Trump Freezing of Federal Pay Conflict Analysis

Introduction

Any person that has had a casual interest in the United States of America government is undoubtedly aware of Trump's unique administration. The administration is characterized by staff turnover chaos, increased trade tariffs, the current proposal of freezing of federal pay and significant others. Trump administration has been like no other with huge transformation and with the president flouting the current policies of presidential behavior flagrantly. The current news on freezing federal pay has not been received well by the federal workers and Democrats; instead, they have a horrible reaction. Capitol Hill legislators term the decision as "knee-jerk" and one which is mindless to manage. Others feel that the move will not play a big part in the intended objective of sustaining fiscal government spending (Karnie, 2019).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Federal employee groups plans are underway to advocate for Congress to agree on a version of state appropriations involving employees pay rise. The freezing of federal pay will create a war between the federal workforce and Donald Trump, and if Trump wins, he will have conquered a battle that many presidents across the world have failed. One possible strategy of resolving the dispute would be mediation or other forms of conflict resolution in the criminal justice system. This essay explores the federal pay freezing conflict, resolution strategy, obstacles to the approach, and its application in resolving the conflict.

The Conflict

President Trump in his FY19 budget proposal announced his intention for freezing federal pay. According to the US president, pay rise for all members of the cabinet, vice president, and all high-ranking government officials will be set at zero. The freeze extends to spending bills paying several government agencies that were not affected before 115th congress expiration. Also, reductions and changes in the retirement and employee health programs were included in the freeze plan. Besides, Trump asserted that the pay plan would not by any chance affect the country ability to retain and attract a professional federal workforce. Before the 2019 budget, the federal workforce was set to have a pay rise of at least $10,000 annually to effect by the end of January 2019. In that context, pay freeze has continued to receive frustrations and anger from the federal workers (Bur, 2018).

Conflict Assessment

The US history documents strong support for federal workforce and a significant reference for ensuring pay competition, and retaining and attracting vision oriented men and women in the US government. Thus, it is with no surprise that the federal workers are angered with Trump pay freeze plans. It is in the 2019 proposed budget that Trump made his plans of freezing pay clear. Federal Retired Employees Association, National Active, and other federal teams have described the proposal as "slap in the face" while the National Treasury Employees union termed it as "pouring salt in the wound" (Ogrysko, 2019). It is therefore clear that the Federal employee team will not let the freeze go down without a fight. In fact, they have put forward a deal with the Democrats to ensure that the Congress sees through the government appropriations that insist on the pay rise for the federal employees. On the other hand, Trump is convinced that slashing the pay rise would fiscally sustain by far the government spending and maintain government compensation in line with the objectives of his administration. Moreover, Trump has set rules on the pay rise requiring that pay rise be based on their performance and critical skills (Bur, 2018). On one hand, Trump insists that the freeze will sustain the government spending, and on the other hand federal workers believe that Trump devalues their devotion and hard-work to the nation, hence conflicting perspectives.

Conflict Analysis

In the 2019 senate-approved genre of government appropriations bill insists on a 1.9% rise in federal pay, which involves the local and base salary and similar to 2018 feds increase. However, Trump has gone against the bill and scrapped federal workers pay due partial shutdown of the government. According to the President, fiscal and economic concerns are the motives behind his proposal. He ascertains that the country cannot sustain the 2.1% increase in federal pay, thus cutting the feds workers' pay. The president is focused on ensuring that the nation is fiscally sustainable and with the 2.1% salary increase, the goal is not achievable. The country is experiencing deficit in its federal budget which had grown to 16% in the 2018 fiscal year (Korte, 2018). Federal workers associations argue that the military spending, tax cuts supported by the president, as well as the increase in social security, Medicaid and Medicare maximizes the budget deficit to $21.4 trillion in the current year. The feds workers sentiments conclude that the presidential decision is a strategy to hide his administration fiscal mismanagement. National Treasury Employees Union President, Tony Reardon also has his opinion. He mentions that Trump's decision is humiliating, disappointing and disrespectful towards his own administration workforce. Many are of the opinion that, the employees in the federal unit should be appreciated and their service recognized through fulfilling the minimum pay rise of 1.9%, as dictated by the 96-2 approved votes of bipartisan in the Senate (Karnie, 2019).

As the Presidents feels his decision will work best in sustaining government spending fiscally, the large population, mainly, the federal group feels the decision as an attack and an economic concern. Their opinion is motivated by the fact that Trump formulated a tax bill that increased deficits by $1.5 trillion in the previous year. The differences motivate further the federals into going into war with Trump to ensure their pay rise is maintained. Federal employees maintains that the US president should recognize their devotion into serving the country with at least 1.9% pay adjustment as supported by bipartisan vote (Korte, 2018). The Senate holds that Trump has no mandate to interfere with union contracts since it would infringe the mutual bargaining powers owned by the federal team under the USA law. The affected group threatens to go to war with the president to ensure the option is not implemented.

Battling with Trump is a task, but there are several ways out of the freeze for the federals. They could Reform the law, leave the matter to the House of Democrats, initiate mediation or implement a new constitution curb the problem. The common objective of these solutions is reaching a satisfying agreement for both parties. However, reforming laws might weaken specific requirements and make one party more powerful. Similarly, House of Democrats could create programs that divert from the course of the issue and frustrate the minority group, and Trump's administration would keep on exploiting the workers. Nonetheless, if the solution is based entirely on different procedure away from juries, laws, and courts, then the parties would reach an agreement. The alternative conflict resolution, in this case, would be mediation, a practice that is famous in the United States in the current decade and is a significant step for the process of litigation among civil practitioners (UN Department of Political Affairs, 2014).

Best Solution

Moore (2014) described meditation as an intervention into conflict through an impartial, acceptable and neutral party with official decision-making authority to help conflicting parties in reaching a voluntary and mutually agreeable settlement on the different issue. According to UN Department of Political Affairs, United States has had 120 mediation strategies in criminal law, with the majority of Americans identifying themselves as victims of the mediation programs (UN Department of Political Affairs, 2014). Mediation has primarily been applied to cases associated with juvenile offenses, small property crimes and other of the same kind. For juvenile cases, negotiation is usually explicit because the society believes in learning from personal mistakes and gaining from rehabilitative action. In the mediation program, the victim and the offender meet face-to-face under a structured process of a mediator (Umbreit, 1995).

The mediation often occurs after a court involvement (Moore, 2014). Based on the UN Department of Political Affairs (2014), negotiation can occur during the court process, although most of the US negotiations happen after jury involvement. Mediators undergo training and apprenticeship mediating duration with qualified co-mediator in not less than four cases. The training emphasizes on participatory, experiential and on role plays and skill modeling (Umbreit, 1995). Nonetheless, the mediator has the role of formulating an approach towards the source and conflict nature, victim needs, and parties' behaviors (Bishop et al., 2014, p.15-17). Therefore, mediation seeks to provide solutions to conflicts and lessening the burden for the Jury system. Mediation systems can alleviate budget deficits in courts; reduce disputes rate and overcrowding in courts.

Mediation in Solving the Conflict of Freezing Federal Pay

Mediation is well-suited in this case, since Trump decision is yet to be implemented, which allows an opportunity for negotiations. The federal workers have a chance to have a sitting with the president and communicate on their concerns and recommendations in an attempt to meet an agreement. Mediation and negotiation will result in a long-term decision that satisfies both the federal team and Trump administration needs. Furthermore, the resolution strategy will enhance communication between the two parties creating a cordial relationship and basis of understanding. Mediation is thus appropriate because plea negotiations will take place with both parties having necessary information regarding the issue. Trump's government will have a chance to express the basis of their decision while the federals get a chance to express their opinion and knowledge regarding the freeze plans. Secondly, the presence of a mediator ensures that both parties have equal bargaining power allowing them to be equally informed on the benefits and risks of their decisions.

Crawford, Dabney, Filner, and Maida, (2003) argued that most employees in federal and state agencies have adopted mediation programs for resolving workplace conflicts. However, mediators need to have expert opinions for the success of the mediation strategy. Thus, the mediator will assist the state employees and national government focus and dovetail on their interests (Fisher & Ury, 1991). Mediation involves empowerment for the involved victims to control their emotions and all mediation aspects. Besides, the approach allows the parties to clarify their goals, choices, and interest; whereas the mediator fosters recognition moment to let the parties reach an understanding and acknowledge everyone perspective. The mediation approach will involve five stages; preparation, introducing, framing the issue, determining interests and crafting solutions based on Bishop, Sargent, Picard, & Ramkay, 2014.

Preparing: In this stage, the federal team will work with the Senate and the House of Democrats to inform the Trump's administration of their concerns and dissatisfaction regarding the issue. This stage is necessary for the sense that the complainants will have to express their concerns. The mediator, in this case, must earn the trust of both parties, define their role, neutralize, and be willing to cooperate. It is still in this stage that the Senate will ensure that the mediation complies with the state laws and that the federal workers receive fair and respectful treatment, and guard them against th...