我也有同样的问题,独立两次都是good,综合就是过不去。贴一个我的TPO1,求指导The reading passage thinks that a mandatory requirement of providing employee the option ofworking a four-day workweek with 80% salary will benefit the companies, the country and employeeindividual, while theprofessor of the lecture disagrees with the reading passage's points.
Firstly,the professor points out that the companies' cost will increase, maybe increase greatly. Even it is true that the four-day worker just take 80% salary as the reading passage mentions, the cost of training, medical insurance would be the same no mattera worker works four days or five days per week. Plus, hire more workers needsbigger office space and more computers, these would also cut into thecompanies' profits. Therefore the shortened workweek would not increase company benefits as thereading passage expects.
Secondly,the professor thinks the unemployment rate would not decrease as the reading passage expect.Since hiring more employee will cut into the companies' profits, instead ofhiring more employee, the companies may choose to ask their current employeework overtime, or worse, to expect their current employee complete their fivedays works within four days. If this happens, no extra job opportunities are created and the currentemployee will work unpleasant.
Finally,the professor argues that the shortened workweek will bring the employ individual some risks too. Shortened workingtime will decrease their work ability. If big economic depression comes, the four-day workers probably lose their jobs firstly. And the professor thinks that the company prefers to promote the five-day worker to management position rather than the four-day workers due to the five-day workers can cover all week days which will contributes to the management coherence. |