On the third question it asks how to induct robots in a large scale but replacing retired employees won't help the CEO inducting more number of robots in the factory. Sir, that's why I think first option is more appropriate for the third one.
The workforce possesses some rights too though. The keyword here is "generous", if they're permanent the company has clearly entered into a previous contract to keep them employed for 65 yrs because it considered their skills to be worth such value. Large-scale induction is a paradox. He'd have to opt for a phased plan which requires worker cooperation and compensation. In the long run this will collate to reflect a large-scale change.
@@scurryfunge7608 I got your point but what about the fact the rival company has already inducted the robots ? option C seems to be long term. Hence, it will cause them to loose business
@@downgradeddiogenes8378it won't. The question says nothing about the workers not being able to keep up with market demand for the company's products. The CEO thinks it'd be profitable to replace human labour with machine labour because there's greater efficiency and less cost in the long term (initial installation will still cost a fortune). Machines can also be made to work overtime without extra wages and there's no labour law compliance either. So more money gets pulled. But, his profits will rather depend on market demand than his company's ability to manufacture more cars. In fact if there's overproduction, they may have to bring prices down to attract more buyers!
Sir, but the CEO is not accountable to gain his workers employment somewhere else, at the best he can help them with some monetary help for 2-3 months and could have discussed with his workers about their plans well in advance as we saw the same during layoffs due to Covid-19. So shouldn't (A) be a better option than (D) in Q2?
Option 3 looks impractical. If the aim is to implement robots at a large scale, how is it practical to employ robots only when a VRS happens. This way, I think our competitors will certainly jump ahead of us. And instead of waiting for them to take VRS, I would prefer employing them into other departments. Obviously if one fears a job loss, he/she should be flexible enough to learn the new skill/tech required. No point in waiting for him to take ka VRS
How u can replace all the worker to other function , utni vacancy honi chahhiye other work k lie,skill is also one factor...and suddenly tranfering all the worker of assembly line will also creat chaos
jb ans pta ho toh options ko eliminate krna kitna asan h na
On the third question it asks how to induct robots in a large scale but replacing retired employees won't help the CEO inducting more number of robots in the factory.
Sir, that's why I think first option is more appropriate for the third one.
I also feel option 1 is better than 3 .. coz the question clearly says large scale
Yes, its VRS scheme after all. What if no one opts for VRS, in that case no robots. So option 1 looks better.
The workforce possesses some rights too though. The keyword here is "generous", if they're permanent the company has clearly entered into a previous contract to keep them employed for 65 yrs because it considered their skills to be worth such value.
Large-scale induction is a paradox. He'd have to opt for a phased plan which requires worker cooperation and compensation. In the long run this will collate to reflect a large-scale change.
@@scurryfunge7608 I got your point but what about the fact the rival company has already inducted the robots ? option C seems to be long term. Hence, it will cause them to loose business
@@downgradeddiogenes8378it won't.
The question says nothing about the workers not being able to keep up with market demand for the company's products.
The CEO thinks it'd be profitable to replace human labour with machine labour because there's greater efficiency and less cost in the long term (initial installation will still cost a fortune). Machines can also be made to work overtime without extra wages and there's no labour law compliance either. So more money gets pulled.
But, his profits will rather depend on market demand than his company's ability to manufacture more cars. In fact if there's overproduction, they may have to bring prices down to attract more buyers!
Sir in Q3, why are we not considering "large scale induction of robots" into consideration?
is it because we dont have better option than option C ?
Got fumbled in 3rd Question... Keeping large scale induction of robots I thought Option 1 is the answer... Remaining all went good...
Thank you sir ❤️
Thank you sir for your efforts 🙏❣️
Thank you so much Sir for amazing sets! ☺
Thank you sir!!!
Decision making sets are really boosting my confidence. Thankyou sir...
Thank you, Sir. Much needed final touch. 🙏🙏
Sir, but the CEO is not accountable to gain his workers employment somewhere else, at the best he can help them with some monetary help for 2-3 months and could have discussed with his workers about their plans well in advance as we saw the same during layoffs due to Covid-19. So shouldn't (A) be a better option than (D) in Q2?
I was thinking option E would be more convincing and cost effective.
helpful
Wow sir thanks for the DM booster sessions 🙏 amazing content😊
Thanks so much Sir!
Thank you Sir 🙏
but how option C IN QUESTION 3 IS COST EFFECTIVE?
Option 3 looks impractical. If the aim is to implement robots at a large scale, how is it practical to employ robots only when a VRS happens. This way, I think our competitors will certainly jump ahead of us. And instead of waiting for them to take VRS, I would prefer employing them into other departments. Obviously if one fears a job loss, he/she should be flexible enough to learn the new skill/tech required. No point in waiting for him to take ka VRS
How u can replace all the worker to other function , utni vacancy honi chahhiye other work k lie,skill is also one factor...and suddenly tranfering all the worker of assembly line will also creat chaos
very good content
are these pyqs?
Where is it free 2000 qn