The memo from the vice president of the Nostrum recommends against accepting a proposal to increase the health and retirement benefits, hence forth benefits, for the company's employees. The argument is substantially flawed for it uses an ill supported and shallow comparison with a competitor, ambiguous language, failure to consider an alternate explanations, and a very strong conclusions.
The VP mentions 'lower' health and retirement benefits provided by its' chief competitor, Panacea, to its employees as a reason for not increasing the benefits for Nostrum employees. This is a sensible justification as long as 'lower' health and retirement benefits are not hurting Panacea in any imaginable way. What if Panacea is losing employees to other non-Nostrum competitors precisely because of 'lower' health and retirement benefits. Or 'lower' benefits are hurting the moral and motivation of Panacea employees. If VP had provided information on these aspects of the Panacea's 'lower' benefits, and a favorable picture had emerged, the comparison and resultant reasoning would have been justified.
The VP quotes a survey which revealed that they employees are 'reasonably satisfied' with the benefits provided by Nostrum and viewed them favorably. 'Reasonably satisfied' is a very loose term and is open to interpretations. For example, does 'reasonably satisfied' means a zero impact of apparently lower benefits - hence the proposal for increase on employee motivation and the resultant performance, or it means a lower motivation and resultant lower performance but no churn. If the VP had defined this term objectively, and had shown that there will be no negative impact on the employees' motivation, the argument would have very strong basis.
The VP further argues that the proposal should be slashed as the profits this year were lower than those of last year. He offers this as a reason to quash the proposal, however, fails to consider the very real possibility that profits decreased because of low employee motivation which was a result of the current levels of health and retirements benefits. An explanation for the loss in profit which had nothing to do with the benefits would have made the argument stronger, and conclusion justifiable.
This argument is neither sound nor persuasive. The VP has failed to provide a compelling case for non-acceptance of the proposal to increase the benefits.
The VP mentions 'lower' health and retirement benefits provided by its' chief competitor, Panacea, to its employees as a reason for not increasing the benefits for Nostrum employees. This is a sensible justification as long as 'lower' health and retirement benefits are not hurting Panacea in any imaginable way. What if Panacea is losing employees to other non-Nostrum competitors precisely because of 'lower' health and retirement benefits. Or 'lower' benefits are hurting the moral and motivation of Panacea employees. If VP had provided information on these aspects of the Panacea's 'lower' benefits, and a favorable picture had emerged, the comparison and resultant reasoning would have been justified.
The VP quotes a survey which revealed that they employees are 'reasonably satisfied' with the benefits provided by Nostrum and viewed them favorably. 'Reasonably satisfied' is a very loose term and is open to interpretations. For example, does 'reasonably satisfied' means a zero impact of apparently lower benefits - hence the proposal for increase on employee motivation and the resultant performance, or it means a lower motivation and resultant lower performance but no churn. If the VP had defined this term objectively, and had shown that there will be no negative impact on the employees' motivation, the argument would have very strong basis.
The VP further argues that the proposal should be slashed as the profits this year were lower than those of last year. He offers this as a reason to quash the proposal, however, fails to consider the very real possibility that profits decreased because of low employee motivation which was a result of the current levels of health and retirements benefits. An explanation for the loss in profit which had nothing to do with the benefits would have made the argument stronger, and conclusion justifiable.
This argument is neither sound nor persuasive. The VP has failed to provide a compelling case for non-acceptance of the proposal to increase the benefits.
