The following appeared as part of a memo from the manager of a hazardous-waste disposal company.

“Our new plan will help us better protect our staff against exposure to toxic chemicals: We are fitting each new safety suit with an alarm that will sound in the main control booth when the suit is punctured. The control booth will notify the managers on duty, who will then take the necessary steps to ensure employees’ safety. In addition to the obvious safety-related benefits, the fast reaction time will ensure minimal work stoppage and thus result in increased worker productivity and company profitability.”

“Our new plan will help us better protect our staff against exposure to toxic chemicals: We are fitting each new safety suit with an alarm that will sound in the main control booth when the suit is punctured. The control booth will notify the managers on duty, who will then take the necessary steps to ensure employees’ safety. In addition to the obvious safety-related benefits, the fast reaction time will ensure minimal work stoppage and thus result in increased worker productivity and company profitability.”

The above article appeared as a part of a memo from the manager of a hazardous-waste disposal company. The arguer recommends the implication of the new safety plan, which would protect the staff from exposure against toxic chemicals. There are various arguments that the arguer presents in support of the new safety plan. The first argument is that the new safety suit has an alarm which will sound in the control booth when punctured and the control booth would intimate the manager on duty and thus the safety of the employs would be ensured. The second argument that the arguer gives is that apart from the safety related benefits the new safety suit would also ensure that the work is stopped for the minimum time. The argument does not present full facts about the new safety plan thus the arguer fails to convince us.

The first argument presented by the arguer saying that the new safety plan would ensure safety to workers from harmful chemicals is absolutely incorrect. The whole safety suit depends upon on the puncturing and if due to some reason it does not get punctured then the workers would keep inhaling harmful chemicals. There is no back up measure adopted in case the suit does not get punctured. Also there should be some provision for the intimation in regard to puncture failure which would ensure twofold safety of the workers. The arguer also mentions that if the suit is punctured the alarm would sound in the control room and then the preventive security measures would be taken. The arguer fails to bring an important point here that if the manager is not in the control room then who in his absence would take the security precautions. There should also have been a direct provision of intimation to the workers who are under danger.

The second argument which the arguer presents is that along with safety the new suit would ensure enhanced productivity and increased profits of the company. The arguer fails to explain how much reaction time would be needed. There is a possibility that such measures would only result in panic and it is not known that at what level the alarm would sound. If the alarm sounds at the level which is safe for the workers then there would be unnecessary stoppage of work. Also the entire work would take place depending upon the safety suit and if the suit is not working then the workers would work in fear as they’ll become used to it and hence it would result in inferior quality work. The arguer has not mentioned whether work force was working less efficiently before and had demanded that they would work more efficiently after a new safety suit. If there was no demand then they will keep working at the same pace and hence productivity would remain same and it would not bring much difference in the company’s profits. The arguer fails to mention the cost factor involved in fitting the safety suit and also its maintenance charges.

The arguer fails to convince us as there are many flaws in the proposed recommendation. Hence, the new safety suit is not recommended as the arguer needs to present more convincing arguments in his support.