The CoffeeCart beverage and food service located in the lobby

Hi bb, can you please provide feedback on my essay on the same topic? Thanks!

The argument claims that supervisors of the GBS Company should remind the employees in their group to patronize the CoffeeCart machine because it was leased for their convenience and the company may discontinue the beverage and food service as the company is unable to cover the costs of this service. Presented in this way, the argument manipulates facts, conveys a distorted view of the situation, and fails to consider key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion is based on assumptions for which there is no evidence. Therefore, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the best way forward is to discontinue the food and beverage service since it is unable to cover its costs, and employees have expressed their dissatisfaction with this service. This statement is a stretch. For example, the employees might actually be dissatisfied with the quality of the food and beverage service at the snack machines than the service itself. If it were true that the employees preferred the quality of food and beverage at the cafeteria, then the argument that employees are dissatisfied with the convenience of snack machine is undermined. Clearly, improving the quality of the food and beverages provided would not only be welcomed by employees and increase the staff morale, but also cover the costs of the service. The argument could have been much more clear if it had explicitly mentioned that reasons why the employees were dissatisfied with the snack machines.

Second, the argument claims that asking employees to patronize the coffee cart will be helpful as the employees were dissatisfied with the these snack machines. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between patronizing the service and increasing employee satisfaction or staff morale. To illustrate, the productivity levels of employees might dip not only due to unavailability of the snack machines but also the patronizing culture that is encouraged at the workplace. While the staff morale is already low and an increasing number of employees are leaving the company, it will be in the best interests of the Company and its employees to upgrade the existing snack machines. The argument would have been a lot more convincing if it had provided evidence of improved employee satisfaction by patronizing the coffee cart service.

Finally, has the company considered the possibility of an even higher number of employees leaving the company because of discontinuation of the beverage service? Also, has any other company been successful in retaining employees and improving staff morale by discontinuing convenience providing food services? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with an impression that the claim is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had mentioned all the relevant facts such as reasons for employee dissatisfaction with the snack machines. In order to assess the merits of the suggestion that employees should patronize the coffee cart, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the effect of patronizing culture on staff morale in a workplace without food and beverage convenience. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

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.”

The following passage indicates that the CofeeCart beverage and food service is not profitable, and thus should be closed. It also states that this would have a negative impact on employee morale, which is already low as is evident from the fact that there is an increase in the number of people leaving the company. Thus, it is assumed that the cart, which was leased for the employees to leverage, should be embraced. There are a number of factors that call this claim into question, as are mentioned in the subsequent paragraphs.

Firstly, it is stated that the cart is unable to break even and maintain its profitability, so it is recommended to discontinue it from the building. However, there are a number of ways to assess and remedy this situation, before taking this extreme measure. For example, the sales might not be able to recover the cost due to its prices either being too low or so high that it becomes unaffordable for the people, keeping them away. It is also possible that the location of the cart is not a popular one. Thus, evaluating the actual reason for the low sales can help drive solutions, and business off the cart, instead of shutting it down.

Secondly, it is mentioned that there is low staff morale, as seen by the number of people leaving the company. Thus, it is assumed that the cart would help mitigate this problem. However, there is no mention of the actual reason responsible for the low employee morale. For all we know, it might be due to reasons independent of the food services. The employees might leave the company in search of better opportunities and higher pay, things not satisfied by their current company. In this case, the cart will not do anything to assuage the current situation. It is also mentioned that a questionnaire about a snack machine showed massive dissatisfaction amongst the employees. Nevertheless, bad reviews for one item, in no way indicate good reviews for others. The snack machine, on the contrary, could have a better review than the CoffeeCart as seen in a separate survey. In that case, it would be wrong to assume that the CoffeCart could salvage the situation at hand.

Finally, the passage indicates that the CoffeeCart is supposed to be a more convenient option for the employees as that way they don't have to walk all the way to the cafeteria. However, it is nowhere mentioned that walking to the cafeteria is an inconvenience in any way to the employees. It may be possible that the employees might enjoy this little break, and that moving around a little will help them relax from a busy day of work. The cafeteria might also offer better and cheaper food options, as compared to the cart. In that case, keeping the cart will not make any difference to the employees.

For the above-mentioned reasons, it is clear that the cart may not have an impact on the employee's morale. There are enough information gaps in the argument that can be exploited to assert that the employees may not embrace the cart after all. Therefore, the argument is not logically sound and is called into question for numerous reasons.