The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of Butler Manufacturing.
“During the past year, workers at Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours. A recent government study reports that fatigue and sleep deprivation among workers are significant contributing factors in many on-the-job accidents. If we shorten each of our work shifts by one hour, we can improve Butler Manufacturing’s safety record by ensuring that our employees are adequately rested.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The statement’s claim that Butler Manufacturing has experienced 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than neighbors Panoply Industries is debatable.
The fact that Panoply’s employees only work one shift per day, while Butler’s employees work two shifts per day, is cited as evidence that Panoply’s employees have shorter shifts and thus are less fatigued. However, this logic is flawed, as Butler’s employees have longer shifts. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers to reduce all employee work hours to no more than 10 hours, and this includes any shift schedules. Both of these companies may have violated this rule, as Butler’s employees work an average of 10.5 hours, while Panoply’s employees work 9.5 hours. Under this interpretation, Panoply’s employees would be more likely to meet OSHA’s standard, as most of their employees only work one shift per day. Furthermore, if the research cited in the report had analyzed the number of hours worked per week, instead of the number of shifts worked per week, the statistics may have differed. Panoply’s employees work five days per week, while Butler’s employees work six days per week. If the study had been focused on the number of hours per shift, then employees with shorter shifts would have been more likely to have fatigued employees. These statistics, if considered, could have significantly weakened the argument stated by the vice president.
By stating that fatigue is a significant contributing factor in on-the-job accidents, the vice president is assuming, without supporting evidence, that fatigue has a greater impact than other factors. This assumption is based on anecdotal evidence, which does not prove that fatigue is the root cause of accidents. Further, the vice president’s assumption that shorter shifts would result in fewer accidents is unproven. The fact is that accidents can happen at any time, regardless of shift length. Furthermore, shorter shifts do not necessarily result in fewer accidents. If Panoply’s employees work shorter shifts than Butler’s, but perform the same number of tasks, it is possible that they may have more accidents simply because the employees have less recovery time between shifts. By shortening shifts, Butler’s management may have sacrificed productivity in order to reduce accidents, which could have long-term ramifications for Butler.
The vice president of Butler Manufacturing may have made a valid argument concerning workplace safety, but the evidence cited in support of his claim was weak. It is doubtful that shorter shifts are the key to reducing employee accidents, and research is needed to evaluate the true contributing factors to accidents.