- UID
- 634480
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-5-25
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Argument 32
The arguer concludes that work shifts of Quiot Manufacturing shouldbe shorten by an hour to decrease the emergences of on-the-job accidents, andthus to increase productivity. As evidence, the arguer counts the number ofaccidents happened last year in Quiot Manufacturing, which has more than PanoplyIndustry. Additionally, he points out that, according to experts, fatigue andsleep deprivation are assigned as salient contributors, to on-the-job accidents.As far as I am concerned, it is understandable that workers, tired or in needof sleep, are more likely to operate carelessly to hurt themselves; yet lackingmore tangible evidence, we can not assure if the cutting-shift proposal could definitelybring about the desired effect as predicted.
First of all, the argument bases on thesurvey that Quiot have higher risk rate, but the data of this survey is notpersuasive. Take a close look and we can claim that it only compares the caseof accidents between the two factories, without referring to the “rate” ofaccident. A counterargument could be that Quiot has ten times employees than Panoply,but with only 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than Panoply; in that sense,the conclusion should be reversed, and we may posit that Panoply’s workers havea larger chance of on-the-job accidents instead of Quiot’s, so consequently, weare not so badly as before in need for diminishing accidental rate.
Moreover, in order not to make the comparison meaningless, we shouldassume that workers of the two factories have similar job content, or at leasthave analogous duties, while the arguer doesn’t provide sufficient proofs todemonstrate that. As we may assume, the duty of Quiot and Panoply may possibly vary.Quiot may have its employees climbing on roofs to fix electricity all the time,while the only thing Panoply workers need to do is merely programming. Clearly,the risk involved in the former could be much greater than that of the later,due to its relatively dangerous procedure. Therefore, the examples adopted inthe survey need to be comparable before carefully developing our argument.
Finally, with the current length of workshift, there is no evidence that people are suffering fatigue or loss ofabilities such as noticing potential danger and being all responsive. Due todifferent dispositions and the degree to which they have been trained by thecompany, employees are likely to have their unique optimal working duration. Investigationshould be in place to determine the best length of work shift, in order toreach the max productivity of the company. Reducing work shift by an hour isone proposal, but not necessarily the best. Furthermore, the assumption thatworkers are going to take a nap using that one hour is not well supported too.
In sum, though fatigue and lack of sleep canact as contributing factors for high rate of on-job-accidents, withoutproviding more necessary information, we can not draw the conclusion that theone-hour cut of work shift would absolutely improve company’s productivity and diminishrisk of accidents. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-24 16:56:23
收藏
收藏
