The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing.
"During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. Experts say that significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents are fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers. Therefore, to reduce the number of on-the-job accidents at Quiot and thereby increase productivity, we should shorten each of our three work shifts by one hour so that employees will get adequate amounts of sleep."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The vice president of Quiot Manufacturing has received a fairly adequate evaluation of the grievances of the workers. The comparison between work hours and on job accidents is quite skillfully linked and is explained reasonably by the inclusion of employee requirements like adequate resting time and fatigue. However, the proposal comes with certain assumptions that bring possible gaps in the argument and considering them would bring about more much needed perspective on the given issue in the memo.
For example, what exactly is the nature of the job where the on-job accidents occur? Additionally, what is the product that these manufacturing sites even produce? If Quiot Manufacturing engages in manufacturing products with complex and hazardous techniques then of course on-job accidents will be caused more often. It does not completely allow such accidents to be normalized but definitely provides a different angle on it. Blaming fatigue and lack of sleep only would be ignoring activity like working near a hot furnace or with a sharp sawblade. In contrast if the opposing Panoply Industries works on less dangerous machines it would explain why the workers require shorter working hours as well.
On that note, working certain machines differ in skills so many machines require constant labor supervision to make sure of proper functioning and other machines just go about their business in the usual day. If Quiot Manufacturing requires workers to remain for longer to meet demands then there is little that can be done about the job requirements. On top of that, we must also consider the manpower between the two manufacturing plants. If Quiot employs more number of employees and hence produces larger number of goods in shorter number of time it would explain the higher number of accidents as well as it supports proportionally more employees as well. Cutting down on number of employees would also be a viable option to reduce the statistic of on job accidents but that would of course be a fairly unpopular option.
And finally, what proof is presented to attest that lesser working hours would result in lesser fatigue and higher productivity. There is no real study or statistic about it other than hearsay and it can only be inferred that higher productivity can be ‘expected’ but not guaranteed. And for the company to make a gamble on their manufacturing speed and efficiency by sacrificing time is too high of a demand. Especially if a large workforce is involved. A comparative like the one from Panoply Industries would help here for sure. LIke an example of some other manufacturing plant that did in fact experience higher productivity due to better employee satisfaction. But that again, is left to speculation about what is and what could be.
It should be addressed that the employees of Quiot Manufacturing are in fact in harm’s way when their safety is neglected taking into consideration the above points. That is in no way the intention, rather it is well wished to reinforce the idea for better for ergonomic implementation of any action that may be taken regarding the working hours and conditions of the employees. And not only that, the company could also consider adopting practices if possible from Panoply Industries, as 30% is not a meager difference. If Panoply makes use of better, safer equipment, then the company shall look into the adoption of the same. But until these inquiries are satisfied there may not be enough ground to make evident changes to the model that Quiot Industries currently runs on.
Time: 24 mins
Word count: 585
Comments
Post a Comment