Do you think this point seems cold? Heartless?

Do you consider this linking of HIV to profit

margins to be effective? Why does the writer do it?

18 percent of the workforce of the Goedehoop Colliery has HIV. This is astronomical. The impact of
illness and death due to AIDS in Anglo’s workforce is significant. AIDS places an enormous cost on
businesses who operate in areas with a high infection rate. Some will argue that providing health
care is the task of the government of the local area. If providing antiretroviral therapy for working
populations with high HIV levels is cost effective, then companies will go that route. In Africa in 2002
governments were too cash strapped to offer the health care necessary for HIV. I believe that
Stephanie Nolen uses the rhetorical strategy of linking HIV to profit margins because it paints a clear
picture of the situation in terms of cost and financial limitations.
I consider the linking of HIV to profit margins to be an effective rhetorical strategy. Although it may
seem cold and heartless anti-retroviral medication can turn AIDS from a death sentence to a chronic
illness. This ultimately saves the company money because it reduces worker sick days and creates
healthier workers. Antiretrovirals eliminate worker death and reduce sick days. There is also a moral
imperative or “obligation”. Linking the cost of HIV treatment portrays a realistic sense of the dilemma
faced by the executives of Anglo. A private industry may choose to fund antiretroviral therapy for its
workers because it will reduce sick leave and total absenteeism. I believe that the writer chooses to
portray the price associated with HIV treatment as a cost of operation such as the “price of coal” or
the “strength of the rand”. Since the cost of antiretroviral treatment is twice as much as the average
salary of a worker, providing AIDS related treatment was going to be a significant financial burden
but once which creates, healthier, stronger workers and reduces absenteeism and workers death.