21. “Job security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service. Rewarding employees primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of productivity.” “工作保险和工资应该建立在雇员绩效的基础上而非工作年限上。主要根据工作年限奖励员工不利于人们保持高水平的生产力。” 
1.       一方面绩效工资会促进工人的劳动生产率，使偷懒的工人得到惩罚;使专心工作投入较大的工人得到补偿增大他们的激励.
2.       另一方面,单纯的使用绩效工资也可能会打击一部分工人的劳动积极性.因为有一些为公司服务很久的工人可能仅可能是由于年龄的原因劳动生产率下降.而且社会物价的总体水平也是应该考虑的因素之一,当存在通货膨胀时候如果仅依照绩效评价,那么工人整体的生活水平会下降也不利于劳动生产率.
productivity productive counterproductive security secure salary solely sole performance length incentive motivation enticement stimulus impetus incitement tenured professor associate professor achievement reward average worthwhile amply ample schedule salary condemn判刑,谴责
loyal royal loyalty refuse adjust counterproductive attract retain reserve withhold uphold criterion criteria security ignore ignorance 
 
1， 首先，完全根据年限来看，是不利于生产力进步的。——这样员工只要在企业里待着，表现平庸provide third-class performance就可以得到更多的奖励，这显然是不利于整个团队的morale的。一方面，老的不能激发；另一方面，有才干的年轻人也不会愿意加入这个企业。
2， 但也不能完全只看表现，还要在此同时考虑到年限。因为老员工又同时非常优秀的表现，为企业付出了更多的力量devote their entire life to the development of one corporation。如果完全一视同仁，也不一定更公平。反而很可能使老员工感到不公平treated unfairly，丧失对企业的loyalty。
3， 应该综合来看，考虑到表现相同的员工，根据服务年限不同得到不同的待遇。
 
View1. Performance plays an important role in the assessment procedural of employees.
View2. It is true that reward employees solely according to their seniority will affect the overall productivity, however, the year of services do contain some indication on specialty and experience. More over, when conducting work assessment of certain positions such as consultant, in which performance become hard to evaluate, seniority acts as useful supplement 
 
According to the statement, in order to ensure high productivity, companies should base their employees’ salaries and job security solely on job performance, and not on length of service to the company. I agree that salary increases and job security are powerful incentives to high achievement and should generally go to those who do the best work. However, to ensure employee productivity, companies must also reward tenured employees with cost-of-living raises—though not with job security.
On the one hand, rewarding average job performance with large pay increases or promises of job security is a waste of resources—for two reasons. First, complacent employees will see no reason to become more productive. Secondly, those normally inclined to high achievement may decide the effort isn’t worthwhile when mediocre efforts are amply compensated. Companies should, therefore, adjust their pay schedules so that the largest salaries go to the most productive employees.
On the other hand, employees who perform their jobs satisfactorily should be given regular, though small, service-based pay increases—also for two reasons. First, the cost of living is steadily rising, so on the principle of fair compensation alone, it is unjust to condemn loyal employees to de facto salary reductions by refusing them cost-of-living raises. Secondly, failure to adjust salaries to reflect the cost of living may be counterproductive for the firm, which will have difficulty attracting and retaining good employees without such a policy.
In the final analysis, the statement correctly identifies job performance as the single best criterion for salary and job security. However, the statement goes too far; it ignores the fact that a cost-of-living salary increase for tenured employees not only enhances loyalty and, in the end, productivity, but also is required by fairness.