• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Negotiating in good faith.

B

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
43,597
Reaction score
32,186
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If the dems offered the R's ten billion but stipulated only two point seven billion could be used for a wall or walls and the rest to be used for border upkeep and new border technologies would that be considered negotiating in good faith? What if that offer were turned down by the R's. Would that be negotiating in good faith?
 
There no longer is such a thing as "good faith" when it comes to dealing with immigration, it is all uselessness.

Our real issue is the political climate today demands a response to each evolution of wanting money for this or that on the southern border. This is backed up by the reality that we've spent more in the past 5 years on border security than the previous 4-5 decades.

And it is made infinitely worse by the political distinctions between "border security" and "border barrier."

The wall alone does not do anything, it's been pointed out dozens of times. Politics though does not care, to the point that Trump / Republicans we willing to partially shutdown government to a record number of days, only to turn around and fund things for 3 weeks, when odds are we'll see yet another long term government shutdown then.

The history books will not be kind to anyone up on the hill these days, nor should they.
 
bongsaway said:
If the dems offered the R's ten billion but stipulated only two point seven billion could be used for a wall or walls and the rest to be used for border upkeep and new border technologies would that be considered negotiating in good faith? What if that offer were turned down by the R's. Would that be negotiating in good faith?
Click to expand...

Yes and yes.

Negotiation in good faith doesn't have anything to do with offers that are given or whether they are accepted.

A Background on Good Faith Negotiation

In U.S. contract law, the concept of good faith negotiation is rooted in the legal concept of “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” which arose in the mid-19th century to protect parties from taking advantage of one another in contract negotiation. In 1933, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that every legal contract contains an “implied covenant that neither party shall do anything, which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party, to receive the fruits of the contract.” The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was eventually incorporated into the Uniform Commercial Code and codified by the American Law Institute.

In current business negotiations, to negotiate in good faith means to deal honestly and fairly with one another so that each party will receive the benefits of your negotiated contract. When one party sues the other for breach of contract, they may argue that the other party did not negotiate in good faith.

In the context of collective bargaining, the U.S. National Labor Relations Act imposes on negotiators the duty to negotiate in “good faith.” The concept of “good faith” negotiation is not fully defined; rather, the courts assess parties’ behavior against a “totality of conduct” standard, write Russell Korobkin, Michael L. Moffitt, and Nancy A. Welsh in a chapter on “The Law of Bargaining” in The Negotiators’ Fieldbook. Generally, parties in labor-management negotiation are expected to agree on an effective bargaining process, consider and respond to one another’s offers, and not do anything to undermine the bargaining process or the authority of parties’ representatives.

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/negotiate-good-faith/
Click to expand...
 
Mycroft said:
Yes.

Negotiation in good faith doesn't mean accepting any offer given.
Click to expand...

It does mean not threatening innocent people if you don't get what you want. That is negotiating in bad faith.
 
bongsaway said:
If the dems offered the R's ten billion but stipulated only two point seven billion could be used for a wall or walls and the rest to be used for border upkeep and new border technologies would that be considered negotiating in good faith? What if that offer were turned down by the R's. Would that be negotiating in good faith?
Click to expand...

Red:
No. "Negotiating in good faith" is about the nature and extent of parity in what opposing parties offer/concede, not in what one or the other accepts or rejects.
 
lwf said:
It does mean not threatening innocent people if you don't get what you want. That is negotiating in bad faith.
Click to expand...

shrug...

So what does that have to do with the OP's questions?
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

So what does that have to do with the OP's questions?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Just adding it as a caveat. The threat of a government shutdown casts doubt on Trump's ability to negotiate in good faith in the first place.
 
Define what good faith means because obviously they don’t believe! The negotiations was a waste of time because it was a joke and, frankly the president should make facts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom