Final answer:
Both opponents and defendants of the seniority rule provide strong arguments. Opponents highlight potential unfairness and inefficiency, whereas defendants emphasize the value of experience and stability. The strength of each argument may vary depending on societal values and specific contexts.
Step-by-step explanation:
To evaluate who has the stronger argument regarding the seniority rule, it's important to consider the positions of both opponents and defendants. Opponents argue that the seniority rule can lead to unfairness and inefficiency, as it may protect underperforming employees and hinder the advancement of potentially more skilled but less senior workers. Defendants of the rule assert that it ensures experience and stability within the workforce, as employees with more years of service bring valuable knowledge and continuity.
When applying this to affirmative action, supporters believe it promotes equal opportunities and benefits society by improving equity. They see any impact on efficiency as minor. Detractors of affirmative action view it as causing efficiency losses and being discriminatory in itself. Similar to the adversarial judicial system, as seen in the case of Samantha Elauf where her First Amendment rights were upheld by the Supreme Court against Abercrombie & Fitch, both systems aim to balance rights against societal norms or regulations.
Consequently, the strength of the arguments might depend on the context and the values that a society holds. Consistency and predictability in recognizing seniority can be as compelling as advocating for a merit-based system that might foster more competition and innovation. Therefore, one could argue that both sides of the debate over the seniority rule have equally strong arguments, depending on the viewpoint.