In this set of materials, the lecturer and the writer cover the issue of four-day workweek. The reading lists three evidence to prove the idea that four-day workweek is beneficial both to employers and employees. However, the lecturer claims that four-day workweek is harmful in many ways by matching rebutting evidence.
To begin with, the lecturer claims that four-day workweek results employers to suffer financially because in order to finish 40-hour-work in 32hours, they need to hire more workers. This causes them to spend more money in training and providing equipment for new workers. This contrasts the writer's argument that employers can save money by cutting down on salaries and invest money on enhancing their company.
Additionally, the lecturer argues that four-day workweek does not provide a sufficient amount of time for employees to improve their skills. Moreover, because companies only promote employees who are willing to work for 5 days a week, 4 day-workweek workers feel unstable. As a result, employees' productivity declines and is less satisfied. This counters the reading passage's claim that employees’ satisfaction and productivity increase due to extra time from 32hour workweek
Lastly, the lecturer states that overall economy will be adversely affected because four-day workweek will put pressure on employees to complete 40 hour week in 32 hours. Thus, they get stressed, and work quality goes down. Also, due to the reduced amount of salaries, consumer spending decreases; as a result, economy does not run well. This casts doubt on the writer's claim that economy will be boosted up by more jobs and more satisfied workers. |