which of the following explains why shouldnt a business improve efficency by laying off the oldest and therefore highest paid employees
this action gives unrealistic hope to those who remain
this action given employees too many choices
this action violates the WARN act
this action discriminates illegally
All of the above options present valid reasons why a business shouldn't improve efficiency by laying off the oldest and highest-paid employees. Let's briefly discuss each statement:
1. This action gives unrealistic hope to those who remain: Laying off the oldest and highest-paid employees can lead to fear and insecurity among the remaining employees. They might feel uncertain about their own job security or worry that they could be next. This can negatively impact morale and productivity within the company.
2. This action gives employees too many choices: It is unclear how this statement relates to laying off the oldest and highest-paid employees. Having choices can be beneficial for employees, but it is not directly connected to this particular action.
3. This action violates the WARN Act: The WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) Act is a U.S. labor law that requires employers to give advance notice of layoffs and plant closures. If a business lays off a significant number of employees without adhering to the WARN Act's requirements, they could face legal consequences.
4. This action discriminates illegally: If the decision to lay off the oldest and highest-paid employees is based solely on their age or to avoid paying higher salaries, it would likely be considered illegal age discrimination. Employment laws generally prohibit discrimination based on age, race, gender, disability, etc.
In summary, all of the statements, except for "This action gives employees too many choices," provide legitimate reasons why a business should not improve efficiency by laying off the oldest and highest-paid employees.
The reason why a business should not improve efficiency by laying off the oldest and highest paid employees is because this action violates the WARN act and discriminates illegally. The WARN act, also known as the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, requires employers to provide advance notice of a large-scale layoff or plant closure. By targeting older and higher-paid employees, the business would be engaging in age discrimination, which is illegal under various employment laws.
Furthermore, this action gives unrealistic hope to those who remain and provides employees with too many choices. Laying off experienced and well-paid employees may create a perception among remaining employees that their job security is also uncertain. Additionally, having too many choices can create confusion and stress among employees, leading to lower morale and productivity.
It is important for businesses to seek alternative methods to improve efficiency, such as implementing new technologies, streamlining processes, or retraining employees, rather than resorting to discriminatory actions that violate employment laws.
The reason why a business should not improve efficiency by laying off the oldest and highest-paid employees is because it can have negative consequences and may be unethical. Let's break down each option to understand why they are not suitable:
1. "This action gives unrealistic hope to those who remain": This option implies that by laying off older and higher-paid employees, the company is creating false expectations for the remaining employees. However, this explanation does not directly address why the process is problematic.
2. "This action gives employees too many choices": This option does not adequately explain why a business should not lay off older and higher-paid employees. Having multiple choices for employees does not inherently make the action itself problematic.
3. "This action violates the WARN Act": The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act is a federal labor law that requires employers to provide advance notice of mass layoffs or plant closures. If a business were to lay off a significant number of employees without abiding by the requirements of the WARN Act, then it would indeed be a violation. However, this option does not explain why laying off the oldest and highest-paid employees is problematic.
4. "This action discriminates illegally": This option suggests that laying off the oldest and highest-paid employees could be considered illegal discrimination. Age discrimination is prohibited by laws, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). If a company were to lay off older employees solely based on their age, it would indeed be illegal. Therefore, this option provides a more appropriate explanation as to why such actions should not be taken.
In summary, the most reasonable explanation for why a business should not lay off the oldest and highest-paid employees is that it can be considered illegal discrimination.