The company X has recently switched to a 4-day work week with longer hours in an effort to increase profits while increasing employee morale. Although the policy is new, it is expected that shutting the offices on an extra day would increase profits considerably. The arguments put forth by the company are, nevertheless, strife with logical inconsistencies that are inherent to their presumptions about how exactly would profits be effected.

Although it is assumed that shutting down the office on a Friday would increase profits, the reasoning behind this assumption is not clear. The company would still have to pay rent for the office space it uses. If it is assumed that the company would lease their office space to another company on Fridays to generate additional revenue, the costs associated with weekly shifts to such an arrangement are not expounded further. It is not likely that the company would gain much from leasing its offices if these costs are found to be exorbitant. In such a case, the motivation to close the offices on Friday would not be a valid reason for the shift to a 4-day work week.

The assumption that the morale of the employees would be boosted by the change is dubious at best. It is possible that employees are content with their current commute so reducing an extra day of commute would not make much difference. It is indirectly assumed that commute times are the only factor that affects employee morale though this is seldom the case. If employee morale is not significantly affected by shorter weekly commuting times, then the argument for a 4-day work week would not hold water from the point of consideration of the employees.

A major assumption that the company makes is that employee efficiency would remain roughly the same. This is an egregious assumption when when analyses the deleterious effect long working hours have on the human mind. Not only would the work at the comnay would be affected, but the mental health of its employees would be adversely affected which would run counter to the company’s claims of improving employee morale. The company would risk losing millions in revenue if their assumptions about employee efficiency prove to be unwarranted. The added health insurance costs associated with mental health problems and subsequent among its employees and subsequent lawsuits would further risk the existence of the company.

In conclusion, the argument for a 4-day work week at company X is seriously flawed in its blind reliance on unreasonable and, in some cases, downright inhumane assumptions about employee morale and company profits. It is reasonably possible that the company would be forced to revert to a 5-day work week with shorter hours if it’s presumptions prove to be false over time. The worst-case scenario would be ironically the company going bankrupt as opposed to increasing its profits.