of2_ts06
2
Open Forum 2 www .oup.com/elt/openfor um © Oxford University Press 2006 Open Forum 2 Web Site Transcript Chapter 6 A = Rachel Hunt, radio host B = Barbara Cassidy, studio guest C = Nathan Grant, studio guest D = Mervin, call-in listener A: Y ou’re listening to The Gr eat Debate. I’m Rachel Hunt. Americans work more hours and take less vacation time than Europeans do. Today we’ll be debating the question: “Should the United States reduce the work week to 35 hours?” I’m joined by one guest on each side of this issue. Barbara Cassidy, professor of social studies at the University of Philadelphia, supports the reduced work week. Dr. Cassidy, welcome. B: Hello. A: And across the table is Nathan Grant fr om the Association of American Businesses, a group which opposes this plan. Mr. Grant, good to have you with us. C: Thank you. A: Dr. Cass idy , let me start with you. Would we be happier with a legal limit on the work week? B: Y es, Rachel, we would. I’ve interviewed hundr eds of workers on both sides of the Atlantic, and there’s no doubt that increased leisure time leads to greater satisfaction and overall happiness. I’m not saying that everyone in Europe loves their job—they don’t!—but on average Europeans have less job- related stress, and they’re more focused on health, family and simply enjoying life than Americans are. A: Nathan Grant, do you believe Americans are unhappy? C: Certainly not. I don’t know who the professor spoke to and how she’s measuring happiness, but I can tell you this . . . Americans work hard because they want to. This is the land of opportunity, and if you put in the hours, you can build a better life for yourself and for your children. Limiting the number of hours people can work is just going to limit the financial and social opportunities of ordinary Americans. B: Unemployment is over 10% in some parts of the U.S. If you require a shorter work week, then companies will be forced to hire more workers. This will create more jobs, which is good for people and it’s good for the country. C: But it’s bad for bus iness, becaus e with higher s alary costs, small businesses will be forced into bankruptcy . . . they won’t be able to stay in business . . . and then they won’t be able to offer any jobs at all. A: Let me stop you ther e because I know a lot of listeners want to join in in this conversation. Mervin in Detroit—you’re on The Great Debate. D: Rachel, what I want to say is this: I’ve worked in the automobile industry for 30 years. I’ve worked 50 and 60-hour weeks, just to put food on the table and a roof over my family’s head. And I was proud to do that. But I don’t want that life for my kids, so I’m in favor of the 35-hour work week. B: Mervin, I respect y our attitude. The re’s just no need to sacrifice our lives and the lives of the next generation for work. D: Can I say something e lse? I live in Detroit—one of the most overweight cities in America—and I know from looking at my friends and family that we eat too much fast food . . . and that’s because we don’t have time to cook healthy food . . . because we work too much. B: That’s really important. The more we work, the worse we eat—less nutritious food, more fat, fewer fruits and vegetables. The American life style just isn’t healthy. A: What do you think about that Mr . Grant? C: Well, it’s true that many Americans do not eat as well as they should, but working fewer hours would not solve that problem. In fact, a 35-hour week would reduce the income of most working-class Americans . . . and that would reduce the quality of their diet. People can’t eat healthy if they’re not making enough money to afford healthy food! B: I have to disagree . . . People can’t eat healthy if they don’t even have any time . . . time to cook or eat at home with their families. Reducing the work week to 35 hours would help people live healthy, more active and satisfying lives. A: Thanks for your call, Mervin. Let’s take a break and then take some more calls . . .
-
Upload
ulises-orellana-chavez -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of of2_ts06
7/27/2019 of2_ts06
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/of2ts06 1/1
Open Forum 2 www.oup.com/elt/openforum © Oxford University Press 2006
Open Forum 2Web Site Transcript
Chapter 6
A = Rachel Hunt, radio host
B = Barbara Cassidy, studio guest
C = Nathan Grant, studio guest
D = Mervin, call-in listener
A: You’re listening to The Great Debate. I’m RachelHunt. Americans work more hours and take lessvacation time than Europeans do. Today we’ll bedebating the question: “Should the United Statesreduce the work week to 35 hours?” I’m joined byone guest on each side of this issue. Barbara Cassidy,professor of social studies at the University of Philadelphia, supports the reduced work week. Dr.Cassidy, welcome.
B: Hello.A: And across the table is Nathan Grant from the
Association of American Businesses, a group whichopposes this plan. Mr. Grant, good to have you withus.
C: Thank you.
A: Dr. Cassidy, let me start with you. Would we behappier with a legal limit on the work week?
B: Yes, Rachel, we would. I’ve interviewed hundredsof workers on both sides of the Atlantic, and there’sno doubt that increased leisure time leads to greater
satisfaction and overall happiness. I’m not sayingthat everyone in Europe loves their job—theydon’t!—but on average Europeans have less job-related stress, and they’re more focused on health,family and simply enjoying life than Americans are.
A: Nathan Grant, do you believe Americans areunhappy?
C: Certainly not. I don’t know who the professor spoketo and how she’s measuring happiness, but I can tellyou this . . . Americans work hard because they wantto. This is the land of opportunity, and if you putin the hours, you can build a better life for yourself
and for your children. Limiting the number of hourspeople can work is just going to limit the financialand social opportunities of ordinary Americans.
B: Unemployment is over 10% in some parts of the U.S.If you require a shorter work week, then companieswill be forced to hire more workers. This will createmore jobs, which is good for people and it’s good forthe country.
C: But it’s bad for business, because with higher salarycosts, small businesses will be forced into bankruptcy. . . they won’t be able to stay in business . . . and thenthey won’t be able to offer any jobs at all.
A: Let me stop you there because I know a lot of listeners want to join in in this conversation. Mervinin Detroit—you’re on The Great Debate.
D: Rachel, what I want to say is this: I’ve worked in theautomobile industry for 30 years. I’ve worked 50 and60-hour weeks, just to put food on the table and aroof over my family’s head. And I was proud to dothat. But I don’t want that life for my kids, so I’m infavor of the 35-hour work week.
B: Mervin, I respect your attitude. There’s just noneed to sacrifice our lives and the lives of the nextgeneration for work.
D: Can I say something else? I live in Detroit—one of the most overweight cities in America—and I knowfrom looking at my friends and family that we eattoo much fast food . . . and that’s because we don’thave time to cook healthy food . . . because we work too much.
B: That’s really important. The more we work, theworse we eat—less nutritious food, more fat, fewerfruits and vegetables. The American life style just
isn’t healthy.
A: What do you think about that Mr. Grant?
C: Well, it’s true that many Americans do not eat aswell as they should, but working fewer hours wouldnot solve that problem. In fact, a 35-hour week would reduce the income of most working-classAmericans . . . and that would reduce the qualityof their diet. People can’t eat healthy if they’re notmaking enough money to afford healthy food!
B: I have to disagree . . . People can’t eat healthy if theydon’t even have any time . . . time to cook or eat at
home with their families. Reducing the work week to 35 hours would help people live healthy, moreactive and satisfying lives.
A: Thanks for your call, Mervin. Let’s take a break andthen take some more calls . . .
