The following is from a recent email from the Diord Corp. Human Resources Manager: “Tobor Technologies found that mental health problems and mental illness were responsible for about 15 percent of employee sick days. Tobor amended its employee insurance

The given argument states that by giving workers insurance coverage for mental illnesses and allowing confidential counseling with a psychologist, employee absenteeism will decrease and productivity will increase at Diord Corp. The argument bases its claims on the previous example of Tobor Technologies, which employed a similar strategy. However, the given argument relies on several key unstated assumptions that, if proven incorrect, will drastically hamper the argument’s effectiveness. In particular, the argument assumes that the Diord employees are suffering from the same mental health conditions as the Tobor employees, that the Diord employees will respond exactly the same as those of Tobor Technologies, and that a decrease in employee absenteeism will necessarily increase productivity.

First, the argument assumes that the Diord employees are necessarily experiencing the same mental health dilemmas as the Tobor employees, and this is the reason for the increase in employee absenteeism. In fact, the increase in employee sick days at Diord Corp. may have nothing to do with mental health, and mental health may in fact present only a small portion of the reasons for employee absenteeism. The real reason for employee absenteeism may in fact be due to physical health consequences of job-related circumstances. For instance, if the employees have been handling more hazardous chemicals recently, or working with more dangerous equipment or even in a suboptimal environment that is too chilly or too dark for its employees, all of these factors can have deleterious effects on human physical health. Hence, mental health may not necessarily form the main reason for the large number of employee sick days at Diord Corp. Additional research must be done to determine the chief causes of employee leave, and whether mental health is a significant reason.

Furthermore, the argument assumes that the Diord Corp. employees will respond similarly to the insurance coverage and psychological counseling as the Tobor, when the employees may be from a different background that drastically changed how they respond to the mental health strategies. Studies have shown that different socioeconomic classes and racial groups respond differently to offerings of healthcare, meaning the employees at Diord Corp. may not take advantage of the insurance coverage or counseling opportunities like those at Tobor technologies. Perhaps the Diord Corp. employees tend to be from a poorer socioeconomic background that tend to be apprehensive about healthcare, and hence unlikely to use the benefits given them. In such a case, the optional use of the mental health amenities provided by Diord Corp. will not be useful to the Diord employees as they were for the Tobor Technologies employees, who may have been from a different socioeconomic status more likely to use the benefits. Hence, additional studies must be performed to determine whether the coverage of mental health-related issues in the company insurance plan and the confidential access to a psychologist will in fact be used by the employees, before these costly amenities are precipitously included.

Finally, the argument claims that reduced employee absenteeism will increase company productivity. However, this is a potentially unfounded assumption that requires additional supporting data. Employees who work longer hours may not necessarily be more productive, as sometimes the taking of a break every now and then is advantageous towards helping workers concentrate on their tasks more. Thus, if employees are taking fewer sick days, they may feel overworked and thus contribute less to company productivity. While it is true that Diord Corp. has had an increase in sick days over the last two years, no information has been presented on how that has affected the productivity of the Diord Corp. If company productivity has not decreased at all over the past two years, it may be an ineffective use of company funds to try to achieve a decrease in employee sick days used. It may simply be that the employees need some additional time off. Consequently, more research needs to be performed to determine whether company productivity is in fact correlated with sick days used.

Altogether, the given argument makes a few key assumptions that may drastically weaken the claim, if they are found to be unwarranted. It is not clear, that the Diord Corp. employees are experiencing the same compromises to their mental health that the Tobor employees did, and even if so, the Diord. Corp. employees may not respond to the additionally provided mental health amenities in the same way. The assumption that reduced absenteeism will increase productivity is also unfounded Hence, all of these unstated assumptions require additional evidence to substantiate the claim.