ChaseDream

标题: AA138(麻烦大家!) [打印本页]

作者: philikittist 时间: 2004-8-11 16:34
标题: AA138(麻烦大家!)

138. The following appeared in a memorandum to the work-group supervisors of the GBS Company.

“The CoffeeCart beverage and food service located in the lobby of our main office building is not earning enough in sales to cover its costs, and so the cart may discontinue operating at GBS. Given the low staff morale, as evidenced by the increase in the number of employees leaving the company, the loss of this service could present a problem, especially since the staff morale questionnaire showed widespread dissatisfaction with the snack machines. Therefore, supervisors should remind the employees in their group to patronize the cart — after all, it was leased for their convenience so that they would not have to walk over to the cafeteria on breaks.”

138. GBS公司的工人团体监督的备忘录：
在我们的主要办公建筑的休息室内的提供饮料和食物的CoffeeCart流动车不能从销售中得到相应的收入去抵消支出。因此这个流动车可能被从GBS中取消。由于员工士气很低，这从离开公司的员工数量增加可以看出，取消这种服务可能带来问题，特别是员工士气调查显示了对快餐车的广泛不满。因此，监督应该提醒组内的雇员给流动车付款，毕竟租借流动车是为了员工的方便，使他们不用在工休时走去自助餐厅。

我想问cart和snack machine是2个洞洞还是1个？这段话是不是说这个cart要是取消了士气就更受打击，所以要让员工多惠顾，以免取消？

谢谢大家！

作者: leeon 时间: 2004-8-12 11:25
两个东东，operating the cart-- not earning enough in sales to cover its costs--discontinue operating the cart--也就是说用the snack machines去代替，这个东西肯定成本低，服务跟不上，所以员工不满意。这里居然得出一个荒诞的结论，supervisors remind their employees to patronize the cart 是为了自己的方便。真是资本家会剥削啊！

作者: philikittist 时间: 2004-8-12 13:02
这段话要是boldface偶就死定了。谢谢leeon~~

作者: numero 时间: 2004-8-22 09:28
这题应如何驳?感觉逻辑关系很乱...

作者: annadai 时间: 2004-12-3 01:32

1,no evidence proves that the empleyees are satisfied with coffeecart, the fact that its sales can't cover its costs maybe is because it is not a good service.

2why is it not the company that patronize the cart?if not ,may decrease the moral.

作者: sherry20005 时间: 2004-12-3 05:42

1. The arguer fails to demonstrate that the best solution for the poor coffeecart performance problem is to ask employees to patronize the cart. In fact, this action will have serious negative side effect, future decrease staff morale, in the company.

2. The evidence that employees in the company dissatisfied with the snack machine is problematic due to the nature of the questionaire.

作者: chanx_ceci 时间: 2007-8-27 17:16

作者: maggie88421 时间: 2009-8-25 12:03

我的思路：（1）low staff morale不一定是因为service不好，可能是因为公司待遇不好或者是工作压力太大；

（2）questionnaire不可信，没有具体人数，结果可能不具有代表性；

（3）即使remind the employees 去消费，员工也不会去消费，因为可能咖啡很难喝；

（4）the loss of this service 可能不是low staff morale的体现，可能就是因为东西难吃，大家都不愿意消费，才导致了loss

作者: sallyruru 时间: 2010-8-13 22:34

作者: zhangjl0 时间: 2014-10-18 11:08
我也在看这个题目。我的想法是，
首先明确，这个提议者的主要目的，是要解决怎么问题？
如果他的最终目的是解决“员工士气低下”这个问题，仅仅靠留住餐车是不够的，因为可能还有其他原因影响了员工的士气。
如果他的直接目的是解决“流动餐车”顾客量太少，要保不住了“，这个问题。那应该分析”为什么大家不去流动餐车买食品“这个原因，也许是太难吃，也许是价格太高，也许是服务太差。
想通过让”员工提高购买率，继而保住餐车，继而提高员工snack service满意度，继而提高员工整体士气“这个推理逻辑，每个推理都是不充分的。因此，影响员工士气有多个因素，影响snack service满意度也有多个因素，影响餐车销售量也有很多因素，仅仅靠增加购买，解决不了任何问题。至多是一种强制举措，反而带来员工的更大不满。

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)