- UID
- 794913
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-8-16
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The author attempts to make it convincing that the shortening each of three work shifts by one hour can certainly reduce the number of on-the-job accidents and increase productivity. The most significant evidence stated in the memo is current situation in Panoply Industries plant at the nearby, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than QM and on-the-job accidents are less. Nevertheless, the argument is rife with holes and assumptions, which prevent the statement from being rational and strong enough to back the author's view.
Citing the statement by experts that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers, the author holds the opinion that workers will have enough time to sleep and relax themselves by shortening working time. But there are several logical shortcomings in the memo ignored by the author. There is not sufficient information we can get from the memo about the production of two plants. It is possible that QM manufactures steel, cars, or other production, which makes it easy to get injured during work time, while books, glue, and pencil are produced in PI. So it is explainable and unavoidable that there are more accidents in QM.
It would be fallacious to overlook that there does exist difference in the total number of workers in two factories and it plays a significant role in on-the-job accidents. Lacking necessary data and survey about the quantity of workers in two factories, we cannot draw the conclusion that proportion of accidents in QM is higher than it in PI. Though QM had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than PI, it is possible that the number of workers in QM is ten times as PI and this information results in a conclusion opposites to the opinion written in the memo.
On the assumption that workers would spend more time on sleeping or relaxing if QM shortens each of three shifts by one hour, the author holds the idea that the suggestion in memo is effective. However, the assumption is problematic. Considering there are many alternative choices for workers if they have more free time to spend on, such as going to bars, or just hanging out, we cannot make it sure that workers tend to spend more time on sleeping. Aside from that, if workers spend much more time in bars, they may feel tired and it would be unbeneficial for their working, which can cause more on-the-job accidents.
The author also claims that declining fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers will increase productivity, while this statement is groundless. The productivity of factory is influenced by several factors, including the quality of equipment, the motivation of workers, and the surrounding for working. A concrete connection between more sleep and high productivity is not effectively made. What's more, to achieve the goal that get increasing productivity in less time, workers have no choice but work harder and it maybe makes them feel more tired than before.
Judging by several respects stated above, I stand with the side that the author's opinion in the memo is narrow and distorted.
|
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-23 21:45:29
收藏
收藏
楼主
