Final answer:
The claim that new employees have a lower rate of injury than experienced workers is generally false as they may not be as familiar with safety protocols. Employers mitigate the risk of hiring by using probationary periods, and assembly lines historically made jobs more boring and repetitious.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that new employees tend to have a lower rate of injury than experienced workers is generally considered false. New employees may not be fully acquainted with the workplace, its hazards, or the necessary safety procedures, which can lead to a higher risk of injury. Experienced workers, on the other hand, are often more familiar with the work environment and safety protocols due to their job market experience and training.
Furthermore, employers often take precautions when hiring new employees, including implementing a trial or probationary period. This serves as a safety net for the employer against the risk of hiring an underperforming employee, otherwise known as a "lemon." During this period, the employer can dismiss the worker relatively easily, and sometimes workers receive lower pay. This probationary period, however, is not necessarily connected with workplace injuries but rather with overall job performance and fit.
Historically, innovations such as assembly lines can lead to various impacts on workers. They have made jobs boring and repetitious due to the nature of the work involved in an assembly line (c. They made jobs boring and repetitious). Although there can be misconceptions about union workers' willingness to adopt new technology, in many cases union workers can be more open to such changes if they believe their union will protect their jobs and wages, leveraging their existing job market experience and training to adapt.