The lecturer discusses the issue of telecommuting. On this matter, the lecturer explainsed that telecommuting has negative impacts on both employer and employee. This casts doubt on the reading passage's argument that telecommuting is beneficial methods to both employer and employee.
For one thing, the lecturer says that telecommuting can bring about unexpected results to employer. To explain, employees who work at home don't want to work hard because no one monitors them. In this situations, their productivity is gradually decreased and eventually company might loss (not gain) a lot of profits. Even worse, employees become more lazy (lazier) and indifferent to their work. They just waste their time day by day. 1. Another thing is that they might gain less profits from cutting back expense on money that is used to make office in urban areas than those they expected.
This refutes the reading passage's contention that most benefits of at-home work are enjoyed by the employer.
1. 도시에 사무실을 차리는데 드는 비용이 줄어들었는데 왜 수익이 줄어드는지,, 앞뒤가 맞지 않는 문장인 것 같습니다. 다시 한 번 생각해봐야할 것 같네요..
Secondly, the lecturer clarifies that employees never get the advantages of telecommuting. The rationale behind this is that they are always at home and thus they have little chances to get human interactions, except for their family members.
Also, they don't have to commute to and from the workplace, but this is not a good idea because only being (at home) and working at home are not the best ways to keep employee healthy emotionally as well as physically.
This ultimately contradicts the reading passage's viewpoint that the employee also enjoys a number of advantages.
|