Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
(a) There are many advantages and disadvantages to offering employees job security for life. In Japan, for example, prospective employees know that their employers will provide them with job security for their entire working days and they are better able to plan for their future and family. However, many businesses are now realizing that their employees have less motivation to work and this leads to less profit for the company. I will describe the advantages and disadvantages of this system in this essay and I will show that ultimately “jobs for life” is not good for a society.
Job security is very important for both the employee and the employer. For the employee, job security is important because she can depend on her source of income and better plan her future accordingly. For the employer, the employee represents an investment because of the number of hours of training required and the company will continue to have a return on this investment. As we all know, feeling secure about where our future income will come from is very important for our well-being—anybody who has lost a job and has had trouble finding a new one knows that this transition period can cause a lot of anxiety. However, job security tends to lead to decreased productivity. In general, employees who are certain that they can never lose their jobs tend to work less efficiently, thereby contributing to an overall reduction of productivity in the company. A common example all over the world is that of civil servants. In Thailand, for example, many government workers are so indolent that it can take days or months for something to be finished that should only take a few days. It is not uncommon to walk into a government office and see employees filing their nails, making personal calls on the telephone, taking three-hour lunches, or surfing the Internet for fun.
Finally, the model of capitalism is proving to be the most efficient model that we have right now. This model of job security completely contradicts the foundations of capitalism. We can see in the United States now that people are starting to change jobs, even careers more and more often. Some career consultants even recommend that employees find new jobs every three to five years. Even in countries that still offer job security for life, this model is showing signs of dying out. For example, in Japan, once famous for its lifelong jobs, both employees and employers are starting to expect that these jobs will not last a lifetime. Many of my Japanese friends travel back and forth between the United States and Japan are have been able to find temporary professional jobs while they are in Japan.
In short, I disagree that companies should offer their employees jobs for life. We can see this example in some parts of the world and in other areas in the United States, but these examples are generally regarded as outmoded ways of conducting business. Finally, the models of capitalism, even though it may seem cruel, the so-called “law of the jungle,” are proving to be the most effective way to raise the standard of living of a country.
(b) I think that businesses should not hire people for entire lives. The business may decline if it hires people for entire lives. An average life of a person nowadays is about sixty to seventy years. There is a general tendency that people’s mental as well as physical capabilities decline with increase in age. This results in decrease in efficiency of employees. Thus if a business hires employees for entire lives, there is a danger of decrease in productivity and functioning of the business. To avoid this, a business must hire new employees after the current employees term is over.
Besides, one must give opportunities to fresh talents and youngsters. Business is an activity, which is dynamic. It changes with time. Business can thrive and be successful only if it understands the present trend and supply what the customer wants. So the people who know the present trend and can use it to the business firm’s advantage must be hired. The young generation is normally accustomed to the present trend and they emanate new ideas that can be useful to the business firm. If a business hires employees for entire lives then it cannot hire fresh talents, as there will be no vacancies. Even if the employer who hires people for entire lives also hire new talents there will be excess employees. This results in excess cost to hire and maintain them.
I agree that the person who is currently in a firm and served it for many years has experience and experience counts a lot. But I don’t insist in removing all the experienced employees at once and hire fresh people who will be novice to the business. The new employees learn from the existing experienced employees and gradually develop skill and experience in that field. They will also serve as guides for the future generations who will be employed.
Change is a must and business field is no exception. The employees must also be changed after a certain period. Of-course one must keep into account that the employees who will leave the job after a period must be provided with some amount of money that will support them afterwards. So I insist that the businesses should not hire employees for entire lives.