Please comment! A memo from the president of Automate, a company that manufactures au

[Nandini_bm]

The following appeared as part of a memo from the president of Automate, a company that manufactures automobiles.

"It has come to my attention that Sparks, Inc., the manufacturing company that just moved into our state, is advertising job openings at salaries that are twice as high as those paid to our experienced assembly-line workers. Some of our employees have already left to work for Sparks. In order to keep our best staff, we must pay them salaries equal to those Sparks pays its employees. Otherwise we will continue to lose employees in the future, because Sparks must staff the additional new plants that it plans to build in the state."


The argument concludes that there should be increase in salary of Automate employees equal to those of Spark who is providing double salary in order to reduce the loss of employees in the future. The conclusion doe not provide enough evidences as to why this should be done. The argument is highly flawed and therefore need to provide more convincing evidences to prove the conclusion.

Firstly, the president states that manufacturing company has advertised about job openings at salaries, which is twice than what they pay to their experienced workers. Probably, they have just mentioned in their ads to attract the workers. It is possible that they can negotiate and give less salary than what is stated. Another important point which president fails to mention is what company is it? Is that company same as their company or it is different. Because, the employee requirements in that company must be different compared to Automate except few.

Secondly, president concludes that to keep best staff they should also increase the salaries equal to Sparks. To retain staff this is not the solution. Workers don’t work only for salary. There are many other reasons, job satisfaction, incentives, benefits and other conveniences. If the company is taking good care of their employees than there are less chances that they will leave. Probably Spark is giving double salary but then there are no other benefits or incentives. The environment is not good, working hours are more and they are not taking proper care of their employees. Due to all these reasons, employees will think twice before getting that job.

Thirdly, why should president think about future? Even if spark is planning to plant new plants that do not mean that, they are going to plant in the same vicinity. They might plant anywhere in the state. So people whose residence is not near to that plant will not apply for that job. Planting in state means planting at different cities how will that affect the number of employees of Automate of that region?

Thus, it can be concluded that the argument is unsubstantiated as it lacks cogent evidence & sound reasoning. President should analyze the issue more deeply and should consider above all point before concluding anything.

[sandin]

Please rate

The given memo recommends that the Automate should increase its worker’s pay in order to prevent their departure to the Sparks which offer more lucrative salary. He believes that as the Sparks is planning to expand its venture further in the town it is likely that more of Automate's labors will be tempted to join the Sparks. Though at first glance the president seems to offer a prudent advice, but a close scrutiny reveals the infirmity of the argument.

First the writer mentions that the Spark is advertising job openings at salaries double than that given to our workers. However the evidence is not substantial enough because the topographical location of the Spark’s with respect to Automate is not provided. It may be that the new firm is established far away from the Automata’s location and workers may not be willing to go far distant from their homes for the job which besides increasing their fatigue will also demand for transportation charges.

Further the evacuation of some workers does not seem to be a giant threat until provided the actual numbers of staff who left the company and how much does it affect on the company’s performance. One may raise doubts that if workers who left the company are few then can’t the work be distributed within the present workers? Or couldn’t this decrease in work force be covered up by hiring other workers from the state rather than increasing the salary? The writer also did not consider the various other probable reasons for the departure of the labours for instance mutual conflict between workers or less traveling distance between their town and the Spark. If such is the case then the problem could be solved by other measures and we need not to increase the pay.

Moreover even though if we consider that the sparks is indeed giving much more amount to the workers then too it is not sufficient to convince that our workers will leave the company. The argument should have been complemented with some data such as the results of a survey done amongst the factory workers answering how many of them would be interested in leaving the company? May be many of them would not be inclined to leave because of the bonding they have with the company. Further as it is not provided whether the Sparks is an automobile company therefore it may be that many of our workers would not be seemly for their purpose. In such a case the labour force is unlikely to decrease.

Finally it is highly probable that the additional plants the Spark is planning to build in the state is to be scattered throughout the state and would not be located near our vicinity. So the additional plants will not pose a threat. So the author should present us a detailed topographical state of our nearby area so that it the possibility of establishing a plant near us could be figured out.

To conclude the above analysis of the argument raise serious doubts over the probability of any occurrence of mass abandoning of work force. To convince us the writer needs to provide various details about the location of Spark and whether it is an automobile manufacturing company or not.

[sandin]

Please rate

The given memo recommends that the Automate should increase its worker’s pay in order to prevent their departure to the Sparks which offer more lucrative salary. He believes that as the Sparks is planning to expand its venture further in the town it is likely that more of Automate's labors will be tempted to join the Sparks. Though at first glance the president seems to offer a prudent advice, but a close scrutiny reveals the infirmity of the argument.

First the writer mentions that the Spark is advertising job openings at salaries double than that given to our workers. However the evidence is not substantial enough because the topographical location of the Spark’s with respect to Automate is not provided. It may be that the new firm is established far away from the Automata’s location and workers may not be willing to go far distant from their homes for the job which besides increasing their fatigue will also demand for transportation charges.

Further the evacuation of some workers does not seem to be a giant threat until provided the actual numbers of staff who left the company and how much does it affect on the company’s performance. One may raise doubts that if workers who left the company are few then can’t the work be distributed within the present workers? Or couldn’t this decrease in work force be covered up by hiring other workers from the state rather than increasing the salary? The writer also did not consider the various other probable reasons for the departure of the labours for instance mutual conflict between workers or less traveling distance between their town and the Spark. If such is the case then the problem could be solved by other measures and we need not to increase the pay.

Moreover even though if we consider that the sparks is indeed giving much more amount to the workers then too it is not sufficient to convince that our workers will leave the company. The argument should have been complemented with some data such as the results of a survey done amongst the factory workers answering how many of them would be interested in leaving the company? May be many of them would not be inclined to leave because of the bonding they have with the company. Further as it is not provided whether the Sparks is an automobile company therefore it may be that many of our workers would not be seemly for their purpose. In such a case the labour force is unlikely to decrease.

Finally it is highly probable that the additional plants the Spark is planning to build in the state is to be scattered throughout the state and would not be located near our vicinity. So the additional plants will not pose a threat. So the author should present us a detailed topographical state of our nearby area so that it the possibility of establishing a plant near us could be figured out.

To conclude the above analysis of the argument raise serious doubts over the probability of any occurrence of mass abandoning of work force. To convince us the writer needs to provide various details about the location of Spark and whether it is an automobile manufacturing company or not.