The lecturer discusses the harms of the company sending their workers out to foreign countries, providing a case-study. This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that there are several benefits both for the companies and the workers when the employees from home countries are made to work abroad. First, the workers had to be taught about the culture and language of the countries that they were sent to. This process required much time and money, so the cost for the basic communication skills was very high in the firstplace. This refutes the reading passage’s argument that since the workers are already familiar with the company they were working for, the cost would be reduced and communication would be straightforward. Next, the employees did feel the same loyalty to the company, but not to the foreign country. In the research given, one quarter of the workers desired to be sent back to their home countries, which supports this statement. The idea counters with the reading passage that expatriates will be loyal to both the company and the country. Finally, the expatriates felt frustrated and isolated because of a lack of communication, which led to a decrease in productivity. Also, they had an additional cost of living because they could not find products for everyday life that they used to use in their homelands. This refutes the reading passage that the new culture and language in a new environment will motivate the workers to produce more effectively. The idea also contradicts the reading’s viewpoint that workers will see an increase in their income, in some cases even two or three times as the workers’ in the homelands. To sum up, the listening passage discusses the downside of the workers’ being sent to foreign countries by listing increased costs for the workers and the company. Thus, the lecturer successfully refutes the reading passage, which is about positive effects of the expatriates both to the company and to the employees themselves. |