does high workplace risk render a higher pay?

Hi, saw this qns in GMAT. Pls advise if my approach is correct and how to improve.

"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Therefore, it makes more sense for employers financially to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."

It is commonly known in the job market that high (physical) risk demands a higher pay. A higher pay is usually to attract specialized talents to join the industry and also to compensate their staff for the underlying risk taken. The author has made a good point that investing in safer work environment is beneficial for the business in the long run. However, I disagree with the author's logic of his argument and conclusion that employers could cut down on salaries if the workplace is made safer.

To begin with, workplace safety should be the basic for all industries. It should never be a tool to cut down on labour costs. A safe workplace environment is a win-win situation for employers, their employers and their customers. Many fast food chains for instance Macdonalds, have included workplace safety for both their employees and customers. Basic kitchen rules and cleanliness within the restaurants help to reduce unnecessary costs in event of fire hazard or customers getting injured within the compounds.

Maintenance of work environment safety also helps to prevent litigation in event if employees are injured during the cost of work. If proper safety measures like wearing helmet or no smoking in construction sites or oil tanker are strictly enforced and followed by all employees. Accidents could be avoided and companies need not involved in any legal disputes and potential compensations.

Improvement of workplace safety does not necessary means higher variable cost to the companies. Sufficient education and work guidelines would not increase the total costs by large percentage.

To conclude, companies should also explore new technological opportunities to improve their work environment and invest in technology to cut down the unnecessary risk for instance testing of hazardous weapons.

McDonald's

Improvement of workplace safety does not necessary mean higher ...

I don't think you should conclude with a "for instance" example. Conclude with a statement that considers the implications of what you showed in your argument.

I think the main point is to assert that their reason for promoting safety should not be to save money, and you did a great job of explaining that! All you need to do is write a reflective conclusion paragraph.