Since the beginning of the discovery of America and the development of new territories, slavery has become widespread. Slavery occupies a relatively large segment of the historical existence of British America and the United States. The constitution adopted in 1787, simultaneously with the proclamation of various democratic freedoms, legalized slavery. The history of the United States is unique: it is the only state in the world that built capitalism and democracy to exploit slave labor.
Slaves were a valuable asset, the value of which grew every year. For example, in 1860, a healthy adult male slave cost $ 1,800 – a considerable amount of money. In many cases, the slaves lived in conditions similar to those of the free white workers of that period, and sometimes even better. The slaves had guaranteed overnight accommodation, food, water, and in case of illness – medical care. The slavery of South America was based on the cultivation of cotton, the harvesting of which employed about 90% of the slaves. In the first half of the 19th century, the slave-owning economy of South America provided 2/3 of the world’s cotton harvest.
The assessment of the effectiveness of the cotton plantations of the South was very high. The cotton boom stimulated the growth of demand for slave labor. The low price of cotton allowed textile manufacturers – both in the United States and England – to expand production and provide consumers with cheap goods.
There was paternalism in the relations between slaves and masters, as most southern planters treated their black slaves as adults treated children. The white masters provided the basic needs of their slaves, and the slaves allowed the masters to dictate the rules of public and private behavior. In addition, black-skinned people born as slaves with their mother’s milk absorbed the realization that they must remain submissive to the owner’s will. Black-skinned slaves cooked food, nursed the master’s children, served as maids, and housekeepers accompanied their masters on trips, etc. There were situations in the order of things when the nurse of a white child was a black slave. The frequent consequences of such cases were situations when a white boy had a black foster brother. Such a foster brother grew up with the master’s child, became the first friend in children’s games, and later-a personal servant accompanying his master to war.
At the same time, it was the order of things to separate families, when children were sold separately from their parents, and husbands were separated from their wives. Slaveholders used slaves as chattels and insisted on the need for increasingly strict laws to protect their property – slaves. An example of such a law is the “Fugitive Slave Act” of 1850. As in any slave-owning society, the enslaved people in South America resisted their oppressors.
In addition to more passive forms of resistance, such as deliberate slowing down, many autonomous communities of runaway slaves have emerged in South America. These communities were called Mocambo or Quilombo, and often located near settlements or plantations, mainly relying on raids and theft. Black people living in cities often helped Mocambo by letting them into the city to take supplies and gunpowder. However, most Mocambo was not to overthrow the slave system but to exist outside of white society.
The planters did not interfere in the organization of the plantation labor of black slaves. The slaves themselves organized a complex plantation enterprise and were much more efficient than white farmers. White farmers were unable to master the complex organization of collective labor that black slaves had. The black slaves had a brigade labor organization based on cooperation and specialization. For example, when sowing, the “black brigades” consisted of five people – the plowman, the harrower, driller, dropper, and raker – each performed his function. Black slaves, working on plantations, united in communities and became labor collectives. Slaves, in critical conditions and in an alien cultural environment, created an original technology based on the experience, skills, and norms of their culture.
The southern elites perceived the slave-owning system as absolutely natural. The masters provided their slaves with good living conditions and took care of them as a helpful tool. Still, Negroes mainly were viewed as second-class people – both slaveholders and poor white people who did not have slaves agreed on this opinion. The slave was completely defenseless before the owner, who could torture or rape him — such cases are also recorded. There were exceptions, for example, in Louisiana, where many free blacks historically lived, but they had little effect on the overall picture and mood. A considerable role in the development of the slave system was played by cotton plantations, which made a significant contribution to the economy of South America. Thus, slavery played a crucial role in creating the Southern mentality and worldview and significantly formed the social background.
Conflicts, Politics, And Conflict-Handling Styles
Conflicts in society and organizations are inevitable as any environment that presents a common ground for an exchange of different opinions is inevitably subjected to disagreements. Although conflicts are frequently associated with negativity and emotional involvement, conflict as a term stands for the clash between individuals with differences in interests, opinions, attitudes, or backgrounds. Thus, the conflict itself does not involve negativity or personal relationships; however, negativity is sourced within the individuals’ coping mechanisms and conflict-handling style. In organizations, conflicts often become a point that emphasizes the need for action or improvements and have positive outcomes unless they involve personal relationships. One of the most prominent areas of modern society, politics, is based on conflict of opinions. The societies of the past would not be able to progress to the current situation without the occurrence of conflicts and disagreements. Conflicts allow individuals to defend their viewpoints and convey their opinions to those who disagree with them.
With the rising of capitalism and big corporations, the workplace became one of the places where defending personal political views and opinions became almost impossible due to corporate limitations. Although the country’s policies allow freedom of speech, there is a common opinion that political activism in the workplace can negatively impact one’s career progression. While in some communist countries, political activism is persecuted by the government, here the issue involves barriers placed on the career path of more politically active employees by individuals in leadership positions.
There are several reasons why big corporations force limitations of political views on their employees. First, the companies are concerned about their image and how it could be affected by the political activism of employees and create tension within their customers’ audience (Hirsch, 2018). In the recent prominent political events of Black Lives Matter movement many employees supported the movement by wearing clothes with the movements’ symbols. However, many of them were instructed by the HR representatives in their workplace to stop showing their support to avoid disturbing the customers and prevent customer complaints or lawsuits. In addition to the potential harm to the company’s image, political discussions are unwelcome in corporate culture due to potential tension between employees that could negatively impact the efficiency of the working process. Both reasons do not imply companies setting up a barrier on the career path of more politically advanced employees, and the majority of the companies allow participating in peaceful protests outside of working hours. However, when employees disregard the company’s values for the sake of their political views, the employer is allowed to put sanctions on the employee.
Current trends in business development and hiring principles suggest aligning the company’s mission, vision, and goals with the employees’ individual goals, which explains why more companies make their collective political views more apparent. Being transparent in their political position allows businesses to attract new employees with similar views and increase productivity through high employee motivation. Although I believe that an individual’s political tendencies should not determine their career progression, I agree that excessive political activism is inappropriate in a workplace unless it involves the organization’s inner activities. However, I assume that if all employees were able to convey their political views in the form of neutral discussion without creating any tension, that would benefit the working environment and atmosphere in working teams.
In terms of the working environment within the organization, keeping the status quo for employees can negatively affect the efficiency of the business. In business and management, the best ideas and decisions are made as a result of active discussions or even conflicts between the participants. The conflict illustrates the individual’s interest in the result or decision and emphasizes the determination to the goals. On the other hand, keeping the status quo slows the discussion and demonstrates the individuals’ indifference to the problem. However, depending on the organization, there could be situations in which employees would prefer to keep the status quo rather than openly expressing their opinions due to an unwelcoming working climate and environment.
To prevent the occurrence of such situations organization’s leadership should regularly evaluate the working climate and make sure that all employees are comfortable expressing their opinions. The limitation of the personnel involved in the decision-making process could distort and alter the final decision to fit only the needs of groups or individuals who actively participated in the discussion. The issue would negatively affect the business by creating a politically charged environment and making other employees feel powerless and insignificant to leadership. Moreover, according to Geurkink et al. (2020), there is a direct connection between an individual’s workplace voice and political participation. Thus, conflicts are mainly beneficial to organizations with a healthy working environment that encourages employees to express their opinions to increase their level of engagement and input in the decision-making process.
One of the critical skills for the collective decision-making process is the ability to use different methods and styles of conflict handling. Many different conflict-handling styles primarily connect to the individual’s personality, so people might intuitively choose one or several conflict-handling styles without even knowing about other conflict-handling styles. Although the final goal of conflict handling is negotiation, not all conflict participants may hold the capacity to negotiate or have an open-minded conversation (Ellis & Abbott, 2020). Several conflict-handling styles include avoiding, accommodating, compromising, competing, and collaborating aspects. While in some situations involving personal relationships, the avoiding or accommodating styles might help make valuable decisions and keep the relationships, the most suitable conflict-handling style for professional purposes is collaborating.
Collaborating conflict-handling style implies taking the interest of both parties into account. Collaborating is recommended for organizations’ purposes because it allows both parties to express their concerns and reach a win-win outcome (Mosadeghrad & Mojbafan, 2019). I prefer the negotiation approach with a collaborating style; however, when collaboration is not possible due to complications or a short time frame for discussion, I prefer to choose the compromising style. In terms of bargaining strategies, I find that integrative bargaining promotes negotiation and supports the win-win outcome, which fits the collaborating and compromising conflict-handling style that I use primarily.
In conclusion, this paper explored how conflicts allow individuals to defend their viewpoints and convey their opinions to other people. Conflicts in organizations with a healthy working environment that welcomes employees to share their opinion in the decision-making process, in general, have positive outcomes. Although nothing prevents employees from defending their viewpoints, excessive political discussions and activism in the workplace could harm the company’s image and negatively affect the company’s connection with customers and create tension in the work teams. In the professional sphere, the most suitable style of conflict-handling is collaborating. Integrative bargaining promotes negotiation and supports the outcome that would benefit both participants.
References
Ellis, P., & Abbott, J. (2020). Managing conflict in the workplace: Handling ingrained conflict. Journal of Kidney Care, 5(4), 192-194.
Geurkink, B., Akkerman, A., & Sluiter, R. (2020). Political participation and workplace voice: The spillover of suppression by supervisors. Political Studies, 1-21.
Hirsch, P. B. (2018). Trolls in the cafeteria: Managing political speech in the workplace. Journal of Business Strategy, 39, 56-59.
Mosadeghrad, A. M., & Mojbafan, A. (2019). Conflict and conflict management in Iranian hospitals. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 32(3), 550-561.
Cannabis Supply, Demand, And Consumption
The supply and demand of recreational and medical marijuana were considerably impacted by the pandemic of the coronavirus and related isolation. According to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, the production of cannabis has increased by 78% since 2019, while the amount of marijuana sold increased by 150% (1). Thus this highly increased consumption contributed to the boost of demand “from 50% of total annual supply to 65%” (Oregon Liquor Control Commission 1). In other words, the more cannabis people started to consume, the more supplier appeared to propose it to them.
In general, consumption accountably increased due to the growing level of stress caused by the pandemic and related economic and health issues and compulsory isolation. For a substantial number of marijuana consumers, it is regarded as “an important tool for de-stressing” (Krane). In addition, a lot of Americans doubt that access to alcohol during isolation is essential for their well-being as excessive consumption of toxic substances during highly stressful periods will inevitably lead to serious health issues, hangovers, aggression, and family violence. At the same time, cannabis demand was supported by its inclusion in the list of essentials along with toilet paper, groceries, and cleaning supplies (Krane). Thus cannabis businesses were allowed to stay open, and this affected the growing number of suppliers as well.
The demand and consumption of marijuana in the future will be fully determined by the spread of COVID-19 and its consequences. With the isolation’s cancel, demand will inevitably decrease, and cannabis producers should consider the situation with the coronavirus and governmental response to control production. In addition, decreased consumption will lead to decreased number of suppliers. At the same time, the production and supply of medical cannabis should be stable for patients who are in need of marijuana as a medicine.
Works Cited
Krane, Kris. “How The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Affect The Cannabis Industry.” Forbes, 2020, Web.
Oregon Liquor Control Commission. “2021 Recreational Marijuana Supply and Demand Report.” Web.