give the employees the only portion of their salary

Status
Not open for further replies.

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
1. Does "give the employees the only portion of their salary" mean "the owner paid the sick employees some extra health benefit"?
2. As in "as they told...", did the recovered employees talk about their owner or any other owner who cared about sick employees?
* I'm curious if it is the owner or any other owner who helped the sick employees, this is kind of vague.

st50)A small business owner could never afford to offer his emplyees healthare benefits. It was not typically a problem because most of the employees accessed healthcare through their working spouses. However, tragedy struck one year when two of his most productive employees were striken with life-threatening illnesses. One had a hear attack, and the other had lung cancer. They each, obviously, had to miss work. With productivity gone and the business hurting, he chose to give the employees the only portion of their salary he could afford. The business operated at a loss that year, but when the two individuals overcame their life-threatening illnesses, he found that their new-found loyalty reaped a new set of rewards as they told their stories of a business owner who cares about much more than a profit.
 

Gillnetter

Key Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
1. Does "give the employees the only portion of their salary" mean "the owner paid the sick employees some extra health benefit"?
2. As in "as they told...", did the recovered employees talk about their owner or any other owner who cared about sick employees?
* I'm curious if it is the owner or any other owner who helped the sick employees, this is kind of vague.

st50)A small business owner could never afford to offer his emplyees healthare benefits. It was not typically a problem because most of the employees accessed healthcare through their working spouses. However, tragedy struck one year when two of his most productive employees were striken with life-threatening illnesses. One had a hear attack, and the other had lung cancer. They each, obviously, had to miss work. With productivity gone and the business hurting, he chose to give the employees the only portion of their salary he could afford. The business operated at a loss that year, but when the two individuals overcame their life-threatening illnesses, he found that their new-found loyalty reaped a new set of rewards as they told their stories of a business owner who cares about much more than a profit.
He didn't pay the employees their full salaries. He paid the employees less (a portion) than their normal salaries. He paid the employees that portion which he could afford. If I normally pay you $500.00 a week but cannot afford to pay you that much, I may pay you $100.00. To pay someone when they are not working may be seen as a benefit.

This would be easier to understand if written - "...to give the employees only that portion of their salary which he could afford".

The employees told others about this employer. They talked about "a" business owner, not other business owners. Remember that "a" refers to a particular thing - I want a blue car, not just any car.
 

BobK

Harmless drudge
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
1. Does "give the employees the only portion of their salary" mean "the owner paid the sick employees some extra health benefit"?
2. As in "as they told...", did the recovered employees talk about their owner or any other owner who cared about sick employees?
* I'm curious if it is the owner or any other owner who helped the sick employees, this is kind of vague.

st50)A small business owner could never afford to offer his emplyees healthare benefits. It was not typically a problem because most of the employees accessed healthcare through their working spouses. However, tragedy struck one year when two of his most productive employees were striken with life-threatening illnesses. One had a hear attack, and the other had lung cancer. They each, obviously, had to miss work. With productivity gone and the business hurting, he chose to give the employees the only portion of their salary he could afford. The business operated at a loss that year, but when the two individuals overcame their life-threatening illnesses, he found that their new-found loyalty reaped a new set of rewards as they told their stories of a business owner who cares about much more than a profit.

1 No. 'The only portion...he could afford' is all one idea; it says that he paid workers only a fraction of their salary, according to his ability to pay, and it says nothing about benefits for the sick employees ([STRIKE]or sick spouses[/STRIKE])*.

2 They were talkiing about one sort of employer, with a particular one in mind. This use of the indefinite article is quite common. You could say, for example, 'I like a man who knows the importance of work-life balance' and mean that you like that general feature - but in a particular individual.

b
PS - See later post
 
Last edited:

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
You two have different opinions about if the owner actually paid the two sick employees. My workbook's summary is that eventually the owner was admired by the two sick-but-recovered employees, but is this true?
 

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
What does "rewards" in "their new-found loyalty reaped a new set of rewards" refer to?
 

BobK

Harmless drudge
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
You two have different opinions about if the owner actually paid the two sick employees. My workbook's summary is that eventually the owner was admired by the two sick-but-recovered employees, but is this true?

I don't think we have. My 'or their spouses' was a mistake. Otherwise it seems to me that we're saying the same but in different ways. (Gil has the advantage of having a culture that is used to employers providing health benefits! ;-)

b
 

BobK

Harmless drudge
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
You two have different opinions about if the owner actually paid the two sick employees. My workbook's summary is that eventually the owner was admired by the two sick-but-recovered employees, but is this true?
Yes.

What does "rewards" in "their new-found loyalty reaped a new set of rewards" refer to?
Rewards for the employer -free publicity. (You have my sympathy ;-) - this is not at all well written. From the text as written you could be forgiven for trying to imagine a sort of world where loyalty could reap!

b
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top