Case Study: Give and Take

Case Study: Give and Take

 Case Study Response on Give and Take

Question 1. Whether Harley's deal was too one-sided? Why or why not? 

The deal was not one-sided. The deal was not one-sided because the unions, the duo, acted as the primary source of trouble and as subject to saving the jobs. It is evident that the two opposing sides had a compromise and yielded benefits as per the deal. The parties involved had concessions that helped the benefits. Clearly, from the agreement, Harley had an option of closing down the York plant and relocating to Kentucky, where a more appealing deal existed. Therefore, the contract in Kentucky seemed better off. Additionally, during the time of the agreement, it was a period when many jobs in America faced significant risks, even though they were in a position to have a well-established seven years of work guaranteed to the staff. More advantages have accrued through the factory process being brought up to date. Through modernization, the plant becomes better and more efficient, leading to more job opportunities in the factory.

Question 2. If you were a Harley or GM employee and union member, would you have voted for the new deal? Why or why not? 

Yes, I would have voted for the new deal. From the logic of strategic management, the value had more accruing benefits. If the contract reaped more employment opportunities, I would have opted for it. Notably, the deal had a common good for the job market; thus, it had the bargaining power to consider the most innovative idea for a while. However, if voting goes against the deal, there is a high possibility of negative consequences since the overall number of jobs to get lost is alarming. Closing down the factory leads to the laying off of highly productive workers, meaning the practical part of the economy does not contribute to the gross domestic product. Furthermore, the deal to have moved to Kentucky would result in family disruption since the new location would make the place of work inaccessible. Thus, working at home would be more appealing when working as a casual contractor.

Question 3: Do you think it is appropriate for a government entity (e.g., the state of Pennsylvania) to take union-management–management negotiations? Why or why not?

It is generally acceptable for a government to be involved in labor unions. The government's involvement is essential for making just laws regarding the labor unions and the workers. Furthermore, the legislation passed will have a net effect on the labor unions, meaning it must have consultation and memorandums. Therefore, in the case scenario in question, the government needs to get involved in the contract since the employment matters have considerable implications for an administration. That means the engagement of the government in the case is reasonable.

Summary

The case study discusses the mixed experiences between labor unions, businesses, and government cases. The case narrows down to Harley-Davidson, a motorcycle manufacturer affected by the economic recession between 2008-and 2010. The overall result of the downturn was increased cost of production, and the factory had a decision to close down operations in York due to the considered unfavorable union agreement. Closing down the factory would result in laying off over 2000 non-managerial workers. The company would move to Kentucky in contract, and new labor union terms on wages and working hours would change. The Union and the government engaged in the agreement that reaped continued operation in the York plant. Harley accepted government input of $15 million for both plants, and the investor took a tier of 750 workers. The opinion of Professor Gary was that the Union lost the agreement; however, in my opinion, both sides won the contract.