Question

1. Do you think the Harley deal was too one-sided? Why or why not?

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

3. Do you think it is appropriate for a government entity (such as the state of Pennsylvania) to take an active role in union– management negotiations? Why or why not?

Answer 1

1.

I don't feel that the Harley deal was excessively uneven. Eventually, both sides sacrificed yet additionally benefited from the arrangement. Harley could have closed down the York plant and moved to Kentucky, receiving a superior arrangement. The union got a seven-year guarantee on the all day workers amid a period where an overwhelming number of jobs in the US were not protected. Benefits were additionally picked up from the modernization of the production line. More secure and more advanced occupations could open in the modernized factory than were available previously.

2.

I would have voted in favor of the new deal. In the long run, more individuals would benefit from this arrangement. In the event that it had gone another path, there would have been more shot for considerably more individuals to lose their jobs or for the plant would have closed down completely. I would want to fill in as an "easygoing" employee and remain in my home than need to relocate my family to a different state and start a new life.

3.

I feel it is appropriate for a state government to take an active role in union-management negotiations. The government is supposed to be a voice for the general population and the administration did that by participating in the negotiations for this arrangement. It is valuable to have the input of government entities to an extent and the amount of involvement for this situation is appropriate.