▶ Your Answer :
In the lecture, there is ample support to the author's claim that a mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their employees the option of working a four-day workweek for four-fifths of their normal pay would benefit the economy as a whole as well as the individual companies and the employees who decided to take the option. However, the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the reading passage's point.
First, the professor contends that shorten workweek would decrease company profits. This is because the company needs to pay more money. The reason of this problem is they need to hire more employees. This means they must buy more computers, seats, and so on. Moreover, they need to teach them. It costs not only a large amount of money but also much time for companies. It provides less profit for them. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that the company would be more beneficial by shorten workweek.
Next, the professor insists that it's not true this option makes less unemployment rates. If they choose this selection, the employees would get less money. And the rest amount of money will go to a new employee. Therefore, all quantity of money is the same as the past. This does not mean the increase of employment rate. This counters the reading passage's assertion that one of the primary benefits of offering this option to employees is that it would reduce unemployment rates.
Finally, the professor argues that it is also not good for the individual. To be specific, they have a high risk through this system. They lose the time to advance their career. Conclusively, they would get high rates of losing jobs. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that the option of a four-day workweek would be better for individual employees. |