The following appeared in a memorandum issued by the human-resources department of Capital Bank:"Capital Bank has always required that its employees wear suits at all times while at work. Last month, Capital’s employee absenteeism and attrition rates bo

The conclusion of this argument is that the policy of "free Friday" will turn over the high level of absenteeism and the rate of capital flight. This conclusion is entirely based on some comparisons with the software industry, which is the best case is trivial. The note did not address the important differences between the two branches and the dress code, other possible causes of capital problems and potential problems with quoted statistics.

First, the monument suggests that because software workers prefer informal clothing, so are the employees of the bank. But that's not the case. People involved in financing work tend to rely more on credibility and wealth, so they prefer to wear costumes to impress and intimidate. Therefore, the policy of "free Friday" may not have any positive effect on the morale of capital. It can even be counter-productive, which forces more employees to leave the company. The memo also suggests that the "Friday leisure" policy is similar to the dress code of the software industry and has the same effect on job satisfaction. But is there one day of leisure for a week to reduce absenteeism and burnout? Maybe not

The note also suggests that the dress is due to a high pass and loss of capital, without taking into account other possible explanations. High rates of absenteeism can be caused by other conditions of work, such as poor ventilation or nutrition in the dining room, which may be due to factors such as insufficient wages or benefits. Since the memorandum does not exclude these opportunities, the conclusion that the "Friday leisure" policy will solve the problem of capital is, at best, weak.

Finally, the statistics cited in the note seem unreliable. People can not make certain conclusions about job satisfaction from "comments" that are "often" made by software workers if they are not backed up by adequate studies of large enough and representative samples. Also, we can not draw conclusions about the absenteeism and burnout of workers in a month. The data for last month can be only one-time peaks (the author of the note reacted exaggeratedly). Even if not, monthly changes on their own often indicate that the dress code remains unchanged, not the reason for the data of last month.

Summing up, the note does not convince me of similarities in the preferences of the software industry and the costume code of capital employees and the proposed policy to ensure that the policy of "Friday leisure" influences is expected in the capital. The memorandum did not convince me that the current dress code of Capital is, above all, the real reason for absenteeism and staff turnover.