Hormel And Local P9 Negotiation

In times of heated business disputes, navigating negotiation strategies is paramount to a successful business venture. In addition, the need to understand the various aspects of emotional exchanges that shift from rights, powers, and interests on both sides in the integrative and distributive approaches is the core of the modern day negotiations in business disputes. In the negotiation case between the parties, the two opposing sides represent an actual negotiation that occurred between Hormel and Local P9 in the 1980s. In this case, P-9 symbolized democracy and a willingness to oppose different demands for consensus regardless of the agenda or strategies of the international union. The defeated strike is a classic example of how employers can utilize

There was the lack of an effort to negotiate from a point of mutual interest that could have led to an agreement. In this case, the negotiations digressed to various power negotiation tactics and style. The parties felt that there existed few concessions that could have been successfully made. As a result, they used power tactics in an attempt to swing the negotiation in their favor due to the failure of the integrative strategy to create an acceptable outcome. The workers represented by P-9 did not attain their goals due to various mistakes on their side. The biggest mistake made by P-9 was the use of the poor Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). In this case, the union did not consider the next best alternative in case there was a collapse in reaching an agreement with the company. On the other hand, Hormel wanted to drive down wages while maintaining an experienced workforce. In addition, the state of the art production line that the company adopted increased workplace injuries and improved production. Moreover, the firm claimed a vast power to fire workers without recourse, tear up assignments and ignore