Throughout history, there has been considerable discussion about the exploitation of those working at the bottom of a company. Some people suggest that all workers, regardless of their positions, should be treated equally and given the same number of holidays, while others do not agree. From my perspective, people in a company should be treated differently.
Undeniably, the employee-friendly policy helps reduce financial loss, and the General Motors is a good example. The CEO of General Motors cannot endure to lose more than 20 billion dollars a year, so he and the company’s executives come up with a resolution strategy, which allows all employees to have the same number of holidays. Afterward, the company shows a turn from loss to profits because the employees are getting more motivation and working harder than before. However, this does not necessarily imply that all workers could have the same number of vacations in a year.
In fact, granting all employees the equal treatment might lead to the paralysis of companies because it messes up the work schedules. As we know, a company consists of many requisite divisions, such as sales department, marketing department, and purchasing department. The company cannot operate without any of these departments. If all people have the same days of annual leave, managers would have difficulty seeking substitutes who are competent for the jobs assigned. Therefore, it is very likely that there will not be enough people going to keep the company running.
In addition, different treatment for annual leave reflects the value of promotion and the commitment workers make. People will get incentives, if they become a leader of one division with more benefits above those of others. According to the data of University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, treating employees differently makes a significant difference to the increasing rate of capitalization. For example, the increasing rate of the company treating staff differently is twenty percent faster than that of the company treating staff with the same number of vacations. This is mainly due to the fact that it can stimulate people to compete, and this competition helps maximize the profits of the company.
In conclusion, the idea of offering employees equal days of vacations is completely unacceptable. This practice leads to the breakdown of a company and encourages workers to show their potentials to their fullest. Hence, all companies should be careful of following this trend.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, however, if, so, therefore, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 13.1623246493 91% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 41.998997996 131% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2116.0 1615.20841683 131% => OK
No of words: 397.0 315.596192385 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32997481108 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.20363070211 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9864900199 2.80592935109 106% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 176.041082164 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546599496222 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 659.7 506.74238477 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 7.0 2.52805611222 277% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 16.0721442886 124% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.3130199802 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.8 106.682146367 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.85 20.7667163134 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95 7.06120827912 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.334889192306 0.244688304435 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0955606592741 0.084324248473 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0862312363822 0.0667982634062 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185558556537 0.151304729494 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0608646209834 0.056905535591 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.0946893788 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.63 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.