  
- 积分
- 1419
- 威望
- 1419
- 包包
- 1887
|
The author of the article and speaker are talking about wehther should change the 5 days work into 4 days. They differ in the opinion that the writer supports that the change will bring benefits in three aspects-company profits, the economy condition and the life of employees, while the speaker totally objects.
- Z- l( e. _# E( M! T. d
0 N$ h( i, X$ kPrimarily, the passage claims that companies will save a lot money for this change that The employees who takes the option only can earn 80% of their formal salaries which means companies could keep the extra money. And employ some more staffs to make sure the work will be done sophisticated. However, the speaker says that companies will cost much more money on this policy. First, they should put much money on the new employees train programs and the medical benefits. Second more employees mean more space and more computer requirements which must cost much. Therefore, shorted days will not save money for the companies.
1 V# C9 O" K+ o8 p" c- N5 r4 o* w8 q
Furthermore, the writer states that there will be more job the ease the unemployment. Nevertheless, the speaker holds the opinion that there will not be extra job available for others. More employees will be costly. And the four day workers can do the same work as five day work which they used to, if they do the overtime work. So there will not be extra jobs. At the same time, the workers who take the option but do overtime job will be unpleased.
) t% C$ ?. y4 i# z7 `# C 3 t2 c* S* c% y
Additionally, the article provides that more leisure time will make the employees focus on their job when the work. Conversely, the speaker persists that it will become nothing but worse. More time for spear time will increase the risk of life. And it will decrease the skill of the employees. Also the employees who take the option will pass over the promotion, for the companies need five day supervisors to manage the companies. Thereby, this policy will not change the staffs' lives better.- C* p7 t& `* I) g
) ]$ J& U( m L0 `5 j4 {, H
All in all, all the reasons posted by the writer to support the policy have been reversed by the speaker who insists that the reasons offered by the article are far away from convincing. |
|