Describe two ethical issues pertaining to this negotiation. Explain how they impacted the negotiation and outcome. Describe one way that each issue could have been dealt with more effectively

Role for Fran Lynch, Director, Employee Assistance Program Background Information Tromp Airfreight is the latest acquisition of Tromp Ventures, a highly diversified holding company run by a financier whose compulsion to acquire new businesses has been viewed by his many critics as much stronger than his business sense. One of the problems arising from Tromp's acquisition binge has been his inability to manage different types of organizations in dynamic markets. In an effort to avoid totally losing control of his operations, Mr. Tromp made several appointments, whom he immodestly referred to as his "White House Staff." Among them was retired General Hague, a former high-level manager in the Pentagon. Tromp's press release described Hague as a man with vast experience - in the Marine Corps and at the Pentagon - at "making a large system work like a well-oiled machine." Hague drafted many system-wide policies for the Tromp empire, the latest of which involved drugtesting. Prior to Hague's appointment, Tromp Commuter Airlines (an operation completely different from newly acquired Tromp Airfreight) had been working with a task force to develop a policy for pilots concerning drug use (none of Tromp's operations are unionized). As soon as Hague arrived, however, he immediately imposed a system-wide policy that was based on his experience with the military. The policy calls for all pilots to be tested (through urinalysis) at least once a year on an unscheduled basis. The penalty for verified evidence of the presence of "recreational" (non-prescription, controlled) drugs in bodily fluids is immediate dismissal. The policy does not set tolerance levels, as in the case of blood alcohol in drunk-driving laws. Pilots testing positive who believe the results are in error can arrange a blood test, at their own expense, to disprove the evidence of the urinalysis. After issuing his original decree concerning pilots, Hague extended the policy to include all highresponsibility and high-security employees in the Tromp system, including people like auditors, employees who handle cash in the casinos, security guards, and mechanics. The workers' response to this second decree was swift and resolute. Those in the affected job categories protested that it was unfair to single them out. Hague was unsympathetic to the broad protest, but Mr. Tromp prevailed on Hague to ease workers' feelings of inequity. In response, Hague issued a third decree, this time requiring that each year, at least two percent of the workforce - randomly selected undergo mandatory testing. He also clarified the policy for everyone by pointing out that refusal to submit to the test carried the same consequences as positive test results - instant dismissal. Under pressure from Tromp to appear less harsh, Hague grudgingly agreed that employees who were outside of critical operations and who had five years of seniority or more could, at management's discretion, be reinstated after completing a mandatory (twoweek, in-patient) drug rehabilitation program. However, they would thereafter be subjected to the same at-least-once-a-year random schedule testing required of pilots. The first drug-testing case within Tromp Airfreight involved Bo Barris, the Logistics Manager in the airfreight forwarding operation. Bo had worked for the company for eight years prior to its acquisition by Tromp three months ago. Bo is MBA-trained and has a solid performance history. Bo's last performance appraisal noted that "although this manager's work has been completed promptly and efficiently, and this individual is respected by clients and fellow workers, Bo does not seem to develop close rapport with coworkers." Of the four hundred "non-critical" employees at the Tromp Airfreight operation, Bo was among the eight workers (two percent) selected for drug testing. Fellow managers teased Bo about being singled out, because in earlier days at the company, Bo had openly admitted experimenting with drugs while in college. In fact, most fellow workers knew that Bo had a small tattoo from that era - marijuana frond. The Test The drug testing was performed by a professional service. It was done on a surprise basis, as Hague had decreed. The testing was arranged by Sal DeAngelo, the new Human Resources Manager (appointed six weeks ago to that position at Tromp Airfreight by the Tromp headquarters office, where Sal had worked for three years as an Assistant Human Resources Manager.) Early one morning, Sal asked Bo to come down to the Human Resources Office in two hours and provide a urine specimen. The kidding began when Bo told fellow workers about being selected for the test. Bo responded good-naturedly to their kidding that the selection couldn't possibly be random, but was annoyed and suspicious about the apparent unfairness of the selection procedure. When Bo arrived at the appointment hour, Sal introduced the technician from the drug-testing service, who explained the program, the selection method, and the test to be performed. Following this explanation, Bo was escorted into the rest room and directed to produce a urine specimen in front of a (same-sex) Human Resources staff member. It was explained to Bo that observation was necessary to verify that the testee was not substituting a "clean" sample or tampering with it. Then Bo was sent out to wait in Sal's office while the technician entered the rest room to perform the "field test" on the urine specimen. Bo, who had been fairly relaxed and even somewhat jovial prior to entering the rest room, was visibly agitated upon coming out, and spent the ten minutes of waiting time complaining to the Human Resources Manager about what a degrading experience it had been. Sal listened sympathetically, but said that Tromp Airfreight didn't make these decisions, and everyone throughout the Tromp system had to endure the same indignities "in order to promote a drug-free workplace." The technician emerged after ten minutes and reported that the field test had turned out positive for cannabis. Bo jumped up, apparently shocked, and protested that those test results were impossible. The technician replied without emotion that the field test was 95 percent reliable for cannabis (marijuana), 99 percent for cocaine, and 85 percent for hallucinogens. The technician then asked if Bo would like to give a blood sample, so that the results could be verified by a completely independent method, explaining that the blood test was virtually 100 percent reliable for cannabis. Bo insisted that the blood be drawn right away, and the technician took the sample for analysis in her mobile laboratory. The technician was gone for an hour, during which Bo continued to protest the procedure and the results. In particular, Bo objected to the test because there were no prior grounds for suspecting drug use. In Bo's view, subjecting a non-critical employee to this test in the absence of any grounds for suspicion was an instance of "unreasonable search and seizure" and was, in essence, a violation of Bo's constitutional rights. Sympathetically but firmly, Sal reminded Bo that this was a corporation, not a courtroom, and the corporation wasn't bound by needlessly strict rules of evidence. Sal also pointed out that both the Tromp headquarters and the Tromp Airfreight operations were located in a state which the "employment at will" doctrine was very strong, and where policies involving instant dismissal of non-union employees hold up well in court. Sal, trying to restore a constructive tone to the conversation, steered the discussion toward an explanation of the new policy and the options available if the confirmatory test turned out positive. As Bo already knew from Hague's three decrees, Sal had two options: (1) fire Bo, or (2) have Bo enter a drug rehabilitation program and thereafter be tested at least once a year on a surprise basis. The technician returned with a printout that confirmed the results of the first test. She stated that there was unambiguous evidence of cannabis in Bo's blood. At this point, Sal told Bo "You'd better take a walk and think about this. Take a long lunch, and I'll arrange a meeting with Fran Lynch (the Employee Assistance Program Director) for 2 PM. Please be back here in time for that meeting." After Bo left, looking dejected and confused, the technician turned the test reports over to Sal, explaining that for privacy reasons, the identity of the person testing positive would not routinely be disclosed to her client, the Tromp headquarters operation; only the number of employees who tested positive would automatically be reported. The testing company would, however disclose the names to Hague if he asked, and also keep "detailed records in the event that there was subsequent litigation." The technician then asked Sal to send for the next testee. Sal DeAngelo has the final say regarding Bo's future at Tromp Airfreight and will make that decision at the 2 p.m. meeting. Note: Assume that the information provided in this background section is accurate. Do not add information based on what you think you know about current drug-testing technology or the legal aspects of this case. Confidential Information This is an important case for you. The new corporate heavyweight, ex-General Hague, has no sense of how to treat a work force. He hands down poorly thoughtout decrees that hinder you rather than help you to do your job. His mindless policies give you little latitude for working with people to move beyond their problems and get to the point where they can contribute their best efforts. The anti-drug campaign is typical of his insensitivity. He imposed a policy for pilots that alienated the task force that was putting the finishing touches on a drug and alcohol program. Their more comprehensive program would have been better because it was produced by the workers themselves and, as a result, would have been widely accepted by everyone affected. To make matters worse, Hague later extended this policy to other workers, for whom the extreme penalty of instant dismissal makes less sense. You know that the course of action taken by management needs to be tailored to the particular case. If lives or fortunes are at stake, and the person is addicted to drugs or alcohol, then dismissal is probably the most responsible course of action. But firing should not be automatic, for all job categories, and for all levels of substance use. (Ironically, if alcohol were also prohibited, Sal DeAngelo would be the first one fired: many times you have noticed the strong smell of alcohol on Sal's breath after lunch, and many people gossip about this.) The summary dismissal policy violates an important principle of human resource management, progressive discipline. This principle holds that discipline should be aimed at correcting undesirable behavior. The first step is to warn the employee that his or her behavior is unacceptable. In many cases, this alone fixes the problem because, prior to the warning, the employee had no idea that what he or she was doing was undesirable. The second step is to advise the employee that he or she will be punished if the behavior persists. If this threat of punishment proves insufficient to deter the undesired behavior, then and only then should the employee be fired for further infractions. Of course, if the employee's transgression is producing significant losses or hazards for the company or other people, then the employee may need to be removed immediately from the position in which he or she can do harm until the behavior is corrected. But the basic idea is to salvage valuable people and treat them fairly. Bo is not in a critical position, so there's no justification for violating the principle of progressive discipline. Bo is a valuable employee whose behavior can be corrected. The issue of progressive discipline is not the only reason you're interested in how Bo is handled; in another, more personal way, Bo presents an important "test case" for you, the outcome of which may have important consequences for your job as well as the EAP (Employee Assistance Program) that you have built up here. At the same time that Sal was brought in, most of the challenging parts of your job were reassigned to Sal, leaving you with little more than routine bureaucratic tasks. The main exception to this is the EAP, which you have worked so hard to develop, and that you believe has a significant role in the Human Resource side of the business. Bo is the first individual identified by the drug-testing program as being in need of your EAP services. Bo is an interesting character whom you've known casually for years. You've never been a close associate, because Bo keeps a distance from people at work, preferring instead to hang out with "a different crowd" after hours. Bo is widely known to have been a past user of drugs, and apparently has a marijuana-frond tattoo. Though a satisfactory performer, Bo is certainly different, and you suspect that Bo's strange manner is attributable to drug use. If this proves true, Bo's successful rehabilitation will be a model that will highlight the value of the EAP and may help ensure the program's continuation. Without this confirmation of the program's value and especially in the current budget-cutting environment, it is quite likely that higher management will simply cut out the Employee Assistance Program and you will be left with nothing but a boring bureaucratic job. A potential obstacle is Sal DeAngelo -- that stooge sent in six weeks ago by the Tromp headquarters office -- who lacks the experience to function as a successful Human Resources Manager. Sal is at the same level as you on the organization chart, but has the authority to determine the budget allocated to the Employee Assistance Program. Sal is a pawn of the Hague operation, and will probably fire Bo Barris without even thinking about the broader issues of substance use and abuse at Tromp Airfreight. You really need to get Bo enrolled in the rehabilitation program. Firing is a senseless course of action under these circumstances. Bo is a consistently good contributor to the company and, as a logistics manager, is definitely not in a "critical" job area. Thus, while summary dismissal can make sense in the case of pilots or money-handlers, it clearly does not in the case of non-critical positions such as Bo's. Furthermore, Hague's policy makes no provision for level of impairment. The test is set up as a yes-no diagnosis, with an insignificant (from a performanceimpairment standpoint) trace considered as serious a problem as a large concentration. Unfortunately, Sal is the ultimate decision-maker in whether to fire Bo or allow this good worker to enroll in the rehabilitation program. There is a third reason this case is of interest to you. Although you have the money in your budget to pay for the program, you know that Sal is under pressure from Tromp headquarters to show cost savings in the human resources area, especially health care costs. Unfortunately, if the allocation for rehabilitation programs goes unused this year, it will likely be deleted from your budget allocation for next year. At this point you have the budget to pay the entire cost of rehabilitation for several workers like Bo. Specifically, this cost includes two weeks salary while Bo is in the inpatient program, coverage of medical costs beyond what is picked up by Blue Cross, and ongoing individual and group rehabilitation therapy on an outpatient basis for up to two years. The headquarters office has approved the two-week inpatient program at the local community hospital where you know the counselors and have a great deal of confidence in them. As you anticipate the meeting, you are glad you have had so much experience in handling chemicaldependency cases. Almost invariably, the addicted individual shows initial resistance. Usually, they delude themselves into thinking they don't have a problem, or will distort the truth to postpone coming to grips with the problem. You have come to expect anyone caught to offer an excuse along the lines of, "It was accidental this time, honestly. It won't happen again." For example, two weeks ago you surprisetested a supposedly reformed alcoholic whose continued employment at Tromp was conditional on his staying dry. The test showed a low level of blood alcohol at 9 a.m. The addict offered the explanation that he had used after-shave that morning and must have breathed the fumes! You got him right back into treatment, but the long-term prospects are bleak. Bo, by contrast, is a good candidate for rehabilitation. Marijuana is much less addictive than alcohol, and if Bo will acknowledge the problem and undergo treatment, the probability of success is better than 80 percent. Despite your optimism about the chances of getting Bo back on track, you are worried. Your goal for the meeting is to get Bo and Sal to agree to the rehabilitation program. Firing this valuable MBAtrained worker would be completely inappropriate. It allows someone with no relevant expertise (Hague) to override one of the most important principles of human resource management. Furthermore, it would send terrible signals to the loyal work force at this company about the value of long-service employees who are encountering adjustment difficulties