Hey Guys,
After spending a day or so on understanding the AWA, using many resources from this page, I decided to give it my first attempt. I would greatly appreciate any feedback, and would be more than happy to give my own feedback to your essay in exchange! I'm particularly interested in how you would improve the essay, anything you would add in/remove, and if perhaps I could have made the same points in a more effective manner.
Thank you!!!
________
ESSAY
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."Â
The argument claims that most companies agree that higher wages should be paid as the risk of physical injury on the job increases, and that therefore it makes financial sense for employers to improve the safety of the workplace in order to save on payroll. This argument is unsubstantiated, makes two crucial assumptions, and fails to consider several key factors. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the claim that most companies agree that higher wages should be paid to those working jobs with higher risks of injury is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, even if it were true, an employer will not necessarily actually pay higher wages just because employers agree that they should. Indeed, there are many professions, especially in the developing world, which have high risks but a relatively low pay. For example, the workers who are building the stadium for the football/soccer world cup in Qatar in 2020 work in precarious conditions, but are paid next to nothing.
Secondly, the argument makes a crucial logical flaw by stating that a safer workplace makes financial sense because it would lower payroll expenses. This is a weak and unsupported claim which relies on the implicit assumption that the costs of improving the safety of the workplace would be outweighed by the potential savings on payroll. In fact, the author overlooks the existence of such costs altogether. While it may be true in some cases that a safer workplace makes financial sense, this will depend on the potential savings on wages compared to the costs of improving the workplace.
Finally, the importance of risk of physical injury is vastly different for different professions. For example, it may be plausible that in large factories where there is lots of potentially dangerous machinery, workplace safety is a significant determinant of wages. On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that improvements in workplace safety in service firms like PwC would have any impact on the wages that company could pay its employees.
The argument could have been improved in several ways. Firstly, by making a distinction between different types of professions, the argument could have been more convincing by outlining the type of workplaces where risk of physical injury is a significant determinant of wages. Furthermore, the author focuses entirely on payroll expenses to support his assertion; however, there may be other reasons why it may make financial sense for a firm to reduce risk of injury at the office. For example, a safer workplace may lower attrition, thus lower recruiting costs, or improve the happiness of the workers, resulting in a more productive workforce.
In conclusion, the argument has several major flaws, as it fails to take into account important considerations and makes unsubstantiated assumptions, as outlined above. While argument could be improved in a number of ways to make it more thorough and persuasive, as it stands it is weak and unconvincing.
After spending a day or so on understanding the AWA, using many resources from this page, I decided to give it my first attempt. I would greatly appreciate any feedback, and would be more than happy to give my own feedback to your essay in exchange! I'm particularly interested in how you would improve the essay, anything you would add in/remove, and if perhaps I could have made the same points in a more effective manner.
Thank you!!!
________
ESSAY
"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."Â
The argument claims that most companies agree that higher wages should be paid as the risk of physical injury on the job increases, and that therefore it makes financial sense for employers to improve the safety of the workplace in order to save on payroll. This argument is unsubstantiated, makes two crucial assumptions, and fails to consider several key factors. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the claim that most companies agree that higher wages should be paid to those working jobs with higher risks of injury is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, even if it were true, an employer will not necessarily actually pay higher wages just because employers agree that they should. Indeed, there are many professions, especially in the developing world, which have high risks but a relatively low pay. For example, the workers who are building the stadium for the football/soccer world cup in Qatar in 2020 work in precarious conditions, but are paid next to nothing.
Secondly, the argument makes a crucial logical flaw by stating that a safer workplace makes financial sense because it would lower payroll expenses. This is a weak and unsupported claim which relies on the implicit assumption that the costs of improving the safety of the workplace would be outweighed by the potential savings on payroll. In fact, the author overlooks the existence of such costs altogether. While it may be true in some cases that a safer workplace makes financial sense, this will depend on the potential savings on wages compared to the costs of improving the workplace.
Finally, the importance of risk of physical injury is vastly different for different professions. For example, it may be plausible that in large factories where there is lots of potentially dangerous machinery, workplace safety is a significant determinant of wages. On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that improvements in workplace safety in service firms like PwC would have any impact on the wages that company could pay its employees.
The argument could have been improved in several ways. Firstly, by making a distinction between different types of professions, the argument could have been more convincing by outlining the type of workplaces where risk of physical injury is a significant determinant of wages. Furthermore, the author focuses entirely on payroll expenses to support his assertion; however, there may be other reasons why it may make financial sense for a firm to reduce risk of injury at the office. For example, a safer workplace may lower attrition, thus lower recruiting costs, or improve the happiness of the workers, resulting in a more productive workforce.
In conclusion, the argument has several major flaws, as it fails to take into account important considerations and makes unsubstantiated assumptions, as outlined above. While argument could be improved in a number of ways to make it more thorough and persuasive, as it stands it is weak and unconvincing.
