The following appeared in an editorial in the local newspaper of Workville.
"Workers should be allowed to reduce their workload from 40 to 25 or even 20 hours per week because it is clear that people who work part-time instead of full-time have better health and improved morale. One store in Workville, which began allowing its employees to work part-time last year, reports that fewer days of sick leave were taken last year than in previous years. In contrast, the factory in Workville, which does not allow any of its employees to work part-time, had a slight increase in the number of days of sick leave taken last year. In addition, a recent survey reports that most of the store employees stated that they are satisfied with
their jobs, while many of the factory employees stated that they are dissatisfied with their jobs."
Firstly, the author assumes that the fewer days of sick leave taken by employees was a direct result of reducing the work hours. While this could be a valid conclusion, it would require us to ensure that there were not other reasons that could have resulted in the same effect as well. For example, if there were better ergonomical conditions or lesser pressures to meet sales numbers, it could result in employees taking less sick leave as well.
Secondly, the author compares the decline in sick leave at the store to the increase in sick leave at the factory over the last year, even though there were no changes made at the factory over the last year. It seems like even without any changes at the factory, the sick leaves were on the rise over the last year, indicating that it could have been due to reasons unrelated to work hours per se. An investigation into why this occurred might have been more revealing.
Thirdly, the author hastily concludes that since the most of the employees at the store are satisfied, and many of the employees at the factory are dissatisfied, this must have to do with the work hours. This is flawed in more ways than one. Firstly, it doesn't compare numbers year over year. So it could well be possible that most of the employees at the store have been satisfied with the management at the store for many years prior even before changes were made to the work hours. Similarly it could also be possible that many employees at the factory have always been dissatisfied at the factory, which in turn could be due to reasons unrelated to the work hours. Secondly, just because many of the employees at the factory are dissatisfied, it doesn't mean that most of them are dissatisfied. Even if most of them were dissatisfied at the factory, it is not clear that their dissatisfaction stems from work hours per se.
The author's demand for reducing the work hours at the Workville factory could have been more compelling had they been substantiated with year over year numbers at an establishment with conditions otherwise identical to the Workville factory.
