Final answer:
A business reducing its help desk pool which results in long hold times for customers is not more efficient or legally committing fraud, but rather may be taking advantage of a lack of competition, which can lead to reduced service quality. The correct answers are option a and c.
Step-by-step explanation:
A business that reduces its help desk pool so that callers must be on hold for long periods may be leveraging their dominant market position, perhaps similar to a monopoly. This action could be perceived as a business taking liberties with customer service quality due to the lack of competitive pressure to offer better service or responsiveness. The options given in the question to categorize such a business practice seem subjective and would depend on various factors, including the reasons behind the reduction of the help desk pool and the expectations set with customers.
From a legal standpoint, the company is not legally liable for fraud (option c) unless they have engaged in deceptive practices or breached contracts. The question of whether they are cheating the public and their customers (option b) would depend on the circumstances and is largely a matter for public opinion. While being more efficient implies optimizing resources and processes to provide better service, reducing customer service quality by increasing wait times does not typically equate to increased efficiency in a business context.
Therefore, option a is unlikely. Option d suggests that the company is valuing its employees' time over service quality, but this is not necessarily a fair assessment without understanding the full context and motivations behind the action.
On the matter of market pressure as a motivator for better business practices, it's clear in competitive environments that businesses can be driven to improve services. For example, an organization with discriminatory practices may find itself under pressure to change if it starts losing workers to competitors offering better pay, as referenced in one of the provided scenarios. Providing good customer service is vital for maintaining a satisfied client base, as demonstrated in the anecdote about a fast food restaurant improving its lineup system based on customer feedback.
However, in the case of a business with a monopolistic position, the absence of competition often leads to less emphasis on customer satisfaction, as seen in the case of government bureaus like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or the Bureau of Consular Affairs (BCA). These organizations do not face the same consequences for inefficiency or poor customer service that businesses in competitive markets do, which can result in longer processing times and lower client responsiveness.