There is a perception that several nations enforced the law to limit the number of hours that the bosses are able to ask their workers to work. From my perspective, this is attributed to work burdens and bosses’ financial benefits and this trend's benefits eclipse the drawbacks.
There are some underlying reasons to clarify why the law of limiting the working time policymakers offer should be upheld. The advocate can assert that a great deal of workload puts workers under pressure. As a matter of a fact, life is getting more and more hectic and people need to alleviate their stress. That employees, for instance, always feel drowsy and drain will reduce their productivity and creativity of work. A possible consequence is that the revenues of enterprises will undergo a marginal decrease. Furthermore, should employees work in the office hours, companies will not offer more remuneration and financial perks to the workers
In my viewpoint, it appears that the advantages of administering a law pale into insignificance compared to its disadvantages. The initial merit is that workers can ease their minds after they have worked arduously and intensely in the workplace such as hitting the gym or doing their own interests. This renders them energetic and comfortable when they go to their workplace. Some people contend that workers have the right to spend a great of time working in order to ameliorate their living conditions; nevertheless, I am of the opinion that employees work beyond their physical and spiritual well-being, which gives rise to obesity, for example.
In conclusion, my firm conviction is that working pressure and employers’ financial benefits are the chief culprits behind limiting the working time on the grounds that its upsides overshadow its downsides. In the years to come, I opine that this trend should be applied worldwide with a view to protecting every workers’ rights and health.
There is a perception that several nations enforced the law to limit the number of hours that the bosses are able to ask their
workers
to
work
. From my perspective, this
is attributed
to
work
burdens and bosses’ financial benefits and this trend's benefits eclipse the drawbacks.
There are
some
underlying reasons to clarify why the law of limiting the
working
time policymakers offer should
be upheld
. The advocate can assert that a great deal of workload puts
workers
under pressure. As a matter of a fact, life is getting more and more hectic and
people
need to alleviate their
stress
. That employees,
for instance
, always feel drowsy and drain will
reduce
their productivity and creativity of
work
. A possible consequence is that the revenues of enterprises will undergo a marginal decrease.
Furthermore
, should employees
work
in the office hours,
companies
will not offer more remuneration and financial perks to the workers
In my viewpoint, it appears that the advantages of administering a law pale into insignificance compared to its disadvantages. The initial merit is that
workers
can
ease
their minds after they have worked
arduously
and
intensely
in the workplace such as hitting the gym or doing their
own
interests. This renders them energetic and comfortable when they go to their workplace.
Some
people
contend that
workers
have the right to spend a great of time
working
in order to ameliorate their living conditions;
nevertheless
, I am of the opinion that employees
work
beyond their physical and spiritual well-being, which gives rise to obesity,
for example
.
In conclusion
, my firm conviction is that
working
pressure and employers’ financial benefits are the chief culprits behind limiting the
working
time on the grounds that its upsides overshadow its downsides. In the years to
come
, I opine that this trend should
be applied
worldwide with a view to protecting every
workers’
rights and health.