The lecturer claims that the new policy, which allows people to work four days a week instead of five, will have negative effects for companies as well as society. This claim is not in agreement with that of the reading passage, which suggests that such a policy will be beneficial.
According to the lecture, a company that allows employees to have fewer working hours is likely to hire more people to ensure that it meets normal levels of productivity. If this occurs, expenses for training and medical insurance will inevitably rise. The reading passage, by contrast, suggests that employees who enjoy more leisure time make fewer mistakes and work more efficiently, leading to increased profits for the enterprise.
The second point of difference between the lecture and the reading passage concerns the impact of the policy on the unemployment rate. The lecturer asserts that for the sake of saving money, employers might raise their expectations of 4-day employees rather than recruit more people.
Consequently, employees who work 4 days will be forced to finish what they did in 5 days previously, and no additional jobs will be created.
Finally, the lecturer argues that under the new policy, employees will experience not only decreased quality of life (as shorter working hours will translate into less pay), but also fewer chances to be promoted to supervisory positions. However, the reading passage contends that more leisure hours can create opportunities to strengthen family ties and allow employees to develop private interests, making them feel more satisfied with their lives.
The lecturer talks about research conducted by a firm that used the group system to handle their work. He says that the theory stated in the passage was very different and somewhat inaccurate when compared to what happened in reality.
First, some members got free rides. That is,