The following appeared in the annual report from the president of the National Brush Company.

“In order to save money, we at the National Brush Company have decided to pay our employees for each brush they produce instead of for the time they spend producing brushes. We believe that this policy will lead to the production of more and better brushes, will allow us to reduce our staff size, and will enable the company factories to operate for fewer hours – resulting in savings on electricity and security costs. These changes will ensure that the best workers keep their jobs and that the company will earn a profit in the coming year.”

In the given argument, the president of the National Brush Company in the annual report suggests measures to save money on the production of brushes which will help in earning profits in the coming year. According to the report, for this the workers should be paid for the amount of work done and not for the time they work for. Hence, they will be paid according to the number of brushes they produce. This will help in more production as well as better brushes. The company will also be able to reduce the number of workers by giving work to only those who add to the production. Moreover, since the factory will work for lesser number of hours, it will save electricity and security costs. However, in their efforts of saving money, the company heads are not taking into consideration the various related problems as well as impracticality of this change.

If the workers are paid for each brush they produce and not for the time they spend on producing them, every worker will try to produce as many brushes as possible. Hence, the quality of brushes will be compromised. This move may result in producing more brushes, but it will definitely not help in producing better brushes. If the quality of work will go down, it will surely have an effect on its sales and the company may not earn as many profits as it expects.

The president of the company has also not looked into the aspect of sharing and dividing work amongst employees. If they are paid according to the number of brushes they produce, they will have to produce brushes independently. This may be against the way they worked before where one brush could be produced by a joint effort of the workers. Moreover, the policy of reducing their staff size will create a fear amongst the workers of the possibilities of losing their jobs. It will spoil the relations shared by the workers. Instead, they will be engaged in a competition amongst themselves where everyone will want to produce more brushes and save their job.

While taking the decision for the next year’s policy, the president has also ignored the possibility of strike by workers. Since the policy clearly hints at reducing the staff size, a number of employees will get affected. Along with the fear of losing their job, there will be a feeling of agitation that will grow amongst the workers. If pushed further, the workers might join hands and this agitation can take the shape of a strike which can get difficult to handle. Hence, the company will be surrounded with problems and the dream of saving money and earning profits will be shattered.

It is a good idea to save electricity and security costs, but this should not be achieved by burdening the employees to work more in lesser time. In order to reduce production costs and gain profits, the company should think of ways of improving work efficiency. Things like work evasion and wasteful expenditure should be checked which will prove to be beneficial in the long run. In order to save money, the company must think of other alternatives of reducing the cost of production. Profits can also be earned by changing the sales strategy like offering free gifts or seasonal discounts. Moreover, the company should pay more attention on improving its products and making them attractive for the buyers. Hence, the idea suggested in the argument is weak and impractical, and can be altered with better options to give better results.