked documents reveals that current plans for the partnership go well beyond regulating trade relations between nations to include things like onerous copyright and intellectual property restrictions, limitations on national and state-level product safety regulation, environmental standards, and labor organization. In light of these serious problems, it appears that a better way to encourage development and distribute the benefits of free trade across the world would be to open up

Critically discuss Edward Said’s key points/arguments (from Orientalism) and the extent to which these are relevant to the Pacific.

Oranges grown in California, bottles of soy sauce made in Japan, a piece of Cheddar cheese produced in England and Ghee from India… I am in a supermarket, yet, it is hard to guess what country I am in. Globalization in food industries triggered proliferation of imported foods on a worldwide level, particularly in Japan. In 1965, Japan maintained over 70 percent of food self-sufficiency; however, in recent years, it has declined by over 30 percent. At present, 60 percent of Japan’s food supply depends on imported foods ("Improvement for food self-sufficiency"). In 2013, the Abe administration proclaimed the country’s entrance into the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, a worldwide trade agreement with the cardinal objective of the elimination of tariffs on imported products. This free trade agreement involves twelve countries: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, the United States, Viet Nam, Mexico, Canada and New Zealand ("Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations"). The primary motivation behind TPP is to promote economic growth, and the Japanese government expects that Japan could gain 3 trillion Japanese dollars from TPP. However, due to the Influx of imported products, the government calculated that gross farm output would decrease 3 trillion Japanese dollars (Cabinet Secretariat). As a consequence, Japanese agricultural workers are apprehensive that TPP might consolidate the domination of imported food and jeopardize