The argument has been made that competitive labor markets will eliminate irrelevant and invidious discrimination because it forces employers to select and retain employees based strictly on their productivity.
Assuming that this theory is held to be true, will civil rights law eventually become irrelevant?
What are the major strengths or weaknesses in that argument?
The strengths of this argument is that if we're looking strictly at productivity, employers couldn't deny someone who may otherwise be discriminated upon employment because in this type ...
The strengths of this argument is that if we're looking strictly at productivity, employers couldn't deny someone who may otherwise be discriminated upon employment because in this type of market, this employee will make the employer the most amount of profit for the least amount of expense.
However, the weakness of this argument applies to those employees who have very similar productivity results. Thus, at that point, if we have two employees who are just as productive as the other, we can still have discrimination by retaining one over the other not based on productivity but based sex, race, etc. Thus, we still have to have civil rights laws or it will put the minority as a second class employee when productivity levels are similar.
HR dealings with Unions, replacement workers, UPI under NLRA, and a survey
Unions, Labor Law, and Managerial Perspectives
(Complete the questionnaire in Form 13.2.1 on page 646. Following this step, select three statements and conduct research to gain a greater understanding of these statements in this exercise. Based on this research, cross out any of your original ratings and replace them with "more educated" judgments. Then answer the following question
Based on this research and analysis, how did your perspectives change, if any? Explain your rationale whether your views changed or remained the same.View Full Posting Details