The lecturer claims that if companies offer their employees with ( 注意!offer sb sth或者offer sth for sb )a four-day work week, theywon't get the satisfied result mentioned in thepassage. This claim is not in accordance with that of the reading, which arguesthat the four-day week would not only benefit the economy but also theindividual companies and employees.(这表达的有点太啰嗦了 paraphrase的功力要加强)
Firstly, the writer mentions that the shortenedworkweek would increase company profits becauseemployees would make fewer mistakes. However, the lecturer explains thatcompanies would spend more since they need to hire more employees. As a result,companies should spend money on their training and medical insurance. Besides,extra office spaces and computers are also necessary for their(这里的their指谁?) working.
Secondly, by contending that offering a four-dayweek would not reduce unemployment rate at all, the lecturer refutes theviewpoint mentioned in the reading passage. He further points out thatcompanies will ask employees to work overtime instead of employing new workloads. More importantly, employers may expect employers to finish their five-day tasks within fourdays. Therefore, the current situation at work would create negative emotionamong employees.
Last but not least, considering the third point, the option of a four-day workweek would improve the quality of employees' life, the lecturer also holds controversial opinion. He mentions that employees who choose to work four days a week would suffer from this policy. Not only the employees’ status but also their careers would be harmed. People who work four-days are more likely to lose their jobs. What’s more, even the chance for promotion will be little because companies want people who can be consistent supervision for the entire five-days. 听力点都到了。。。但是 总觉得整篇文章在表述上面怪怪的 |