Rewrite answers in own words:
1. Seniority is central in many private and public sector union contracts in the United States. What are the advantages to both employers and employees of using seniority to allocate employment opportunities? What are the disadvantages? How can a balance be struck between the interests of employers and employees?
Seniority is an objective measurement. When seniority is the sole factor in an employment decision, there is no debate. Seniority can also be used as a determining factor when a group of employees is minimally qualified or as a secondary factor when employees are equally qualified for a position. The disadvantage to the latter two is the ambiguous nature of “minimally qualified” and “equally qualified.” Seniority is more likely to be the sole factor in layoffs than for promotions or transfers. Perhaps seniority should be used as a tiebreaker when it would be difficult to make a decision otherwise. If seniority is used as a factor during a layoff or promotion opportunity, the company may be at a disadvantage if a lower-paid, better qualified worker has less seniority than a higher-paid, less qualified or less productive worker. It is also unfair to that better qualified worker. Perhaps qualifications should be looked at first, with seniority used if qualifications are very close.
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having the workplace governed by a legally enforceable contract supported by rights arbitration? Is this a good model for the workplace of the 21st century?
Advantages:
Parleying instead of contesting business law question can be gainful regarding rate, cost, and concentrated ability, however equalization must be found between these advantages and the potential demolition of workers' rights if the mandatory intervention prepare unjustifiably supports managers.
Disadvantages:
No organization needs to be sued for separation, badgering, or other infringement of occupation law. Lawful charges, negative exposure, and the potential for colossal fiscal harms granted by eccentric juries would all be able to hurt an organization's notoriety and financial execution.