61. The following appeared as part of a recommendation by one of the directors of the Beta Company.
“The Alpha Company has just reduced its workforce by laying off fifteen percent of its employees in all divisions and at all levels, and it is encouraging early retirement for other employees. As you know, the Beta Company manufactures some products similar to Alpha’s, but our profits have fallen over the last few years. To improve Beta’s competitive position, we should try to hire a significant number of Alpha’s former workers, since these experienced workers can provide valuable information about Alpha’s successful methods, will require little training, and will be particularly motivated to compete against Alpha.”
β公司的一個經理人的一份建議書：
α公司通過在所有部門和所有層次裁減了15％的員工減少了工作人員，它還鼓勵其他員工提前退休。如你所知，β公司生產部分和α公司類似的產品，但我們的利潤在過去幾年內下降了。為了提高β的競爭力，我們應該試著雇用大量的α的前雇員，因為這些有經驗的工人將提供關于α成功方法的有用信息，而且基本不需要培訓，并將更有動力與α競爭。
1. According to the common sense the workers who are laid off are always the least effective and well-experienced.
2. Whether the Alpha Company is successful or not is still open to doubt.
3. The recruitment will bring benefit to the company and cost at the same time. No conclusion can be given until the benefit-cost analysis has been made.
4. The products the two companies manufacture are just similar. The skills the Alpha company's workers own will not be applicable to the Beta company.
1. A公司的雇員是否能提供有用信息還不知道。因為被說服退休的，很可能是效率低下的，從事非核心的工作。
2. 沒有證據證明A公司是否利潤上升，有可能也是下降，甚至下降的更快。所以A的雇員即使提供信息也未必有用。
3. A與B是否有足夠相似，很可能差很遠。只有一些相似產品，不代表所有，而且很可能并不是這些產品導致的利潤下降。
4. 很可能得到的利潤不能補償多雇傭的人員的cost。
A director of Beta Company suggests that Beta can improve its competitive position by hiring a significant number of former Alpha Company employees who have recently retired or been laid off. The director’s reasoning is that because Alpha manufactures some products similar to Beta’s, former Alpha employees would be experienced and need little training, could provide valuable information about Alpha’s successful methods, and would be particularly motivated to compete against Alpha. The director’s argument is problematic in several respects.
First of all, the argument presupposes that Alpha’s methods are successful. This is not necessarily the case. To the contrary, the fact that Alpha has laid off 15 percent of its employees in every division and at every level suggests that Alpha’s methods may have been unsuccessful and that downsizing was necessary for the company to minimize financial losses.
Secondly, the director assumes that the former Alpha employees hired by Beta will be well-trained and valuable. During a typical lay-off, however, the best and most experienced employees are typically the last to be laid off. By following the director’s advice, Beta would probably be hiring Alpha’s least efficient and least experienced employees—that is, those who would be least valuable to Beta.
Thirdly, the author assumes that Alpha and Beta are sufficiently similar so that former Alpha employees could provide special value for Beta. However, we are informed only that Beta manufactures “some products similar to Alpha’s.” It is possible that former Alpha employees have experience with only a small segment of Beta’s product line, and thus have little inside information of any value to Beta.
Finally, the claim that former Alpha employees would be motivated to compete against Alpha is partially unwarranted. While many of those who were laid off may be so motivated, those who retired early from Alpha probably departed on good terms with Alpha, and would in any event be unmotivated to reenter the work force.
In conclusion, the argument fails to provide key facts needed to assess it. To better evaluate the director’s suggestion, we would need more information about why Alpha reduced its work force, what type of workers left Alpha and under what circumstances, and how similar Alpha’s range of products is to Beta’s.
“The Alpha Company has just reduced its workforce by laying off fifteen percent of its employees in all divisions and at all levels, and it is encouraging early retirement for other employees. As you know, the Beta Company manufactures some products similar to Alpha’s, but our profits have fallen over the last few years. To improve Beta’s competitive position, we should try to hire a significant number of Alpha’s former workers, since these experienced workers can provide valuable information about Alpha’s successful methods, will require little training, and will be particularly motivated to compete against Alpha.”
β公司的一個經理人的一份建議書：
α公司通過在所有部門和所有層次裁減了15％的員工減少了工作人員，它還鼓勵其他員工提前退休。如你所知，β公司生產部分和α公司類似的產品，但我們的利潤在過去幾年內下降了。為了提高β的競爭力，我們應該試著雇用大量的α的前雇員，因為這些有經驗的工人將提供關于α成功方法的有用信息，而且基本不需要培訓，并將更有動力與α競爭。
1. According to the common sense the workers who are laid off are always the least effective and well-experienced.
2. Whether the Alpha Company is successful or not is still open to doubt.
3. The recruitment will bring benefit to the company and cost at the same time. No conclusion can be given until the benefit-cost analysis has been made.
4. The products the two companies manufacture are just similar. The skills the Alpha company's workers own will not be applicable to the Beta company.
1. A公司的雇員是否能提供有用信息還不知道。因為被說服退休的，很可能是效率低下的，從事非核心的工作。
2. 沒有證據證明A公司是否利潤上升，有可能也是下降，甚至下降的更快。所以A的雇員即使提供信息也未必有用。
3. A與B是否有足夠相似，很可能差很遠。只有一些相似產品，不代表所有，而且很可能并不是這些產品導致的利潤下降。
4. 很可能得到的利潤不能補償多雇傭的人員的cost。
A director of Beta Company suggests that Beta can improve its competitive position by hiring a significant number of former Alpha Company employees who have recently retired or been laid off. The director’s reasoning is that because Alpha manufactures some products similar to Beta’s, former Alpha employees would be experienced and need little training, could provide valuable information about Alpha’s successful methods, and would be particularly motivated to compete against Alpha. The director’s argument is problematic in several respects.
First of all, the argument presupposes that Alpha’s methods are successful. This is not necessarily the case. To the contrary, the fact that Alpha has laid off 15 percent of its employees in every division and at every level suggests that Alpha’s methods may have been unsuccessful and that downsizing was necessary for the company to minimize financial losses.
Secondly, the director assumes that the former Alpha employees hired by Beta will be well-trained and valuable. During a typical lay-off, however, the best and most experienced employees are typically the last to be laid off. By following the director’s advice, Beta would probably be hiring Alpha’s least efficient and least experienced employees—that is, those who would be least valuable to Beta.
Thirdly, the author assumes that Alpha and Beta are sufficiently similar so that former Alpha employees could provide special value for Beta. However, we are informed only that Beta manufactures “some products similar to Alpha’s.” It is possible that former Alpha employees have experience with only a small segment of Beta’s product line, and thus have little inside information of any value to Beta.
Finally, the claim that former Alpha employees would be motivated to compete against Alpha is partially unwarranted. While many of those who were laid off may be so motivated, those who retired early from Alpha probably departed on good terms with Alpha, and would in any event be unmotivated to reenter the work force.
In conclusion, the argument fails to provide key facts needed to assess it. To better evaluate the director’s suggestion, we would need more information about why Alpha reduced its work force, what type of workers left Alpha and under what circumstances, and how similar Alpha’s range of products is to Beta’s.