Question

“What incentive is there, then, to pay your dues?” the plaintiff’s attorney asked the jury. “We want the most experienced people on the streets.” How would you decide the case, if you were on this jury? What is your own judgment of Avigliano’s “hard choice?” Do you view his rationale for laying off older workers as “bad public policy” or the least harmful choice in light of economic pressures

Answer 1

Well, in my opinion, detectives do wonderful jobs. Most of the cases in this field are quickly solved with experienced people on board. Wanting the most experienced people on the streets is a right thing to do. Detectives with very little experience may not crack elaborative and difficult cases. Experience always counts.

Secondly, these experienced detectives should be put on priority jobs instead of laying them off. Laying them off from their jobs is not a right thing to do. Avigliano's office should have these experienced detectives on pay roles untill and unless they themselves retire from the job. My contention is, if these experienced detectives come together and start a new firm, then they are preferred by the people to solve their cases. In the other words, people would approach them instead of approaching Avigliano's office, which is again a threat to Avigliano.

Therefore, Avigliano should go ahead with the older staff, keep them for their experience and expertise. Such people will add brownie points to the firm with the years of experience they gather. Such people will be wise and take a better decision in terms of crisis. Economic pressures are common, they come and go, and they are not constant. Losing wise people for the sake of economic crisis is not a right thing to do. Instead, the firm should look at alternatives in reviving the business.