Part 1 Due To COVID-19 Your State Has A Forthcoming Referend

Part 1due To Covid 19 Your State Has A Forthcoming Referendum A Vot

Part 1: Due to COVID-19, your state has a forthcoming referendum (a vote to adopt an enact a new law) mandating the wearing of masks. Do you agree with this referendum Yes or No? You should give specific reasons for why you agree or disagree with the referendum. part 2: Discuss the effects (both short term and long term) of using deceptive tactics to influence or win in a negotiation. Please write 200 words for each question.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted numerous public health initiatives worldwide, including mask mandates intended to curb the spread of the virus. In my state, a forthcoming referendum aims to decide whether to implement such a mandate legally. This paper presents an argument in favor of the mask mandate and discusses the broader implications of using deceptive tactics in negotiations, both in the short and long term.

Support for the Mask Mandate

I strongly agree with the proposed mask mandate as a necessary public health measure. Masks have been scientifically proven to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 (Howard et al., 2021). Implementing mandatory mask-wearing can protect vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and immunocompromised, and help prevent overwhelming healthcare facilities. Moreover, masks serve as a visual reminder of collective responsibility, encouraging responsible behavior during a public health crisis (Chu et al., 2020). Economically, preventing widespread outbreaks through mask mandates can avoid the costly repercussions of lockdowns and medical expenses, ultimately supporting community stability. Politically and socially, such measures foster cohesion by emphasizing communal effort in combating a common threat. Opposing the mandate often stems from personal freedom concerns; however, in the context of a pandemic, public health priorities must take precedence to save lives and maintain societal function (Kahler et al., 2020). Therefore, the mandate aligns with both scientific evidence and societal interests.

Effects of Deceptive Tactics in Negotiations

Deceptive tactics in negotiations can have profound effects that influence both the immediate outcome and long-term relationships. In the short term, deception can provide a strategic advantage, allowing the deceiving party to secure favorable terms or gain an edge over competitors (Bachmann & Zaheer, 2021). It may lead to quick wins, especially in high-stakes negotiations where the stakes are perceived as critical. However, this approach often damages trust between parties. Once deception is uncovered, it can result in loss of credibility, breakdown of communication, and the failure of future negotiations (Shell, 2020). In the long term, reliance on deceptive tactics erodes relationship quality, reduces collaboration, and fosters a culture of mistrust. This dynamic can inhibit cooperation, innovation, and mutual benefit in ongoing or future negotiations. Ethical considerations also come into play, as persistent deception can tarnish reputations and lead to legal or regulatory repercussions. Although deception might sometimes be seen as a necessary evil in competitive environments, its detrimental effects on relationship building and organizational integrity outweigh short-term gains. Therefore, negotiators should prioritize transparency and honesty to foster sustainable and mutually beneficial negotiations.

Conclusion

The proposed mask mandate in response to COVID-19 exemplifies a scientific and societal approach to managing public health crises through collective action. Meanwhile, the use of deceptive tactics in negotiations, while sometimes offering immediate benefits, poses significant risks to long-term relationships and trust. Ethical negotiation practices and prioritizing public health measures are essential for societal resilience and cooperation amid crises.

References

• Bachmann, R., & Zaheer, A. (2021). Strategic deception in negotiations: An overview. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(4), 671-691.
• Chu, D. K., Akl, E. A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., & Schünemann, H. J. (2020). Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 395(10242), 1973-1987.
• Howard, J., Huang, A., Li, Z., Tufekci, Z., et al. (2021). An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(4), e2021997118.
• Kahler, J., et al. (2020). Balancing individual rights and public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Health Policy, 41(4), 453-466.
• Shell, G. R. (2020). Bargaining for advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people. Penguin.