Business Law Concepts

In order to guarantee that the businesses offering these services give the best to customers, employees, and suppliers, regulations set up to regulate and control business operations are crucial. Effective business operations can be carried out through the application of business laws so that the interests of all parties concerned are satisfied. The Ozarks Coca-Cola Company and the Springfield Union of Workers are parties to the case. While negotiating a contract with the Ozarks Coca-Cola bottling company, the Springfield union of workers went public with their claims that the company was forcing the workers to pay a higher proportion of the healthcare expenditures. The worker's union represented a total of 111 out of about 650 employees of the company, and this is primarily the reason that they had gone to the public for the coca cola bottling company asking for an increased healthcare costs. After considering the situation between Ozarks Coca-Cola bottling company and the Springfield Union of Workers, and diagnosing the same, the underlying causes of the disputes were noted. Coca-Cola Company wishes to raise the premiums on the insurance of the healthcare for the workers to 570%, which is one of the reasons for the conflict. The purpose of this report is to discuss the conflict arising between the two stated parties and how the same affects the company. The business laws and ethical concerns engaged in the business will be discussed in detail as well as the ethical framework for the case.
Company Background
The Ozarks Coca-Cola company is an affiliate of the Coca-Cola company, which is located in Springfield MO. The firm is listed as Mfg Bottled/Canned Soft Drinks Whol Groceries. The Electric Bottling Company was purchased by Edwin and his wife in 1920, which, by then, produced a soft drink consisting of Root Beer, Orange, Lemon, Ginger Ale, Strawberry, among others. The firm was incorporated and engaged in an agreement with Coca-Cola company to be among the franchises in perpetuity. In October 2014, the Ozarks Coca-Cola company was among the top bottlers, and hence the base firm established the acquisition of new property for the same.
Over time, the firm has provided its staff members with a compensation program, which is aligned with a contract with the Springfield Union of workers. The Springfield union of workers had gone to the public in the process of negotiating a contract with Ozarks Coca-Cola bottling company claiming that the firm was requiring the employees to pay an increased amount of the healthcare costs. Coca-Cola Company wishes to raise the premiums on the insurance of the healthcare for the workers to 570%, which is one of the reasons for the conflict. Moreover, the deductibles of the employees are to be increased to 375%.
Legal and Ethical Issues
The dispute in context is the difference occurring between Ozarks Coca-Cola and the Springfield Union of workers. The Springfield union of workers had gone to the public in the process of negotiating a contract with Ozarks Coca-Cola bottling company claiming that the firm was requiring the employees to pay an increased amount of the healthcare costs. The worker's union represented a total of 111 out of about 650 employees of the company, and this is primarily the reason that they had gone to the public for the coca cola bottling company asking for an increased healthcare costs. In this regard, these two parties are involved in the dispute, and the interests and BATNAs are as depicted in the table below:
PARTIES INTERESTS BATNAs
Ozarks Coca-Cola Bottling Company The firm was aiming at increasing and maintaining a higher cost of the healthcare services. The company wishes to maintain higher standards of the health of the workers by imposing increased costs of the health services for quality care.
The Spring Union of Workers. The Coca-Cola company must reduce the healthcare costs implied by the employees. The union will continue to fight for the workers by being against the increased cost of health services.

The conflict falls under the spiral of unmanaged disputes since Coca-Cola company wishes to impose higher health care costs for the workers without listening to the grievances of the Union representing these workers. In this regard, the Springfield Union of workers is forced to embark on figuring out another approach that may be used for the company to listen to their grievances. For the intervention type of the conflict, the primary process that would be useful in providing a solution to this case would be the formation of collaborative law concerning the health care services and insurance of the workers of Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Strickland, 2005).
After considering the situation between Ozarks Coca-Cola bottling company and the Springfield Union of Workers, and diagnosing the same, the underlying causes of the disputes were noted. Coca-Cola Company wishes to raise the premiums on the insurance of the healthcare for the workers to 570%, which is one of the reasons for the conflict. Moreover, the deductibles of the employees are to be increased to 375%. In this regard, the Union of the workers was of the same due to the adverse effect the same would cause to the paychecks of the employees as well as the impact the same will result in especially for the workers in taking care of their families. Moreover, the dispute is further catalyzed since, at the time of the company raising the premiums on the employees, the economic status was hard (Béland, Rocco, & Waddan, 2014).
From Ozarks Coca-Cola Company, they argue to have considered the grievances of the union of workers. To begin with, the Spring Union of Workers only disclosed part of the information concerning the contract when they publicized their concerns, which was not fair for Coca-Cola. Moreover, the arrangement had already expired in April, and hence a new contract had not been agreed upon by the two parties. However, the Springfield Union of workers has been continuously representing the workers of the company since 1995. On the news, the individual who was in charge of providing the information about the negotiations for the company claimed that they would not otherwise provide all the information to the public unless the two parties had corporate with each other (Kearney, & Mareschal, 2014). Moreover, the interviewee claimed that the figures earlier cited were not correct and the premiums that the workers had been paying were $47 for every month and those with families, they had to pay $320 under the new proposal.
From a survey undertaken by Kaiser Family Foundation in 2015, it was identified that, on average, employees in many companies pay a total of $4560 every year, which translates to $413 every month for the medical insurance services. In this regard, therefore, the rates provided for the Coca-Cola bottling company are not very high. According to Gounley, (2017), the members had earlier on agreed that they would have an average amount to be taken for the insurance coverage. Moreover, the Union had the members unanimously vote out the proposed offer of the company on the insurance cover. As such, it was determined that a solution was required to enhance the overall outcomes that benefit the workers. The two parties proposed to have a collaborative agreement in resolving the dispute that raised.
The possible solution that was proposed to the conflict between the two parties is the formation of collaborative agreements to ensure the dispute is resolved efficiently. The cooperative laws would be helpful in providing that the best interest of both the conflicting parties. These laws will assist in ensuring the needs of the staff members are met effectively such that the company will compensate the workers higher than the current pay. Moreover, the two sides must understand the need for solving the different issue for the best benefit of the two parties. In this regard, both Ozarks Coca-Cola bottle company and Spring field Union of workers have to both agree on a collaborative law and agree on a particular rule that would help to benefit the two conflicting parties for effective conflict resolution.
Two Laws and Codes of Ethics that Apply to the Situation
One of the laws that are applicable in the context of the case is the violation the fair labor and compensation's act. It is notable from the case that Ozarks Coca-Cola bottle company does not fully compensate the workers. The salaries they pay to the workers is significantly lower compared to the set standards and what other companies pay their staff members. Moreover, the firm is raining the premiums related to healthcare which the workers are expected to pay to the company. The rise comes about during a hard-economic period which has negative impacts on the staff members and the families (Williams, 2015). The approach, therefore, is unethical as it does not consider the economic state and how the low pay and increased premiums will affect the lifestyle, motivation, and productivity of their workers.
Similarly, the law of collective bargaining for the workers is breached such that the needs of these staff members are not considered, and the base company is not accepting the negotiate talks with the affected members. The Spring Union of Workers has engaged in discussions with the Ozarks Coca-Cola bottle company on the compensation values of the staff members along with the reduction of the premiums that each of these workers are expected to pay to the company, but to no substantive results. The Ozarks Coca-Cola bottle company considers their primary benefits first and does not engage in strategies to ensure the needs of the workers are met. This shows lack of ethical consideration especially for the individuals who have families and have to pay more than the single persons (Rovenpor, & Klimovich, 2014).
Ethical Framework
The Markkula Center Framework is the most appropriate ethical framework to engage in with dealing with the above case. The approach is segmented into five approaches which are aligned in providing the most effective solution to the business. These approaches are:
Utilitarianism
This is where the decision to be made should encompass the best outcome for the conflicting parties. As such, the decision made should ensure the parties involved do not face the detrimental aspects of the ethical issue, but a normal base is set for the two.
The Rights Approach
This is a regulation set to dictate the best decision which preserves the moral rights and human dignity of the participating individuals. As such, the decision made should ensure the interests of the parties are considered, and the moral value of the same is considered first.
Fairness and Justice Approach
This approach calls for the decisions made to be fair and equally beneficial to the conflicting parties. Therefore, the decision that suits the needs of the two parties equally.
Common Good Approach
Actions that promote public life are supported by the common good approach, where the laws that advocate for public welfare and appeal for the same should be made.
Virtue Approach
Honesty, compassion and other similar characteristics are the base for the decision in this approach. The decision is made such that these virtues are considered for effective decisions.
Milton Friedman's Philosophy
Milton Friedman is an American economist who also engaged in statistical data collection. He is known for the free-market capitalism theory. One of the controversial positions of Milton Friedman's theory is the opposite of the minimum wage of individuals being raised. The proposition aligns well with the intention of Ozarks Coca-Cola bottle company which was against the raising of the wages provided to the workers. The theory by Milton Friedman indicates that the rising of the minimum wage is harmful and is only benefited by the low-skilled workers, who obtain higher compensation for skills they do not possess. The scholar argues that this has negative impacts on the overall gain of the company and hence affecting the overall benefits the firm can get.
Conclusion
Ozarks Coca-Cola Bottling Company has engaged in practices of raising the premiums which the have to pay for the healthcare costs in the company. The Springfield Union of Workers, however, engages in practices aimed at negotiating the terms with the bottling company for the reduction of these premiums. Similarly, the union is responsible for negotiating the rate of compensation for the workers of Ozarks Coca-Cola company, which has been paying the staff members a lower amount than the normal standard rate for the workers in the region. The company is seen to have violated various laws and policies aimed at protecting the needs of the employees. The firm as well is not ready to engage in discussions aimed at eliminating the premiums that the employees pay for the healthcare cover or the increase in compensation values for the same. However, the proposed solution to the dispute is the collaborative agreement, which is interested in meeting the needs of the two conflicting parties. The same is also suggested as it will assist in ensuring the laws regulating the business operations such that the compensation levels of the workers will increase and alternatively the premiums set at an amount convenient for the workers.



References
Béland, D., Rocco, P., & Waddan, A. (2014). Implementing health care reform in the United States: Intergovernmental politics and the dilemmas of institutional design. Health Policy, 116(1), 51-60.
Gounley, T. (2017). Union takes Ozarks Coca-Cola contract dispute public over health insurance. Springfield News-Leader. Retrieved 30 August 2017, from http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/business/2016/09/15/union-takes-ozarks-coca-cola-contract-dispute-public-over-health-insurance/90275484/
Harper, C., & Snowden, M. (2017). Environment and society: Human perspectives on environmental issues. Taylor & Francis.
Kearney, R. C., & Mareschal, P. M. (2014). Labor relations in the public sector. crc Press.
Plevan, K. A. (2016). Recent Trends in the Use of Surveys in Advertising and Consumer Deception Disputes. Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop., 15, 49. From https://www.skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2016/02/recent-trends-in-the-use-of-surveys-in-advertising.pdf
Strickland, E. K. (2005). Putting Counselor Back in the Lawyer's Job Description: Why More States Should Adopt Collaborative Law Statutes. NCL Rev., 84, 979.
Rovenpor, J. L., & Klimovich, R. (2014). COCA-COLA COMPANY'S PUBLIC RELATIONS NIGHTMARE. Journal of Critical Incidents, 7. Obtained from https://www.sfcr.org/jci/docs/JCI%20v7_2014.pdf#page=90
Williams, A. (2015). Modern-Day racism in the workplace: Symbolic diversity or real change? SCIENCE, 1(1). Obtained from https://www.vanguard.edu/uploaded/Academics/Graduate/Organizational_Psychology/Modern-Day-racism-in-the-workplace-Symbolic-diversity-or-real-change.pdf