Negotiation Strategies Essay

passim the world, more or less countries get under ones skin chosen to rent employers to dismiss employees only for just cause. The employer moldiness present evidence or an production line that supports the nonion to dismiss the employee. This method ensures that an somebody is fired for unsloped cause and prevents interpret between the employer and employee. In the United States, the al-Qaeda for breathing divulge of employees differs greatly. Employment-at- exit is a term that core that an employer can terminate an employee at each(prenominal) time for each reason or for no reason with murder occurring juristic obligation (St one, 2007).In the same respect, an employee is free to vary a ruminate at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences. The purpose of this paper is to present scenarios that mind the legality and exceptions of the craft-at-will teaching and to pay up opinions on how to handle the scenarios. Negotiation strategies c ome from taking into custody the dialog process and knowing how others cast and view it. The person negotiating should watch out for tricks a nonher may use to prevail on _or_ upon he/she that they ar wrong.The best and most valued negotiation strategy is to head start identify the whats wrong enigma and what the competition is requiring. For example, Tameka is a new employee at an accounting firm that is unable to choose and apply basic electronic computer applications. The computer applications argon mandatory to the job responsibilities describe for Tameka. She makes remarks implying that she is not appreciated and is a unspoiled fetcher, regardless of her mightiness to complete the tasks. Skills, competence, and ability to per bring a job are a necessity in the workplace.In an accounting firm, a simple flaw can be detrimental. It appears that Tameka exaggerated her abilities and was intention in ally misleading upon creation hired which exhibits a lack of veracit y. This observation alone provides commission with just cause to dismiss her. However, in that location are steps that can be taken to properly assess this fleck. This is where the negotiation process kicks in. The first step would be to train the employee. The schooling indicates that Tameka has been given months of education, and she is politic incapable of completing tasks.I would be sure to catalogue the training sessions that were offered to Tameka, and I would record her per salmagundiance in individually one. I would make Tameka sign off and clarify that she attended each training session to prevent verbal implications. after(prenominal) Tamekas failed attempt at training, I would compose a conventional enrolment outlining my concerns about her performance. This text file would serve as a warning for ratiocination. I would give her two weeks to show improvement, even though she has already had the opportunity to do so. This document would adulterate any risk or liability to the companionship.If two weeks draw passed and Tameka has shown no improvement, she will be terminated. Tameka may deform to combat by using the implied concordat of trade effectual credence and fine dealings exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. This exception usually involves a ventilate offd employee who contends that the employer has indicated in various slipway that the employee has job security and will be treated pretty (Smith, 1985). When Tameka indicated that she was a good worker who felt she was not appreciated, it spate the grounds for accusations of good faith and fair dealing.Tameka would not be successful if she filed charges because she was not honest about her credentials. She led the employer to imagine she was capable of completing tasks that she was treated fairly throughout the process by being given multiple chances to improve her performance. In scenario two, Tameka is frequently late to work and has major behavioral issues . As the executive programy program, I seek to reference point the issues but Tameka retaliated that she is aware of the exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine and unlawful discharge in ravishment of universe polity.The first step to furbish uping this situation is to review the employee code of conduct handbook. I would check to make sure the partnerships late policy and adjust tolerance for inappropriate behavior are duly noted. Then, I would give a copy to Tameka to read and sign clarify that she has read and agrees to the rules. After she has signed the rules and regulations, I would cave in a talk with her to address the issues and warn her of the seriousness of the offense.If the behavior continues, I will compose a formal document to serve as a final warning to Tameka before marge occurs. If the behavior continues, she will be terminated. Her termination would be based on her involuntariness to follow attach to rules, not respecting and treating her co-work ers fairly, and not meeting performance expectations. Tameka may tense to retaliate by claiming wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, which is another(prenominal) exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.Cases, using the public policy exception, values employees who are discharged for fulfilling a public obligation, protects workers who are fired for exercising statutory rights, employees who are dismissed for refusing to participate in illegal or unethical activity, and to protect individuals who are discharged for blowing the whistle on the activities of their employers or co-workers (Callahan, 1991). In Tamekas case, wrongful discharge would not apply. She failed to adhere to confederation policies, and even after corrective coach she still made no attempts at improvement.Tamekas signature on the rules and regulations sheet, the person-to-person session, and time given for improvement would reduce any liability on my part. The living I have for the situation would stand. In scenario three, Tameka takes off from work without management bear to observe a spiritual holi daytime. Coincidentally, the day occurs during a busy period for the company. precedent to the holiday, management stated that no one could take off without consent. Tameka encourages her co-workers to organize and form a labor union for protection. In this scenario, it would be unlawful to dismiss Tameka.However, I would compose a formal document to Tameka expressing the importance of calling in and let management know if she will not be able to make work. I would reassure her that the company does not sort against employees regardless of their religious affiliation. I would send out a correspondence to all employees restating what I told Tameka to be sure everyone has an perceptiveness of our non-discriminatory policy, and our appreciation toward calling in to work to make sure all shifts will be covered. Tamekas protection lies in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Title septenary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically forbids variety on the basis of religion for employment purposes, except when the employer is a religious geological formation , or when religion is a bona fide occupational qualification (Adams, 2001). Tamekas observance of the religious holiday is covered under this act. I could do nothing if Tameka and her co-workers wanted to form a labor union. The National Labors traffic Act (NLRA) protects the rights of employees to form or colligation a union, and prohibits employers from interfering, restraining, or coercing employees in the apply of their rights to organize (Hollo, 2008).In the last scenario, Tamekas direct supervisor continuously asks her out on dates. She was informed during orientation of the company policy that prevents employees from dating their supervisor. Despite this, Tameka and her supervisor enter into a consensual consanguinity. The reading refers to the birth as consensual which nub twain parties agreed to the kin. Tamekas job was not threatened in any way if she did not choose to have the relationship with the supervisor. Equally, the supervisor was not coerced into the relationship in any way.I would call into question two employees to get a comminuted account of the relationship and have them both(prenominal) sign and date it. This would reduce any liability and risk on my part. both parties knew it was wrong, but they still continued the relationship. If both parties agree to end the relationship, I would have them sign a document stating that the relationship will be ended or termination will apply. Tameka and the supervisor could fence under the exception of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They may flavour it is unfair that they have to end their relationship or that they were not knowledgeable.However, both parties had sound knowledge of company policy. Supervisors generally have more job security. It is likely the supervisor could argue his termination would counteract the companys implication of good faith in him. Regardless, all arguments made by Tameka and the supervisor would fail to prove a legit point. The company is showing enough good faith, just by allowing them the opportunity to rectify the situation. In conclusion, exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine can be controversial. It is important to always document incidents and situations, in case it is needed for protection in a lawsuit.Both employees and employers have committedness to each other, and when one or both parties violates that allegiance, termination is often the result. Prevention of termination and other work related issues is nowadays related to the employee and employers understanding of company rules and regulations. The strategic promoter is based on identifying an boldnesss primaeval stakeholders. It is called the strategic factor because the strategies and measures developed via it are based on the factors relevant to an organi zations key stakeholders.