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.
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
1 answer