A recent study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that employees with paid sick leave are 28 percent less likely to be involved in a work-related accident than employees who do not receive payment for sick leave. Researchers hypothesize that employees with unpaid sick leave feel pressured to work during the time of illness for fear of lack of pay. On-the-job accidents are then spurred by impaired judgment or motor skills due to illness or illness-related medications. The highest-risk occupations, such as construction, showed the highest discrepancy between paid and unpaid leave. Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to determine whether the researchers’ hypothesis is reasonable. Be sure to explain what effects the answers to these questions would have on the validity of the hypothesis.



The argument claims that employees with unpaid sick leave tend to have more work-related accidents compared to the ones with paid sick leave, due to the fact that they are forced to attend to work even if they aren't physically fit to carry their jobs. This hypothesis is not entirely convincing as there are a few more aspects that should be considered as well as more questions to be answered to make it reasonable.

Firstly, the researchers assume that employees with unpaid sick leave are all of the low-wage incomes, and therefore fear the lack of pay. The argument did not mention what job positions they have specifically carried that research on. So one of the most important questions to be answered is: What is the average income of the employees this research was based on? Meaning that it needs to be clarified which class of workers was this data based on. Were they all low-income? Were some of them high-income? It should be born in mind that people with higher income might feel indifferent regarding the deducted amount from their paycheck after taking unpaid sick leave. While, on the other hand, every penny counts at the end of the month for those with a lower income. The researchers did not elaborate on this and thus it deems their argument unreasonable until the sufficient data is provided.

In addition, the nature of the jobs included in the research were not mentioned, not all job environments are actually vulnerable for on-job accidents. For example, construction is indeed a risky work environment that is definitely prone to casual on-job accidents, but in environments like corporate offices, it is very hard to actually get harmed by anything in the surroundings. As a supporting example, it is known that there is a huge gap between the risk factors in the workplace of a mechanic compared to a receptionist. So, the second question to be asked is: what are the natures of the work environment of these employees? With this piece of information being considered while collecting the data for this research, and consequently represented, a more solid and reasonable hypothesis would have resulted. As without knowing the type of appliances or objects surrounding these people on a daily basis, it will be difficult to assess the risk factors and therefore to assess the probability of actually having a work-related accident.

The hypothesis might have been strengthened if the researchers added two more sets of data to it. First, the average income of the employees included in the study and the nature of the environment they work in. When both of these are considered, a more reliable and firm hypothesis will emerge.