NEGOTIATION AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Module 1 Forum

As a junior congress person you have been asked to help promote a bill to allow casino gambling in your state. There is much opposition to this bill. Using distributive bargaining, discuss the pros and cons which might arise toward the passing or defeating of this bill.

A 300 word response must be posted to the discussion forum. The post must be submitted by Wednesday at midnight.

Each student is to post a reply to another students’ posting (minimum 200 words) . Attached are the posts by two of my classmates. We need to give a response to their post (Min 200 words)

Introduction: 

The procedures used in distributive bargaining are as such expected to empower the people who to use them to ensure a motivating force for themselves while protecting against the undertakings of an adversary to do in like manner. Fundamentally, the distributive model acknowledges that the basic concern for each get-together is deducing a most extraordinary bit of an answer or, even more appropriately, settlement. Curiously, the distributive fragment is an extent of how much people help a great deal of the open resources. Most trades are not simply fixed-all out conditions; rather, there exist opportunities to enhance joint advantage (Mitchell, 1988).

Routinely, in a Distributive Bargaining situation, one social event appears at the table with a singular game plan and spends the entire get-together reporting the model idea of that course of action and rebuffing any counterproposals from the contrary side. Distributive trades have been depicted as win-lose, conundrum, conflict, and genuine. All were stressed over philosophies of distributive bargaining, and each indicated that practical bargaining requires a check of conceivable response. In the completely distributive bargaining case, in any case, technique is a higher need than joint effort, and authority interests are undeniably overhauled by the making sure about of information from one’s opponent than by sharing information about one’s own central favourable circumstances (Bruce, 2020).

Conclusion: 

Thusly, the sections of bargaining power, strike impact, and flexibility of enthusiasm for work create as the fundamental determinants of distributive bargaining conflicts are settled. Staying alert, optional and keeping up one’s credibility is principal to making useful individual associations and thwarting negative emotions that can achieve an appearance to distributive methodologies. It is where an expansion for one assembling is a hardship for the other and in which each social event enhances own outcome. 

References

Mitchell T. A Reconceptualization of Distributive Bargaining with an Experiential Exercise: Negotiating an Arms Reduction Treaty. Amicability and Change. 1988;13(3/4):145. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0130.1988.tb00515.x 

Bruce B, Raymond A. F. Bargainer Characteristics in Distributive and Integrative Negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998;74(2):345-359. Gotten to August 25, 2020. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edsovi&AN=edsovi.00005205.199802000.00005

Distributive bargaining

The distributive bargaining is one of the types of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining is defined as process of negotiation between two groups of people, for instance employers and group employees negotiating to come an agreement. (Thompson, P. (2009). The various types of collective bargaining includes distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining, productive bargaining and composite bargaining. In this discussion article, the aim is to write the pros and cons for passing or defeating the bill to allow casino gambling in my state by using distributive bargaining. Distributive bargaining is a negotiation strategy, where two parties are competing to divide a fixed resource, in which one party gains by the loss of other party. The distributive bargaining is also called as zero-sum negotiations.

Pros and cons of passing  the bill

The casino industry has expanded dramatically in US as per the report of American Gaming Association. This incredible growth has happened in last two decades. The states are promoting casino gambling due to the economic benefits it brings to the state. It is considered as the apparatus for financial development creating a positive impact on the state-level economic growth, thereby these finances can be utilized to the developmental activities of the state. If the money is properly managed, it can bring huge wealth for the state, as gambling laws often come with steep taxes for the owners. It also increases the tax revenues, jobs and improves the quality of life as it increases the wages of the people residing in the state. Due to the increase in tax revenues, state doesn’t have to (Mateo, G. (2010). increase the tax of the common public. The legal gambling will eradicate illegal gambling inside the state. Recently, the casinos has evolved over the years. Now they offer, theme parks, restaurants, luxurious hotels, sporting venue, departmental stores etc. These business bring additional revenue to the state. One of the best example is the casinos in Vegas. The employment opportunities will also increase due to the rise of business in the state. The cons are it will increase the crime rate and gambling addiction, which will the spoil the young minds and destroy families who lose and gain money by gambling. The casinos which are improperly managed, there is increase in alcohol sales and usage of drugs destroying the life of people. An addiction with gambling, results in the families, lives and marriages getting destroyed. There is no denial that state will benefit from the tax revenues from the casino but on the other hand it will open doors for the people to sin.

References

Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2010). Choosing a bargaining strategy in EU negotiations: power, preferences, and culture. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), 680-693.

Findlay, P., McKinlay, A., Marks, A., & Thompson, P. (2009). Collective bargaining and new work regimes: ‘Too important to be left to bosses’. Industrial Relations Journal, 40(3), 235-251.

McKibben, H. E. (2013). The effects of structures and power on state bargaining strategies. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 411-427.