Similarities and differences between mediation, fact-finding, and interest arbitration

 

 

What are some similarities and differences between mediation, fact-finding, and interest arbitration?
Should employees engaged in lawful strike activity be protected from permanent replacement? Explain your reasoning .
How did World War II and the National War Labor Board greatly expand the use of arbitration.
Discuss 2 decision-making guideline used by arbitrators, furnishing specific examples of how these guidelines apply.
Do you believe that labor unions should use the benefits of labor arbitration as part of the union’s strategy to recruit new members? Give reasons

Sample Solution

Similarities and differences between mediation, fact-finding, and interest arbitration

Fact-finding, mediation, and arbitration are three methods of resolving impasses in collective bargaining. All three methods involve the inclusion of a third party in the bargaining process. The three methods differ in the amount of authority ceded to the third party, ranging from no authority to decide (fact-finding) to full authority to issue a binding decision (arbitration). The mediator suggests avenues along which agreement may be sought, but has no power to compel acceptance of his suggestions. Fact-finders have greater power to determine the elements of the situation and recommend solutions, but these recommendations are not absolutely binding. The arbitrator makes recommendations that are legally binding. They also vary in effectiveness: arbitration always result in a settlement; mediation has a high likelihood of a settlement; fact-finding has been found of limited effectiveness at reaching a settlement.

A power hungry, ruthless killer and the saviour of France all in one? The rumoured short ruler with a long legacy, Napoleon Bonaparte, is arguably one of the most uniquely influential historical figures in European history. From his savvy army tactics to his ability to control a country with just words, there is no doubt that Napoleon was a multipotential jack of all trades. Moreover, Napoleon’s actions have both benefited France and caused conflict. Historians have argued for years whether Napoleon was a Hero or Tyrant, but rightfully so, he should fit in both categories. Although he was able to stabilize France’s Economy, Government, Social and Religious aspects, he also ruled like a dictator and halted France’s development as a free republic. Was Napoleon really the saviour of France, or a tyrant in disguise-or, a mixture of both?

The French Revolution left France utter chaos. The economy and country were both spiraling downwards out of control, and the Directory was doing little to get the country in check. When Napoleon took power, he was able to rebuild France in around a year while also saving his country from being crushed by European monarchies. For example, Napoleon stabilized and modernized the French way of living by setting tariffs on imports and stabilizing currency, all the while creating more jobs for the French people and lowering food costs. A new banking system was introduced to stabilize the economy, and France was slowly returning to peace. All French children were offered schooling, providing them with tools to help the future of themselves and their country, seemingly actions of a dutiful hero. Although Napoleon saved the French economy from crashing, he did this as a dictator, haltin

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.