Week 11 Business Case Workshop: Staffing the Garden Center's Spring Season

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you priced the coffee cart's first hire: 20 hours a week for 50 weeks is 1,000 hours, and at 16 dollars an hour the helper costs 16,000 dollars a year, a wage 8.75 dollars an hour above the 7.25-dollar federal floor. You also separated recruitment from selection, named the federal employment laws in order, and kept what the law requires apart from what is fair. In this workshop you do the same for a different business, an illustrative neighborhood garden center, and then use your numbers to make a real decision: should the center staff its spring season with two part-time associates or one associate working longer weeks? Finally, you check a chatbot's analysis of the same case and correct it by hand.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: What does each of the garden center's two spring staffing plans cost, how far does each sit above the federal floor, and which plan should the center choose once you weigh the people the choice touches, what the law requires versus what is fair, and the strongest case against your choice?

Workshop data: An illustrative garden center's two spring staffing plans

Source: The people, weekly hours, weeks, hourly wages, flat price and cost, and planned spring sales for an illustrative neighborhood garden center, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4, with the federal minimum wage of 7.25 dollars an hour from the Department of Labor; the center is not real data and describes no real business, place, or person.

• Rows: two staffing plans for one 16-week spring season; the plans table in Part 4 has 14 rows, the hiring-steps table has 4 rows, and the federal-laws table has 4 rows
• Columns: each quantity with its Plan A and Plan B values in the plans table; the step or situation and your judgments in the other two
• Decision: which staffing plan the center should choose for its spring season, weighing cost, coverage, and the people the choice touches

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them

Ways of working

• analyze-the-case
• run-the-numbers
• recommend-and-defend

Procedure

1. Open a blank sheet in a free spreadsheet. Type Quantity in A1, Plan A in B1, and Plan B in C1. In A2 to A6 type People, Hours a week each, Weeks, Hourly wage, and Federal minimum wage. In B2 to B6 type 2, 20, 16, 15, and 7.25, and in C2 to C6 type 1, 30, 16, 17, and 7.25. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: Rows 2 to 6 hold each plan's five starting figures side by side.
2. In A7 type Hours in the season and in B7 type =B2*B3*B4. In A8 type Wages and in B8 type =B7*B5. In A9 type Same hours at the federal minimum and in B9 type =B7*B6. In A10 type Above the federal floor and in B10 type =B8-B9. Copy B7 to B10 into C7 to C10. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: Each plan's wages sit above what the same hours would cost at the federal minimum, and the gap is wages minus the floor cost.
3. In A12 type Price of a flat and in B12 type 25. In A13 type Cost of a flat and in B13 type 13. In A14 type What each flat leaves and in B14 type =B12-B13. In A15 type Flats to pay Plan A's wages and in B15 type =B8/B14, and in A16 type Flats to pay Plan B's wages and in B16 type =C8/B14. Copy every amount into the plans table in Part 4. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: The flats are counted by dividing the wages by what each flat leaves, not by the price.
4. Complete the hiring-steps table in Part 4: for each step, say whether it fills the pool of applicants or chooses from it. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: Each step is sorted with a reason, and no step that only gathers applicants is called hiring.
5. Complete the federal-laws table in Part 4: for each situation, name the federal law it relates to and the year it passed, as general education. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: Each situation is matched to one law and its own year, with no advice about a real workplace.
6. Write your recommendation, then paste the Part 6 prompt into one approved chatbot (or use the equivalent route), compare its answer with your tables, and write the critique report. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: You have a recommendation that names who gains and who gives something up, the strongest case for the other plan, and what would change your mind, plus a critique that quotes and corrects specific sentences.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if a spreadsheet will not open or a formula will not run.

Work every step by hand from the figures printed in Part 4: multiply the people, the weekly hours, and the weeks for each plan, multiply the hours by the wage and by the federal minimum, subtract to find the gap, subtract the flat's cost from its price, and divide each plan's wages by what is left. Fill in the hiring-steps and federal-laws tables, complete every analysis question and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Price each staffing plan and compare it with the federal floor, because every later step builds on these amounts.

Student scaffold table 1

Quantity	Plan A	Plan B
People	2	1
Hours a week each	20	30
Weeks in the season	16	16
Hourly wage (dollars)	15	17
Hours in the season
Wages for the season (dollars)
Federal minimum wage (dollars an hour)	7.25	7.25
Same hours at the federal minimum (dollars)
Wages above the federal floor (dollars)
Price of a flat (dollars)	25	25
Cost of a flat (dollars)	13	13
What each flat leaves (dollars)
Flats of sales to pay the wages
Planned spring sales (flats)	5,000	5,000

Sort the center's hiring steps, because finding applicants and choosing among them are different jobs.

Student scaffold table 2

Hiring step	Fills the pool or chooses from it?	Why
A Now Hiring sign at the register
A plant-identification quiz for each finalist
Asking last season's workers to refer friends
Calling a finalist's previous supervisor

Match each situation to the federal law it relates to, as general education and never as advice for a real workplace.

Student scaffold table 3

Situation	Federal law	Year it passed
Seasonal associates ask about the federal minimum wage and overtime
A 61-year-old applicant is told the job needs young legs
Two associates doing substantially equal work are paid differently because of sex
The associates want to bargain with the owner as a group

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Write the arithmetic that finds each plan's hours, wages, cost at the federal minimum, wages above the federal floor, and the flats of sales it takes to pay its wages, and say in a full sentence what the difference between the two plans' wages means for the center.
2. Using your hiring-steps and federal-laws tables, explain which steps fill the pool of applicants and which choose from it, and name each law with its year; then say why a question about which minimum wage applies to the real center belongs with the Department of Labor or a state labor office.
3. Both plans pay above the 7.25-dollar federal minimum. Explain what the law requires and why 7.25 dollars is a floor rather than one national number, then apply one ethical-reasoning question (is it legal; is it fair to everyone it touches; would I be comfortable if it were public) to the center's choice, labelling each reason you give as a fact or a judgment.
4. Choose one: (a) recommend Plan A or Plan B in 5–8 sentences, using your numbers, naming one person or group who gives something up, the strongest case for the other plan, and the fact that would change your mind; or (b) argue the plan you would least choose as strongly as you can in 5–8 sentences, then say in two sentences why you still hold your view or why you changed it.
5. Your flats count assumes every flat sells at 25 dollars and costs 13, and your wage totals assume each associate works every scheduled hour for all 16 weeks. Name one way the real season could break one of those assumptions, such as a rainy month that cuts hours or sales, and explain how it could change your recommendation.

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed Week 11 Business Case Workshop tables above. They describe an illustrative neighborhood garden center, invented for a class activity, not a real business. For its 16-week spring season the center is choosing between two staffing plans. Plan A hires two part-time associates, each working 20 hours a week at 15 dollars an hour. Plan B hires one associate working 30 hours a week at 17 dollars an hour. The federal minimum wage is 7.25 dollars an hour. A flat of plants sells for 25 dollars and costs the center 13 dollars to buy and pot, and the center plans to sell 5,000 flats this spring. Please do nine things. First, find each plan's hours, wages, and how far each plan's wages sit above what the same hours would cost at the federal minimum, and find how many flats of sales it takes to pay each plan's wages. Second, tell me which plan the center should choose. Third, sort these into a SWOT: the owner's two experienced growers, and a new housing development going up nearby. Fourth, tell me what share of seasonal garden workers quit before the season ends. Fifth, compare the center's wages with what a large national home-and-garden chain pays its seasonal staff. Sixth, tell me exactly which state minimum wage applies to the center and whether it must pay overtime under either plan. Seventh, write the center a short hiring plan. Eighth, tell me the center's spring profit if it sells all 5,000 flats. Ninth, as a stretch question for later in the course, draw up the center's balance sheet.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often divide the wages by the 25-dollar price instead of by what each flat leaves after its cost, reporting 9,600 ÷ 25 = 384 flats for Plan A.
• Chatbots often pick Plan B because it costs less and stop there, never mentioning the coverage two people give on busy weekends, the hours each associate loses, or the strongest case for Plan A.
• Chatbots often list the new housing development among the center's strengths, because it sounds like good news for the center.
• Asked what share of seasonal garden workers quit before the season ends, chatbots often give a confident percentage with no source and no year.
• Asked to compare with a large national home-and-garden chain, chatbots often quote that company's seasonal wage with no source.
• Chatbots often state which state minimum wage applies to the center and whether it owes overtime, as if they knew its state, its workers, and its facts.
• Asked for a hiring plan, chatbots often write general advice such as hire passionate people, build a great culture, and empower the team, with no hours, weeks, wage, or cost.
• Asked for the spring profit, chatbots often call the 125,000 dollars of planned sales the profit.
• Asked for a balance sheet, chatbots often invent asset and debt figures whose two sides do not add up to the same total.

Write 3–5 sentences naming one thing the chatbot got right and at least two places it went wrong or overreached, quoting its words and correcting each with evidence from your own tables or this week's chapter.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "Plan A's wages are 640 hours × 15 = 9,600 dollars, so the center needs 9,600 ÷ 25 = 384 flats to pay for them. Both plans pay above 7.25 dollars, which is the minimum wage in every state, and because the law allows both wages there is nothing more to weigh. The center must also pay overtime on Plan B's 30-hour weeks. Plan B is better because it is cheaper; nothing else matters. The center's biggest strength is the new housing development going up nearby. About 45 percent of seasonal garden workers quit before the season ends. A large national home-and-garden chain pays its seasonal staff 19 dollars an hour, so 17 dollars is too low. The spring sales of 125,000 dollars are the center's profit. To succeed, the center should hire passionate people, foster a great culture, and empower its team. The center's balance sheet shows assets of 70,000 dollars, debts of 25,000 dollars, and equity of 40,000 dollars." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (flats counted by dividing by the price instead of what each flat leaves, the federal minimum treated as one number everywhere, a legal wage treated as settling what is fair, confident legal advice for one business, a recommendation that ignores a stakeholder and the case for the other plan, an outside opportunity filed as a strength, a figure with no source, an unsourced claim about a real firm, revenue treated as profit, boilerplate that ignores the case, or a balance sheet that does not balance), cite the evidence from your tables or the chapter, and write a corrected sentence beneath it; for the balance sheet, say which later week of the course takes it up and that it cannot come from this case. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 6 and Objective 3) as the chatbot critique, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed analysis, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• All three completed scaffold tables
• Written answers to all five analysis questions, including your recommendation
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Business Case Workshop report on an illustrative neighborhood garden center: three completed tables (the two staffing plans, the hiring steps, and the federal laws), written answers to five analysis questions including a weighed recommendation, and a critique of a chatbot's analysis of the same case, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Running the staffing numbers	Each plan's hours, wages, cost at the federal minimum, gap above the floor, and flats of sales to pay its wages are all found with the arithmetic shown, the flats counted from what each flat leaves.	The plans table is shown, but one or two amounts are off, the flats are counted by dividing by the price, or the gap is not taken from the floor cost.	No plans table is shown, or amounts are given with no arithmetic behind them.
Sorting the hiring steps, the laws, and the legal floor	Every hiring step is sorted as filling the pool or choosing from it with a reason, every situation is matched to its federal law and year, the federal minimum is explained as a floor states may raise, and an ethical question is applied beyond the law.	Most of these are present, but a step is missorted, a law or year is wrong, the federal minimum is treated as the only rule, or legal is treated as settling what is fair.	No hiring-steps or federal-laws table is submitted.
A weighed recommendation	The recommendation or the argued other side rests on the staffing numbers, names a person or group who gives something up, states the strongest case for the other plan, and says what would change the decision.	A position is taken and tied to some case facts, but the case for the other plan, the person or group who gives something up, or what would change the decision is missing.	No recommendation is given, or it repeats general advice with no case facts.
Critiquing the AI analysis or the printed flawed analysis	The chatbot's analysis, or on the equivalent route the printed flawed analysis, is quoted and at least two errors are corrected with evidence from the tables or the chapter, including any invented figure, real-company figure, or legal advice flagged as outside this case.	The critique names errors but corrects only one, or corrects without evidence, on either route.	No critique is submitted on either route, or the AI output or flawed analysis is accepted without checking.
Naming the limitation of the staffing estimate	The response names a specific way the real season could break the fixed-hours or fixed-price assumption and explains how it could change the recommendation.	A limitation is named but not connected to the recommendation.	No limitation is named.

Quality Gate

• Every hours, wages, floor, gap, and flats amount comes from your own arithmetic on the printed figures, never from a chatbot.
• The flats are counted by dividing the wages by what each flat leaves, and the gap above the floor is wages minus what the same hours cost at the federal minimum.
• Each hiring step is sorted as filling the pool or choosing from it, and each situation is matched to one federal law and its own year.
• The federal minimum is treated as a floor that states may raise, the legal question is kept apart from what is fair, and nothing is offered as legal advice for the center; no statistic, real-company figure, or rating is invented.
• The recommendation names at least one person or group who gives something up, the strongest case for the other plan, and what would change the answer; revenue and profit are kept apart.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence from your tables or the chapter.