Week 6 Journal

Imagine you are the mediator for the following conflict: The complaining party, Mr. Acosta, is a first-generation immigrant from Portugal. While he does speak English, his skills are somewhat limited. He has difficulty keeping up with lengthy conversations in English, especially ones in which there are many participants, or people are speaking quickly. Mr. Acosta is a small genteman, about 5’5” and 140 pounds. He has lived in the United States for approximately four years. He has never been involved in any type of dispute, and is unfamiliar with employment law or the American legal system. His complaint is against his employer, Ed’s Garage, owned by Ed Smith. Mr. Acosta alleges Mr. Smith asked him to work overtime every evening for four months when they were understaffed. Mr. Smith never paid Mr. Acosta overtime wages, but promised him a sizable raise if he would continue to work late. When the time came, Mr. Smith refused to raise Mr. Acosta’s pay. Mr. Acosta has agreed to mediation in an attempt to settle his dispute with Mr. Smith and avoid having to take his case to trial. Mr. Acosta is not represented by an attorney, and is attending the mediation alone. In addition to Ed’s Garage, Mr. Smith owns 4 other local businesses, including another garage, a coffee shop, and a sign shop. Mr. Smith is also a member of a prominent and wealthy local family. He is represented by an attorney, who is with him at this mediation. He has also brought his son, James, to the mediation, who is the sometime “assistant manager” of the garage. James is 6’3” and approximately 250 pounds. The garage frequently loses employees due to James, who has been in trouble with the law and enjoys intimidating employees and others he feels are inferior to him and his family. Due to his stature, criminal record, and general bad attitude, Mr. Acosta has always felt uncomfortable around James. Mr. Smith contends that he never promised Mr. Acosta a raise. He admits that Mr. Acosta worked overtime, but alleges he offered to do work late to prove his worth to his employer. Mr. Acosta had recently made several expensive mistakes at work, and Mr. Smith believed his employee wanted to make it up to him. According to Mr. Smith, they never discussed either overtime or a raise. James, who is rarely in the garage and was in jail at the time period during which Mr. Acosta worked overtime, has no direct knowledge of the situation and wasn’t aware of any of the facts or allegations in this conflict until the day before the mediation. Mr. Acosta contends he is owed $2000 in overtime wages if a raise is not forthcoming. Mr. Smith offered to settle the dispute for $500, which Mr. Acosta refused. At the start of the mediation, Mr. Smith’s attorney renewed the offer, telling Mr. Acosta he was “owed nothing” and that he should “take it or leave it” if he knew “what was good for him”. At this point, you declared a break. While returning from the restroom, you overheard James speaking within earshot of Mr. Acosta that he had better take the offer or he would “be sorry”. For the purpose of this assignment, assume current law requires employers to pay time and a half to any employee working over 40 hours per week if that employee is not a manager or executive. Also assume for the purpose of this assignment that you are aware of this law. With these facts in mind, answer the following questions with how comfortable you would be with each suggestion (anywhere from “very uncomfortable” to “very comfortable”, or any point in between). Make sure to explain your answers (why or why not) with a focus on fairness, balancing power, and/or dealing with difficult dynamics: How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be taking the following steps: Sit next to the Plaintiff during joint session, if you weren’t already doing so. Reduce potential intimidation by asking James to wait outside. Rule all threatening statements “out of bounds” for the remainder of the session. Call frequent breaks or “time-outs” to allow Mr. Acosta to think through his responses and ensure he understands what is being said and how he wishes to respond. Mediate only in caucus to ensure the complainant is protected from the more powerful respondent team. Remind Mr. Acosta, in the presence of the respondent and counsel, that he may consult an attorney during any point in the process. Suggest to Mr. Acosta in a private meeting that he should consult an attorney Explain to the complainant in private session that the law is on his side. Explain to the respondent and his attorney in private session that you are aware the law is not on their side. Explain to the parties together, in joint session, that the law is on the complainant’s side. Resources: Textbook: Chapter 17, The Mediation Process, Christopher W. Moore Power_imbalances_in_mediationDownload Power_imbalances_in_mediation Managing Imbalance of PowerLinks to an external site. Power Imbalance In MediationLinks to an external site. Thinking About Fairness and Achieving Balance in MediationLinks to an external site. Five Steps for Managing Difficult People in MediationsLinks to an external site. Handling Bad Behavior and Difficult Personalities in MediationLinks to an external site. Dealing with Difficult PeopleLinks to an external site. Rubric Journal Rubric (PSY/ORG) Journal Rubric (PSY/ORG) Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent & Analysis 45 pts EXEMPLARY Offers a lucid and logical argument or observation (dependent upon assignment). Points are supported by unit materials, learnings and resources. The content of the work is well developed and the ideas are explained and accurate. ALL elements of the instructions are addressed. 41 pts GOOD Argument or observations are present, but are not fully developed. Ideas are explained and accurate. ALL elements of the instructions are addressed. 37 pts SATISFACTORY Argument or observations are attempted, but lack clarity and/or ideas are not developed and explained. ALL elements of the instructions are addressed. 33 pts MARGINAL Summary and description are present, but analysis and logical argument or observations are not. Not all elements of the instructions were addressed. 28 pts UNSATISFACTORY No logical argument or observations present. Not all elements of the instructions were addressed. 45 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of Evidence 35 pts Used and clearly identified sources from the unit materials or independent research that effectively supported and enhanced ideas. Sources are clearly cited in-text and in a properly APA-formatted resource page. 32 pts Used and clearly identified sources and some/ most sources used clearly enhanced and supported ideas. Sources are cited in-text and in a properly APA-formatted resource page. 29 pts Ideas and conclusions are in line with the week’s learning materials and resources, and resources are incorrectly cited (e.g. no in-text citation and improperly formatted resource page) 26 pts Ideas and conclusions are partially supported by the week’s learning materials and resources, and resources are incorrectly cited (e.g. no in-text citation and improperly formatted resource page) 22 pts Ideas and conclusions are not in line with the week’s learning materials and resources. No sources were used or the ones used do not support/enhance ideas. 35 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization & Structure 5 pts Organization is sequential and appropriate. Paragraphs are well developed and divided. Ideas are linked and smooth transitions are present. 4.5 pts Organization is competent. Paragraphs are appropriately used, but some transitions are not smooth. 4 pts Organization is attempted but is not sequential and/or appropriate. Paragraphs are used, but some are not appropriate and/or transitions are not smooth. 3.5 pts Organization, if evident at all, is weak and disjointed. Paragraphs, if used, are weak and transitions are lacking. 3 pts No organization and structure present. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMechanics & Style 10 pts Virtually free of punctuation, spelling, and capitalization errors. 9 pts Occasional (1-2) independent punctuation, spelling, and capitalization errors. 8 pts Several (3-5) independent punctuation, spelling, and capitalization errors. 7 pts Numerous (6-8) independent punctuation, spelling, and capitalization errors. 6 pts An overabundance (9+) of independent punctuation, spelling, and capitalization errors. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar 5 pts Sentences are structured effectively and vary in length and style. 4.5 pts Most sentences are structure effectively and vary in length and style. Occasional (1-2 sentences) contain independent structural deficiencies. For example, simple sentences, run-ons, and poor sentence flow. 4 pts Sentences contain several (3-5 sentences) independent structural deficiencies. For example, simple sentences, run-ons, and poor sentence flow. 3.5 pts Sentences contain numerous (6-8) independent structural deficiencies. For example, simple sentences, run-ons, and poor sentence flow. 3 pts Sentence structure throughout paper made it difficult and/or impossible to read. There were an overabundance (9 or more sentences) of independent structural deficiencies. For example, simple sentences, run-ons, and poor sentence flow.