[Closed] Does this argument hold?

I'd think it's like this: If overall workload is decreased by 70% then this is valid for both, i.e. man A+B's work = 200 * 0.3 = 60. So now man A works 60% of the original workload - a reduction of 40% overall.

Join a union, and strike, and then watch as the company folds, which then makes A look a complete c.

Say initially you're responsible for 100 things jointly, so that's 50 each. Management brings in new system reducing it by 70% so you're now jointly responsible for 30 things, so 15 each. One man leaves giving his responsibility to you, leaving you responsible for 30 things, making you 40% better off than what you started with.

You can only do so much in 35-40 hrs

If he can't fit the extra in - he can't & nothing will change it
If he can - he was under worked previously

Both A+B managed a group of 20 and one was always available 0700-1900 weekdays and on call out

Management misquote Man A when he previously stated they could, on occasion, spend 70% of a working day resolving staffing issues. They insist that by moving staff scheduling to another department they have therefore reduced workload by 70%

Man A is sick sore and tired of this erroneous figure being quoted and would dearly love to counter their argument with another figure ( management are mostly accountants and love figures) in his favour! Scheduling staff was one part of the job which at times could be time consuming,but he is now left with all responsibilities and believes his workload has in no way diminished by 70% but has increased as his opposite number has left.

He just needs a way to illustrate this in a way they will understand!