In America, workers typically work five days a week for eight hours a day. However, many of them want to work only four days, and they are accepted in exchange for a low income that is 80 percent of their normal daily income. While the author claims that a reduction in work hours would be beneficial to both the company and the workers for three reasons, the paper contradicts the author’s claims; in his opinion, the four-day option will not have a positive impact on the economic situation.
First, the author claims that the company’s profit will increase if employees work for four days. In fact, some companies make their employees work for four days, which makes them feel more comfortable and attentive during work, resulting in fewer mistakes and good quality of work. Moreover, hiring new employees has a positive impact on the company’s profit rate, as they are paid only 80% of the normal wage. The company would definitely have less overtime and fewer mistakes in the work for the same money, and this would increase the company’s profit. In contrast, the lecture says that making employees work four days would be completely pointless. In fact, hiring new employees means putting a lot more money into training and medical care, and that is very expensive because it could equal the amount of work of four or five days. Having more employees also means having more offices and computers. So all this will have a negative impact on the company’s profit.
Secondly, the text says that reducing the number of working days will reduce the unemployment rate. This is true. Some business owners would hire new employees if full-time employees started working fewer hours. If employees work 80 percent of the week, they have the opportunity to hire new employees. Contrary to this passage, the lecture asserts that giving workers four days does not mean they would work for other people. In addition, if four work days are provided, the company may be forced to work overtime to cover costs without having to hire new employees. In addition, the company will increase the likelihood that its employees can do five workdays in four days. Therefore, more jobs will be inaccessible and the work could be undesirable.
Finally, the author claims that four workdays would be better for the workers themselves. If workers could tolerate the low income, they could change their circumstances by spending more time with their families, pursuing their favorite hobbies, and enjoying life more.
In contrast to the author, the professor argues that the free time workers spend in their personal lives could reduce their quality of life. In fact, fewer work days could affect workers’ job stability and reduce their chances of career advancement. Moreover, they risk losing their jobs if the economy deteriorates. In addition, a four-day work schedule could make them ineligible for some companies that prefer a five-day work schedule.
Both the author and the professor hold opposing views on work schedules in the United States.