IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v20y2004i02p279-305_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Seniority Privileges Unfair?

Author

Listed:
  • GOSSERIES, AXEL P.

Abstract

What should maximin egalitarians think about seniority privileges? We contrast a good-specific and an all-things-considered perspective. As to the former, inertia and erasing effects of a seniority-based allocation of benefits from employment are identified, allowing us to spot the categories of workers and job-seekers made involuntarily worse off by such a practice. What matters however is to find out whether abolishing seniority privileges will bring about a society in which the all-things-considered worst off people are better off than in the seniority rule's presence. An assessment of the latter's cost-reduction potential is thus needed, enabling us to bridge a practice taking place within a firm with its impact on who the least well off members of society are likely to be. Three accounts of the profitability of seniority privileges are discussed: the “(firm specific) human capital†, the “deferred compensation†and the “knowledge transfer†ones. The respective relevance of “good-specific†and “all-things-considered†analysis is discussed. It turns out that under certain circumstances, a maximin egalitarian case for seniority privileges could be made.Senior: Do you know that they are planning layoffs? Of course, it is only fair that they lay-off the newcomers first! After all, I have been loyal to the company for many years.Junior: Did I choose to be a newcomer?

Suggested Citation

  • Gosseries, Axel P., 2004. "Are Seniority Privileges Unfair?," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 279-305, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:20:y:2004:i:02:p:279-305_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267104000215/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liu, Jianwei & Zhang, Xiaofei & Meng, Fanbo & Lai, Kee-hung, 2020. "Deploying gamification to engage physicians in an online health community: An operational paradox," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    2. Geert Demuijnck, 2009. "From an Implicit Christian Corporate Culture to a Structured Conception of Corporate Ethical Responsibility in a Retail Company: A Case-Study in Hermeneutic Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 387-404, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:20:y:2004:i:02:p:279-305_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.