The Companies Putting Profits Ahead of Public Health
The article was authored by the editorial board of the New York Times and was published on 14th march 2020 under the title of The Companies Putting Profits Ahead of Public Health. The article addresses the issue of paid sick leave whereby the authors lament over the failure by some firms, especially restaurants, to pay their workers to stay away from the work place when they fall sick. The authors’ indignation is fuelled by the recent outbreak of CoVID-19 disease that is ravaging America and other nations around the world. They feel that if employers extended paid leave to their employees, the disease would not spread as fast as it is currently. The team argues that paid leave would encourage sick workers to self-quarantine since they would are assure of a reliable income.
The team argues that this is particularly important for the low-income workers. Such persons would still go out to look for jobs even when they have been asked to stay at home till they recover. Thus, paying them to go on leave would encourage them not to do so. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The authors also suggest that companies should act on their own initiative as regards this matter. They argue that due to the urgency if the situation, it is important that companies be proactive and establish paid-leave reforms even in the absence of government regulation. The basis for thus argument is that there are firms such as Costco have implemented paid-leave policies out of their own initiatives. However, they feel the authors feel that there is a need for anchoring this benefit in law. They believe that paid-leave laws should be enacted across the country just as some states in such as Connecticut have passed laws making paid leaves a standard within their boundaries
The authors of this article draw on evidence from various instances in and out of the country to argue their case. For instance, they quote the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) report to assert that there are companies which compel sick to continue serving customers. The quoted excerpt is from the 2014 CDCP report which indicates that in 2014, firms had at least 20% of employees report to work even though they had vomiting and diarrhea sings. To be able to accurately implicate specific companies, they cite authorities surveys which have investigated various firms in the country. Some of these authorities include the Federal Government’s reports and the Shift Project by the sociologist Daniel Schneider. In so doing, the authors of the article authenticate the claims they make regarding specific business enterprises (Radetič, 2018)
Moreover, they use information from their own research on relevant experiences and happenings in the US and elsewhere to substantiate their claims. For example, they cite the case where Waffle House announced that it would be compensating only the employee who tested positive for coronavirus and not his colleagues who were in contact with him, to show the unwillingness of organizations to compensate their employees when they are on sick leave. In this case Waffle House did not pay the other employees even though they too were required to go on leave. Also, the team has observed that paid-leave is a standard in some US states, and thus use this fact to argue that the federal government can be replicate this model national-wide. As such, according to Howe (2017) they give more credibility to their arguments in the article.
However, the editorial team makes does not provide complete references for some their assertions. They only superficially refer to some studies without clearly stating who conducted the studies. In several places, they only use the phrase “studies have shown” which is not a proper way of inviting an authority into one’s work according to DaSilva (2018), particularly when referring to an actual business or person. There is need to elaborate on the persons behind the research so that the readers can verify your claim. Otherwise, as Gray (2019) notes, one can easily make just about any claim and attribute it to some invisible character. Thus, a good proportion of the arguments the statements that they make are credible.
It is also interesting to note that the article invites no counterarguments. This is in spite of the fact that many of its suggestions are highly debatable. For example, the article’s proposal that the public shuns restaurants that do not compensate their workers while on sick-leave is quite controversial. And certainly, the authors of the article must have realized that the readers who raise objections to such a proposition (Radetič, 2018). However, they do not defend their position or factor in the in a way that factors in the readers thoughts. Also, they seem to have not realized that it is difficult for companies to implement paid-leave policies without an obliging legal requirement. Again, the authors advise the readers on a debatable course of action without making an effort to address any concerns that they may have regarding their suggestion. Thus, the article does not endeavor to address counterarguments.
The authors of this article appear to be interested in seeking improved terms of employment for workers. Their argument is one-sided and seems to incline towards the employee’s side. Much of the evidence centers on instances where employers denied their employees the benefits of paid-leave. The evidence does not examine the circumstances that led to this unfortunate happening. Besides, they authors suggests that all business, regardless of their financial capabilities, extend paid leaves to their workers. Once more, this shows that their interest is the betterment of the employees and not that of the employer.
The authors have employed a mostly simple style in advancing their case. They have used little jargon and have limited vocabulary use to only the common business terminologies. They have clearly articulated issues in a rather formal style. The tone in the article is searching one that invites the reader to reason together with the writer along the lines of reasoning he takes on in the article. In this way, as Radetič (2018) notes, the reader is able to understand the message that the article is conveying with reduced difficulties.
Some of the thoughts fostered in the article depict significant errors in reasoning. The writers sound to be intent on forcing a specific course of action on the American public without considering the dynamics involved. For example, demanding of small, financially unstable businesses to pay their workers when they fall sick and cannot report to work is a flawed ideology (Haita-Falah, 2017). I say so because it appears that they have not factored that these firms could become bankrupt if they followed such advice. Also, dismissing the need for a legal intervention in the matter is uninformed as it is impossible to use only moral appeal to get employers to implement their propositions (Haita-Falah, 2017). Instead, it would wiser to advise that the government institute a firm legal framework of ensuring that sick workers stay at home without relying on a compensation system only. This way, even those firms who are not able to support their employees when on leave would manage to ensure that workers do not continuing working till they get well.
Furthermore, the authors contradict their premises in several ways. For instance, at the beginning of the article, they claim that firms can self-regulate when it comes to deciding on compensating sick workers while on leave. However, a few paragraphs down the line they affirm the necessity of government intervention in this case. They realize that the matter cannot be left in the hands of employers, and thus, there is a need for the authorities to step in and compel them to dos so. Also, their discussion is on how paid leave van help curtail the spread of coronavirus in the US. Thus, by going ahead to discuss how this strategy can be beneficial outbreaks involving other diseases, they are missing the point of their endeavor in writing the article (Haita-Falah, 2017). Additionally, the authors make several hasty generalizations in a bid to show how correct they are. For instance, they draw on the example of In-n-Out as well as Stop and Shop to claim that just about any business can afford to pay its sick workers while on leave. Besides, their claim that the US government can conveniently institute paid-leave regulations simply because other developed nations have such arrangements is fallacious even as DaSilva (2018) observes. Such blanket applications of rules is unwarranted since different nations are unique in terms on the local business climate (DaSilva, 2018).
In general the article is not as compelling. The reason for this is that the authors have ignored significant principles of reasoning thus weakening their arguments. The writers of this article have failed to invite counterarguments in their work as Radetič (2018) suggests, and thus, have not addressed the possible objections from the readers. In addition they have severally contradicted themselves which leaves one unable to establish their position on the matter. Therefore, they have failed to advance their case in a convincing manner.
In conclusion, the article addresses the issue of paid leave for sick workers. The main reason for the advocacy of the article is the need to minimize the spread of the coronavirus in the US. The writers advocate for employers to compensate sick workers so that they can go on leave to ensure that the disease does not spread on to their colleagues or the customers. The logic behind this is that a person is more likely to stay at home if they are being paid to do so rather than depending on their willingness. However, the reasoning employed by the writers of the article is flawed in several ways and thus when on a closer examination the claims that they make in the article, one realizes that they are largely impractical as the authors have not considered the issue from a broad perspective.
References
DaSilva, C. M. (2018). Understanding business model innovation from a practitioner perspective. Journal of business models, 6(2), 19-24.
Gray, D. E. (2019). Doing research in the business world. Sage Publications Limited.
Haita-Falah, C. (2017). Sunk-cost fallacy and cognitive ability in individual decision-making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 58, 44-59.
Howe, R., & Costello, F. (2017). Probability judgment from samples: accurate estimates and the conjunction fallacy. In CogSci.
Radetič, A. (2018). What is Style? International Journal of English Literature And Social Sciences, 3(4), 484-487.