Final answer:
Treating a manager and an employee or a contractor and an employee differently can be justified based on the difference in their roles and work agreements. However, when discrimination is involved, market forces can push businesses to act less discriminatorily to preserve revenue, maintain operations, and avoid legal action.
Step-by-step explanation:
Justifying different treatment of a manager and an employee or a contractor and an employee may sometimes be necessary due to the differing roles, responsibilities, and the nature of their work agreements. For instance, a manager may have more responsibility and a broader scope of work compared to a regular employee, thereby justifying a different approach in terms of remuneration, decision-making authority, and accountability. On the other hand, the relationship with a contractor is typically governed by the terms of a contract which often specifies deliverables and payment, while an employee is bound by the terms of employment which may include benefits and long-term engagement beyond individual projects. In the context of discrimination, however, market forces can someimes encourage businesses to act less discriminatorily. A bigoted flower delivery business owner may recognize the importance of their diverse customer base and thus have an incentive to treat customers without bias to sustain revenue. Similarly, an assembly line facing a worker shortage might start hiring qualified women to keep the production moving. Lastly, a home health care services firm may find that discriminating against Hispanic workers might lead to legal action or difficulty in hiring, thereby incentivizing the owner to pay equitable wages. Discriminatory practices can lead to consequences such as loss of customers, difficulty in hiring, and potential lawsuits, which can drive businesses to act in a more equitable fashion.