Both the reading and the lecture are talking about cons and prof of letting the people work only four days per week. The passage states that this will benefit the companies and the employees as wee. It gives three reasons to support this idea. However, the lecture opposes the statement made in the reading part. It says that working four days in a week will bot benefit the companies.
To begin with, the author of the reading says that if the individuals will work only four days, they be more productive because they will feel less tired. He claims that the company can hire more people in order to reach the same amount of work. This particular reason, is challenged by the professor of the lecture. He said that, if they work less days the company will be forced to hire new people, and this will cost more to the employeers. He said hiring new people is costly, they will need to mpay for training and health benefits. He said the health benefits remain the same either if you work four days or five days. Moreover, adding more people means more office space and more computers.
Furthermore, the reading part supports the idea that the country will benefit as well, because it will reduce the unemployment rates. It says that more jibs will be available where individuals can apply. Yet, the listening part disputes this idea. It says that reducing the work days does not allow more jobs available. It says that because it is so costly to get new workers, the companies may ask the people to work overtime to reach their goals.
Finally, the author of the passage says that the employees will have more time to spend with their families and have better quality of life. On the other hand the lecturer said that more free time will increase the risk that employees will reduce their quality of work. Also, they will be the first to loose their jobs in the economy cutdown.
Both the
reading
and the lecture are talking about cons and prof of letting the
people
work
only
four days per week. The passage states that this will
benefit
the
companies
and the employees as wee. It gives three reasons to support this
idea
.
However
, the lecture opposes the statement made in the
reading
part. It
says
that working four days in a week will bot
benefit
the
companies
.
To
begin
with, the author of the
reading
says
that if the individuals will
work
only
four days, they be more productive
because
they will feel less tired. He claims that the
company
can hire more
people
in order to reach the same amount of
work
. This particular reason,
is challenged
by the professor of the lecture. He said that, if they
work
less
days the
company
will
be forced
to hire new
people
, and this will cost more to the
employeers
. He said hiring new
people
is
costly, they will need to
mpay
for training and health
benefits
.
He
said the health
benefits
remain the same either if you
work
four days or five days.
Moreover
, adding more
people
means
more office space and more computers.
Furthermore
, the
reading
part supports the
idea
that the country will
benefit
as well
,
because
it will
reduce
the unemployment rates. It
says
that more jibs will be available where individuals can apply.
Yet
, the listening part disputes this
idea
. It
says
that reducing the
work
days does not
allow
more jobs available. It
says
that
because
it is
so
costly to
get
new workers, the
companies
may ask the
people
to
work
overtime to reach their goals.
Finally
, the author of the passage
says
that the employees will have more time to spend with their families and have better quality of life.
On the other hand
the lecturer said that more free time will increase the
risk
that employees will
reduce
their quality of
work
.
Also
, they will be the
first
to
loose
their jobs in the economy
cutdown
.