Reflection Paper on Union-Management Case

Gina Blair and Daniel Trent cooperate and collaborate to achieve a common objective throughout their negotiation. A cooperative negotiation style is demonstrated as they combine their points of view regarding their clients concerns with outcomes to effectively solve the issues raised. The main focus of the negotiation is to reach an agreement rather than a continuous dispute. Accordingly, the conflicting objectives were resolved by compromises and solutions but forward by both Gina and Daniel. The negotiation style used between Gina and Daniel is described as principled negotiation where both parties jointly attack the problems arising to achieve a compromise.

Case 5-3, "Did the Company Violate....?", p. 232; and Case 5-5, "Bulletin Board Use", p. 236. Answer the questions at the end of each case in typewritten format, 3 - 5 pages.

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

Our team approached this negotiation case in a very efficient way. Each of us had a very clearly job assignment. Two people took care of the calculation while the other two people were responsible for the negotiation. Thus we quickly built up a model and provided several options to our counterparts with different terms but same net value of the final bargaining agreement to our team.

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.

Negotiations are a part of daily life whether we are aware of them occurring or not. In everything that we do there are preferred end results and the end results are likely to affect more than one person. The goal in this however, is to ensure that all parties are equally benefited from the actions and reactions that occur to create that end result. While some dealings are done in a more subtle manner without a great deal of negotiation per say there are other situations that would warrant more vocalized mutually acceptable compromises. The purpose of this paper will be to effectively explain a situation of which required negotiation on the part of both parties that almost all of us have endured and that would be the process of buying a

Fontaine's or Gaudin's had good bargaining techniques. In my opinion these employees did not have enough time on the job, experience or in the business Their preparation for negotiations with Relient was inadequate. Adequate preparation should include careful study of strengths and weakness of both side along with the study of the need of the other party and ways to satisfy those needs. Every time that Fontaine's and Gaudin's met with Relient they should of tried to aim high to successfully get a good

Summary: This was a multiparty negotiation, which involved 6 players all with very different negotiation styles. It was an exercise in which teams easily form a coalition. There were concessions about the value added each team would bring to the “table”, and my team in a situation of power saw how negatively the other teams reacted in name of fairness and how important was to share the pie.

a) The two negotiators in the film, Bob White and Rod Andrew, have specific and hard positions. It is easy to identify that neither of them is willing to change or modify their position. In the case of Bob White, as the union representative, his position is to achieve a raise of 3% in hourly wages for the line workers. For Rod Andrews, the GM negotiator, his position is to make the union representatives understand that GM’s profitability is fragile and for that reason it is not possible to give line workers a raise in hourly wages.

1. How did you plan for the negotiation? Explain how you decided on a strategy?

The negotiation between Joe and Leigh had elements of distributive bargaining, but their relationship and the outcome of the negotiation were important to both parties, thus, this negotiation also had collaborative bargaining characteristics (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2010). When using this strategy, the objective is to maximize your outcome on the substantive issues while enhancing the quality of the relationship with the other party (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2011). In a job offer negotiation between two familiar parties, it is important to find a mutually satisfying solution to also enhance business performance.

Consistent with our bargaining strategy, we would also like to work on building a trusting relationship with management in order to get the most out of integrative bargaining. We can do this over the course of the next several months by holding meetings with them to gauge where their interests lay. Through attitudinal bargaining we can lay the ground work for open and transparent dialogue about our objectives. These bonds increase the likelihood that integrative bargaining will succeed and reduce the likelihood of an

Simply put resting at a conclusion after a negotiation may not necessarily be the ideal outcome unless cooperative is achieved by both parties. Bargaining in general could involve parents, friends, teachers, spouses, employers, and so on (Anderson, 2013). Likewise companies also negotiation contracts with one another or individuals involved within the companies.

Getting to YES, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In is an excellent book that discusses the best methods of negotiation. The book is divided into three sections that include defining the problem, the method to solve it, and possible scenarios that may arise when using these methods. Each section is broken down into a series of chapters that is simple to navigate and outlines each of the ideas in a way that is easy for any reader to comprehend. There are also several real life explanations for each issue that make the concepts easier to apply and understand. These ideas are reflective of a method developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project called “principled negotiation”. This method combines the two ideas of soft and hard negotiation

1) Was this a Distributive or Integrative negotiation?- was it the optimum approach and why or why not.