Please please rate: The CoffeeCart beverage and food service
[#permalink]
18 Jun 2014, 21:00
The following appeared in a memorandum to the work-group supervisors of the GBS Company:
“The CoffeeCart beverage and food service located in the lobby of our main office building is not earning enough in
sales to cover its costs, and so the cart may discontinue operating at GBS. Given the low staff morale, as evidenced
by the increase in the number of employees leaving the company, the loss of this service could present a problem,
especially since the staff morale questionnaire showed widespread dissatisfaction with the snack machines.
Therefore, supervisors should remind the employees in their group to patronize the cart—after all, it was leased for
their convenience so that they would not have to walk over to the cafeteria on breaks.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30mins - (356 words)
Claiming that Coffeecart is not making profits from its beverage and food service business catered to the staff in the building, the author concluded that employees of GBS company should patronize the Coffeecart in order to keep its business running. The author further evidenced that GBS employees' reliance on snack machines and the loss of Coffeecart would present further dissatifaction among workplace morale. This argument however, it problematic and fraught with unspoken assumption.
To being with, the author failed to consider the root cause of the problem in which Coffeecart was unable to run the business. Was the food sold at Coffeecart expensive yet inexpansive? Working staff in the building chose not to patronize Coffeecart could plausibly because the food were not appealing, unable to satiate their hunger, lacking of variety or the prices of the food were deemed unreasonable. If one dislikes the food, needless to say, one would not patronize the cafeteria, let alone to visit the place every single day.
The author also made a fradulent assumption that snack machines are the only alternatives for employees of GBS should Coffeecart cease its operation. Are there no other cafeteria besides Coffeecart in vicinity? It is highly unbelievable for staff to visit the same cart for lunches every single day, especially when the place is unpopular. Staff could have bring in homemade lunches or called for delivery services to spice up their mundane recipes. Hence one cannot ascertain that the building could only rely on Coffeecart to provide staff meals.
Furthermore, the author cited the recent rising trend in employee turnover rate. Given that Coffeecart was not doing great in its business, the author loosely associated this as a causation to the increasing employee turnover. While there might be a correlation to these two events, it is illogical to conclude that Coffeecart's dwinlding business caused unhappiness among the staff and lowering staff morale. No evidence on staff response have been made on this issue.
To sum up, author's argument is highly unconvincing. To substantiate his position better, the author can conduct more research on the employees response to the closing of Coffeecart in the building.