Distributive and interrogative bargain
The Interrogative Approach is a system where agreements satisfy the interests of both parties. It aims at creating options that are good enough to serve both parties to their satisfaction. It involves brainstorming that leads to the discovery of common grounds and mutual benefits. On the other hand, distributive bargaining involves one party considering its interests as being in a direct conflict with other parties’ interests. One side expects to maximize its benefits at the expense of the other party. Labor negotiators use distributive bargaining because they always want to serve their interests first before serving the interests of their employees. They find this system easy to use because employees have no option other than following what they tell them. Distributive bargaining hides the interests and details of one party from the other because of the existence of minimal interactions.
The interrogative approach is the best for holding negotiations because it involves sharing interests and information that aim at maximizing the benefits of both parties. This interrogative approach takes into account both the long-term relationship between the parties and co-existence. It involves the use of interest-based bargaining concepts in negotiations, which result in brainstorming about possible solutions to the conflicts. The company experiences tremendous growth and expansion because both parties benefit. However, it is difficult for unions to adopt this change because it requires each of the parties to compromise their stands, yet they find it difficult to compromise. I would recommend that parties willing to make this switch put aside their individual interests and concentrate on the benefits they will get from the switch.
Briefs by HR to the new CEO on strike replacements
The new CEO is supposed to be aware of the circumstances that led to the strike in order to make necessary changes for the sake of avoiding such strikes in the future. He or she should note the type of strike that occurred and all the demands of the workers. The CEO should also know whether the replacements are permanent or temporary. Furthermore, he or she should inform the replacements that strikes are illegal, and that arbitration is the best method of airing their grievances. At the same time, he or she should specify the penalty that accompanies strikes and serve them with state strike laws to remind them of the procedure and grounds that guarantee the replacement of workers.
Seniority in employment
Seniority in a company mostly relates to the commitment to achieve the company’s goals. Managers, usually, sack new hardworking employees and spare senior employees who do little to help the company. Most senior staffs in the private and public sectors are not interested in learning new ideas. They remain in the companies for many years because they have good work relations with the managers. These relations help them continue working at the expense of junior employees. They allocate much work to the junior employees, and the company protects their positions. Managers believe that senior staffs are good at improving the efficiency of their companies because they know everything about them.
In case of failure, the junior employees are the ones who suffer because the senior employees are immune to retrenchment. The same problem recurs because the management is not aware of its mistakes.
Unions give retrenchment immunity to their members for the purpose of making them work without feeling insecure. However, immunity makes them lack seriousness in their duties. Eventually, the company may experience low returns and stagnation. Unions must convince the management to consider the interest of all the employees in their decisions. However, it is hard to reach a balance because each party believes that its interests are better than the other party’s interests. Therefore, each party must soften its stand and accept a less appealing agreement.
Legal contracting
A legally enforced contract provides a predictable working environment for the employees. Employment contracts give workers immunity to unplanned replacements. However, such provisions are a major setback to the employers since they cannot replace workers before the expiry of their employment terms. Due to the restrictions the unions impose on the employers, many people blame them for the rampant underemployment. Their demand for higher salaries makes companies employ few people. Lastly, the legal contracting of workers who belong to unions prevents companies from favorably competing with other companies that provide the same goods and services. Such employees are immune to layoffs and require more money compared to other employees. Therefore, this model is not suitable for companies in the 21st because they need to be competitive.
Labor-management partnerships
Employers and employees are likely to oppose these partnerships because they are expensive to maintain. They always depend on both the employers and workers for funds. Union leaders, on the other hand, are likely to oppose them because they curtail their powers. It is very difficult for them to fight for their clients’ rights when they are in partnership with employers. In general, the operation of such partnerships requires each stakeholder to compromise their demands for the benefit of every party. Therefore, none of them will be satisfied with the outcomes of the partnership.
Maintaining profits after a 10% price cut
I will consider the 10% request in my price cut because the automaker is the most loyal customer to my company. I will advise the union to talk to their clients about the 10% cut for the purpose of reducing my losses. Brainstorming will be an excellent tool for dealing with the labor unrest likely to occur after the reduction of the employees’ salary. However, it is better to increase production rates by slightly increasing the number of working hours than by reducing wages. The union should only play a persuasive role instead of inciting the employees. The win-win strategy will help me prevent the occurrence of a rebellion.
Effects of globalization on U.S. managers
Globalization exposes the managers, union leaders, and employees to conditions in different countries. This exposure causes problems because it shows the stakeholders both better and worse conditions in other countries. Managers stop listening to their employees due to the realization that their conditions are better than those in many other countries. On the other hand, workers and union leaders become tougher than before since they learn better ways of agitating for their clients’ rights. They prefer picking elements of aggression to other aspects.
Labor laws do not need to change because of what happens in other countries. Countries have different needs, and the difference in their labor laws reflect their different needs.
Labor relations in the U.S.A. and Japan
In the US, contract negotiations take place at the industrial level and the employees have minimal authority at their workplaces. This practice is different from what Japanese unions do. The Japanese use three basic industrial relations: permanent employment, promotions, and enterprise unionism. The three relations form an enterprise that is responsible for collective bargaining and settlement of disputes. In the US, there is rampant industrial unrest since the relationship between the employees and their managers is not good.
Labor laws in Japan exclude supervisory personnel from being union members. In addition, one out of six Japanese company directors must have been a union leader. Therefore, the directors are aware of what they need to do. The situation in the US is different. The directors only depend on their clients’ experiences. Furthermore, administrators in Japanese companies earn very little money. However, they are more loyal to their companies compared to their counterparts in the US. Nonetheless, the employees in both countries join unions to protect their fundamental rights.
Labor relations in France and U.S.A
Both the US and France have trade unions. However, the unions in France have communist ideologies and are politically controlled as opposed to the ones in the US. More so, the unions in America lay emphasis on businesses while those in France have distinct political ideologies. Contrary to the unions in France, unions in the US are free to participate in strikes. Nonetheless, both types of unions must collectively bargain for the welfare of workers in organizations.
Causes and Effects of Adversarialism
Adversarialism is competition for power. It occurs whenever unions compete for superiority against each other rather than working together. This situation creates a rivalry between the unions, which significantly affects negotiations. Advesarialism should not be blamed on legislation and labor laws because they only allow workers to join unions. The unions are the ones responsible for adversarial because they become antagonistic to each other rather than working together for the sake of all employees. Companies also contribute to this problem because they neglect their employees’ fundamental rights. They overwork them and pay them wages that are not commensurate with their jobs, leading to an interest in joining unions. Worse still, they do not listen to the workers’ representatives within their companies. They should have limited employees to specific unions to reduce the likelihood of unions fighting for similar issues.