Hacker's test #4, p. 131 |
The issue is whether four-day work is beneficial for employers, employee, and for the whole economy. The lecturer casts doubts on the reading passage’s bright expectation by describing actual experience on the shortened work-hours. First, employers had to spend more money for workers because the workers had to finish the same amount of work in a shortened time schedule, and hence the employers needed more staffs. Moreover, the insurance fee increased, since employers got more leisure time which effectively raised the accident probability. This surprising result rebuts the reading passage’s argument that employers would be able to save money on human resources. Second, employees could not improve their professional skill for their reduced working hours. Moreover, they were insecure in their position, because they seemed to be less competitive compared to forty-hour workers. The writer’s expectation that overall life qualities of employees would enhance for their having more free time is disclaimed by this negative aspect of short work-hour system. Finally, the whole economy went bad, in contratst to the writer’s fruitful prospect on productive and healthy job market. The mental health of the constituents was weakened by the stressful economical circumstances. Even more, small income brought about small consumption, which depressed the whole market. |