Hi, guys ! I would greatly appreciate if you could help review/rate the following essay. The prompt is taken from mba.com website - I sense that penultimate paragraph is a bit weak but that is the best I could come up with during the time allotted. Thank you! Peter
"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."
The above argument claims that the greater the risk of physical injury occurring on the job, the higher the wages paid to the employees. It erroneously asserts that, as a result, companies would reduce their payroll expenses if they made their workplaces safer. The argument relies on unfounded assumptions that lead to an incorrect conclusion due to the following three reasons.
First, the argument assumes that the expenses associated with making a workplace safer are smaller than the reductions in payroll. However, such assumption is entirely unwarranted. It is not unimaginable that for certain companies the costs of making a workplace safer might be much greater than the savings that might arise from reduced wages. For instance, a mining firm might have to spend a significant amount of financial resources on making its mines safer compared to the costs that might be incurred from paying premium wages to its high-risk workers.
Second, the argument fails to take into account the workers who do not undertake their daily tasks at a single workplace. For instance, a taxi company might find it extremely challenging to reduce the risk of physically injury occurring on streets; there are too many factors that affect road safety. As such, rather than investing resources into making streets safer, a taxi company would be better off offering higher wages to its employees who operate in a higher risk environment.
Third, the argument incorrectly draws a direct relationship between the risk of physical injury and workplace safety. Indeed, workplace safety is most commonly associated with physical injuries; however, many firms might define workplace safety under different terms. For example, a financial institution might view a safe workplace as an environment where no harassment of employees occurs. Such definition would not include physical injury as a potential risk. As a result, to make a workplace safer at, for instance, a bank, would not necessarily involve the reduction of the risk of physical injury.
As shown above, the argument fails to provide a convincing conclusion. It fails to take into account the financial costs associated with making a workplace safer and the great variety of workplaces. The argument would have been strengthened, had it included a cost-analysis of making a workplace safer versus paying higher wages and had it precisely defined the type of workplace to which it refers.
"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."
The above argument claims that the greater the risk of physical injury occurring on the job, the higher the wages paid to the employees. It erroneously asserts that, as a result, companies would reduce their payroll expenses if they made their workplaces safer. The argument relies on unfounded assumptions that lead to an incorrect conclusion due to the following three reasons.
First, the argument assumes that the expenses associated with making a workplace safer are smaller than the reductions in payroll. However, such assumption is entirely unwarranted. It is not unimaginable that for certain companies the costs of making a workplace safer might be much greater than the savings that might arise from reduced wages. For instance, a mining firm might have to spend a significant amount of financial resources on making its mines safer compared to the costs that might be incurred from paying premium wages to its high-risk workers.
Second, the argument fails to take into account the workers who do not undertake their daily tasks at a single workplace. For instance, a taxi company might find it extremely challenging to reduce the risk of physically injury occurring on streets; there are too many factors that affect road safety. As such, rather than investing resources into making streets safer, a taxi company would be better off offering higher wages to its employees who operate in a higher risk environment.
Third, the argument incorrectly draws a direct relationship between the risk of physical injury and workplace safety. Indeed, workplace safety is most commonly associated with physical injuries; however, many firms might define workplace safety under different terms. For example, a financial institution might view a safe workplace as an environment where no harassment of employees occurs. Such definition would not include physical injury as a potential risk. As a result, to make a workplace safer at, for instance, a bank, would not necessarily involve the reduction of the risk of physical injury.
As shown above, the argument fails to provide a convincing conclusion. It fails to take into account the financial costs associated with making a workplace safer and the great variety of workplaces. The argument would have been strengthened, had it included a cost-analysis of making a workplace safer versus paying higher wages and had it precisely defined the type of workplace to which it refers.
