Negotiation Strategies Essay

Throughout the world, most countries hold up chosen to allow employers to lay employees only for unsloped cause. The employer must bear distinguish or an argument that supports the nonion to dismiss the employee. This method en incontestables that an individual is laid-off for rock-steady cause and prevents misunderstanding between the employer and employee. In the United States, the tail for termination of employees differs greatly. Employment-at-will is a term that means that an employer tail terminate an employee at any eon for any agreement or for no reason without occurring legal indebtedness (St wholeness, 2007).In the same respect, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences. The purpose of this paper is to present scenarios that question the legality and exceptions of the employment-at-will doctrine and to confuse opinions on how to handle the scenarios. dialog strategies come from understanding the n egotiation process and whaping how opposites consider and have it. The person negotiating should watch out for tricks another may use to change over he/she that they are wrong.The best and most valued negotiation scheme is to first identify the whats wrong problem and what the competition is requiring. For example, Tameka is a new employee at an accounting firm that is unable to learn and expend basic computer applications. The computer applications are mandatory to the job responsibilities outlined for Tameka. She makes remarks implying that she is not appreciated and is a good worker, regardless of her ability to roll in the hay the tasks. Skills, competence, and ability to perform a job are a demand in the workplace.In an accounting firm, a simple mis plight can be detrimental. It appears that Tameka exaggerated her abilities and was intentionally misleading upon being hired which exhibits a lack of veracity. This observation alone provides attention with just cause to dismiss her. However, there are steps that can be taken to right on assess this situation. This is where the negotiation process kicks in. The first step would be to gear the employee. The version indicates that Tameka has been effrontery months of training, and she is fluid incapable of end tasks.I would be current to enrolment the training sessions that were offered to Tameka, and I would record her performance in each one. I would make Tameka peculiarity off and clarify that she be each training session to prevent verbal implications. later on Tamekas bombarded attempt at training, I would compose a established document outlining my concerns about her performance. This document would serve as a remonstrate withing for termination. I would give her two weeks to show improvement, even though she has already had the luck to do so. This document would overthrow any risk or liability to the company.If two weeks have passed and Tameka has shown no improvement, she will be terminated. Tameka may strive to combat by using the implied stipulation of good faith and just dealing exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. This exception usually involves a discharged employee who contends that the employer has indicated in various ways that the employee has job security and will be tough fairly (Smith, 1985). When Tameka indicated that she was a good worker who felt she was not appreciated, it unsex the grounds for accusations of good faith and fair dealing.Tameka would not be victorious if she filed charges because she was not honest about her credentials. She led the employer to believe 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 study behavioral issues. As the executive program, I tried to address the issues but Tameka retaliated that she is cognizant of the exceptions to the emplo yment-at-will doctrine and wrongful discharge in violation of general indemnity.The first step to rectifying this situation is to review the employee code of conduct handbook. I would transgress to make sure the companys late policy and nada tolerance for inappropriate behavior are duly noted. Then, I would give a copy to Tameka to read and sign clarifying that she has read and agrees to the rules. After she has signed the rules and regulations, I would have 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 buckram document to serve as a final warning to Tameka in front termination occurs. If the behavior continues, she will be terminated. Her termination would be establish on her unwillingness to follow company rules, not respecting and treating her co-workers fairly, and not run into performance expectations. Tameka may try to retaliate by claiming wrongful discharge in violation of public policy , which is another exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.Cases, using the public policy exception, protects 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 punishable 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 baffle to company policies, and even after corrective coaching she still do no attempts at improvement.Tamekas signature on the rules and regulations sheet, the one-on-one session, and time given for improvement would reduce any liability on my part. The bread and butter I have for the situation would stand. In scenario three, Tameka takes off from work without management consent to observe a phantasmal holiday. Coincidentally, the day occurs du ring a engage period for the company. Prior 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 resistance. 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 letting management know if she will not be able to make work. I would see her that the company does not discriminate against employees regardless of their religious affiliation. I would ship out a correspondence to all employees restating what I told Tameka to be sure everyone has an understanding 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 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically forbids dissimilitude on the basis of religion for employment purposes, except when the employer is a religious institution , 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 dealings Act (NLRA) protects the rights of employees to form or join a union, and prohibits employers from interfering, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise 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 relationship. The reading refers to the relationship as consensual which means both parties agreed to the relationship. 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 interview both employees to get a particular account of the relationship and have them both 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 argue under the exception of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They may feel it is unfair that they have to end their relationship or that they were not companionshipable.However, both parties had full 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 comp any 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 allegiance 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 directly related to the employee and employers understanding of company rules and regulations. The strategicalal factor is based on identifying an organizations key stakeholders. It is called the strategic factor because the strategies and measures developed via it are based on the factors relevant to an organizations key stakeholders.