While the author notices that the ratio of on-the-job accidents of Quint Manufacturing is higher than the nearby Panoply Industries, he could not warrant the conclusion that the ratio represents more injuries in the former factory. The argument made by the author connects the accidents solely to the fatigue and sleep deprivation caused by one more hour in the every 3 shifts, which I find it pales when more possibilities exist. And the author fares scarce sleep of the employees on one-more hour in every shift but I find the argument unfair.
The author mentions that Quint Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant over the past year. And he runs the cause for the accidents on one more hour in the work shifts but runs a little hasty. Firstly, if the overall workers in Quint Manufacturing are far more fewer than those in the Panoply Industries, then workers of the former in all who injured when they were working would be fewer than the workers who work at the latter. Secondly, I assume both of these two manufactories have the same working hours per day, say, 12 hours, which means that Quint Manufacturing has three shifts and every profession need to fill 4 hours routine while Panoply Industries has four shifts and every professions should run on 3 hours schedule. And what if one profession only needs to fill one shift a day while in the latter factory where a profession has to undertake two shifts work.
Then, the argument made by the author correlates the on-the-job accidents closely with the fatigue and sleep deprivation. However, the author fails to consider and leaves out other factors that might account for the accidents. On the one hand, Accident happens when the experienced workers breach the regulations in the process of production. And tragedy occurs when workers can be virtually vulnerable to hazards when the machines are in bad conditions or suddenly spiral out of control. On the other hand, when the inexperienced interns or novices who enter the plant for the first time, they may push the wrong button out of curiosity or omit the fatal conducts during the production process. Thus, as a consequence, their faults might lead to noticeable accidents.
The author suggests that the shorten one hour of every shift will proffer the workers with substantial amounts of sleep. Let’s picture a circumstance under which the working routine of Quint Manufacturing is from 9am to 9pm, and the abridged one working hour in every shift means that the manufactory would have 4 shifts instead of 3 shifts per day. The routinely change will bring about more problems: It would require every employee to change shifts more often and even dedicate their weekends to work, which will backfire the aspiration of providing adequate sleep time for the employees. What’s more, if the employees are short and the 4 shifts per day cannot be arranged scientifically, then the factory should recruit new workers. Thus, the cost of production will rise and consequently the profits will decline. Therefore, the author’s argument cannot bear out the assumption he made.
In sum, the author views the on-the-job accidents as the result of fatigue and sleep deprivation of the workers, but I review the whole picture and find the causal links between the former and the latter are weak and unfounded. Thus, I suggest the author make a comprehensive survey concerning the causes of the rise of on-the-job injuries in the Quint Manufacturing.