Other – timelynursingwriters.com
I want a reply post to the below essay in 200 words using apa format and journal articles – timelynursingwriters.com
Many societies have accepted non-smokers and have set regulations on how nonsmokers shouldconduct themselves especially in the public space. For countries that are yet to set the regulations, they still have a chance to negotiate and involve all the stakeholders. By doing so, there is inclusivity and equality and for better negotiations, the following steps can be followed while planning for a negotiation.
Ineffective negotiation planning, the following steps have to be followed; defining the goal, defining what one wants, assembling issues, state why you want the goal, determine the alternatives, define your limits, understand other party goals, setting targets and opening bids, assessing the social context and lastly present issue to other party. These steps are disused below.
The main objective of the negotiation is to ban smoking in public areas such as bars and restaurant. This is to savaged individuals from passive smoking, which is harmful to them. Issues associated with accomplishing the objective include; restricting smoking in open areas whose aim is to prevent pollution of the environment surrounding us and prevent passive smoking which is harmful to one’s health, (Menzies, 2006).
Considering the advantages of the issue relating to the main aim, their results have to be determined. The most severe impact is that the health of passive smokers will be affected. The other one decreases in revenue for businesses where smoking is banned. This makes the health of the nonsmokers the main emphasis.
In this negotiation, both supporting and opposing parties are involved. My stand on the matter is that smoking in public places should be banned since it negatively relates to health issues more so to passive smokers. Considering both parties, alternatives such as setting aside areas for smokers or setting smoking hours may help in settling the issue.
When people are defending themselves, they put forward emphases which are on their favor, unlike in professional context. To come up with the best solution concerning the issue, professionals should be involved and will help in making sound decisions, (Danishevski, 2008). A negotiator should table the issue of ban smoking in public places on the table; give its strengths, limitations, and also the alternative measures concerning the matter.
Besides, smokers should also get a chance to lay their views on board. Moreover, businesses in these areas will also be interested in the proceedings because the decision made after negotiations will influence them directly. (Shelley, 2006), stated that the conviction of the negotiation process does involve smokers, non-smokers, and law administrators. The main aim is to come up with a conclusion which will favor everyone. Afterward, arbitrators are relied upon to reveal views of each side to the other and settle on to the conclusion which encourages views of both smokers and those who do not.