The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing During the past year Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on the job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant where the work shifts are one hour shorter than our

The memorandum asserts that fatigue and sleep deprivation are the main factors behind the discrepancy in the number of accidents in Quiot and in Panoply – concluding that by addressing such problem, the company would manage not only to decrease its number of accidents but also to increase its productivity. The author assumes that stress and absence of sleep are the main cause of a low performance and of an increased number of injuries. However, in order to assess this argument, three main assumptions must be evaluated.

To begin, the author implies that Quiot Manufacturing and Panoply Industries are roughly comparable. Perhaps both factories are not comparable between each other; for example, Quiot might have substantially more employees than Panoply, which means that even though they do report 30 percent more accidents in a nominal basis, on a relative basis, they might still present better figures than its competitor. Both facilities may still operate in different business segments. Panoply could be a medicine packaging factory, whereas Quiot could be a large acid manufacturer. If that is the case, injuries would be considerably more likely to happen at Quiot rather than at Panoply. In case any of the above examples is true, the argument of the author would then be flawed.

Secondly, a one-hour longer work shift may not be enough to justify such discrepancy among the injury levels of both factories. Even though Quiot Manufacturing reported 30 percent more accidents than Panoply did, and that Panoply employees work few hours less, these may not be sufficient highlights to drive a conclusion that Quiot has excessive work shifts and that this is the main reason behind the increased number of injuries. There could be, as well, other factors that are even more causative of accidents than this difference of labor time. At Quiot, for example, accidents might have occurred more frequently because of negligences performed by the managers of the facility. Lack of equipment maintenance, of safety equipment, among other issues may be the main causes of the outcome observed – rather than stress or sleep deprivation. If the happens to be true, reducing work shifts will not manage to increase productivity neither to reduce the level of injuries.

Lastly, employees may be productive despite a supposed fatigue or lack of sleep. Perhaps the majority of the processes at Quiot are automated and hence, human employees account for just a small portion of the overall productivity. Employees could also not feel tired with the present routine after all, not affecting their productivity. In case this is true, the argument would again be invalidated.

Conclusively, the argument is flawed as it is based in unwarranted assumptions that both industrial facilities are roughly comparable, that stress or sleep deprivation are the main cause of accidents at these factories, and that by solving this last issue – productivity would be increased.