Respond to each classmate 100 words a piece Classmate 1 In the summer of 2011, the owners of the National Basketball Association (NBA) were locked in negotiation with players union over how to spli

Respond to each classmate 100 words a piece 

Classmate 1 

 In the summer of 2011, the owners of the National Basketball Association (NBA) were locked in negotiation with players union over how to split revenue. The union wanted them to have the same 57% as they previously had, but the owners offered them 50%. Because of the disagreements with the players’ union, they were locked out by their owners and the games were canceled for the first half of the season. Then, after months of going back and forth, threats, and so on, the players settled on the original offer that their owners offered.

           When two parties like the National Basketball Association owners versus the players are having to make decisions whether to “bargain hard” or accommodate”, is the alternative to agreement that determines the terms of agreement, regardless of the precise form of the negotiations. If you can increase your opponent’s gain to reaching agreement (or decrease your own, you make your opponent more eager to reach agreement, and this allows you to capture a bigger share of the proverbial pie (Froeb, McCann, Shor, & Ward, 2018).

            According to an article, “When talks go down to the final buzzer,” an agreement was made between the National Basketball Association (NBA) and its players that ends the 149-day labor dispute in the U.S. It outlines the provisions of the new collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) in which the league took a tough stance on its decision to slash player salaries by 40 percent due to decreased revenue.

            Regardless of whether the union makes a generous offer or a low offer, accepting the offer gives management a higher payout than rejecting it.

Classmate 2 

A game of chicken is referenced because, at some point committing will give one side an advantage over the other. Either side can stick to their guns or give in. If both bargain hard, they will not reach an agreement; they each get a portion of what they want if both give in. If one side remains committed and the other folds, the stubborn side will take 75% of the agreement.

If both sides accommodate or bargain hard, they will not have equilibrium because both could have done better. When both give in, they split the difference. If they both bargain hard, neither gets anything. To maintain balance, one side must bargain, and the other must accommodate. This makes it a game of chicken. Both sides will begin by bargaining hard and convincing the other side that they will be better off if they make a deal for something rather than getting nothing.

Staying committed has value because that side gets to go first. If their offer is accepted, the other side gains; if they refuse, they all lose. Taking a bid in the first stage is always better because each request that follows will systematically be less and less. However, if the opposing side can convince the first side that something valuable will be taken away, they may sway the equilibrium in their favor. The risk comes from what is threatened to be taken away. In many cases, this goes directly against your side’s self-interest. The other side may not believe you, and you might not come to an agreeable solution.  Your best threat is the one you don’t have to use.