PDA

View Full Version : #034: Businesses should hire employees for their



Erin
10-24-2002, 09:58 PM
Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

lfeot
10-28-2002, 03:43 AM
Hi Billy, comments on my essay,and score it if you would like. Thanks.

#034: Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

Some people may consider that hiring employees for their entire lives is a good idea. However, my opinion is just the opposite. I totally disagree with the statement that business should hire lifetime employees. The reasons are illustrated below.

First of all, hiring lifetime employees will undoubtedly increase the financial burden of a company. Lifetime employment system means that a company has to bear the costs of employment maintenance so as to ensure the employment stability. In other words, even when a company suffers financial difficulties, the company still needs to pay their employees unless it declares bankruptcy. Essentially, a company with such a heavy financial load is almost impossible to have more funds available to invest the development of products and technologies. Therefore, hiring lifetime employees is undesirable.

Additionally, hiring lifetime employees will completely forfeit the competitive ability of a company. To survive in the competitive market, a company must have new ideas, fresh blood and distinctive products. However, lifetime employment makes it impossible. If a company is full of lifetime employees, it would have no more job positions to absorb better professionals and thus is unable to adjust itself to adapt the competitive market. As is known to all, survival of the fittest is a universal truth. A company with no competitiveness will sooner or later be eliminated by market. As a result, hiring lifetime employees is unsuitable.

Lastly, hiring lifetime employees will definitely prevent the development of a company. Lifetime employment can hardly motivate employees. Working under this system, employees never really want to learn something new to improve their skills or increase their knowledge because they will never get fired even though they are the most unwanted in the company. This will worsen the work conditions and make the company no progress. No progress means no development. A company without development is doomed to disappearance in the society. Consequently, hiring lifetime employees is quite disadvantaged.

In conclusion, based on the three reasons I presented above, I firmly commit to the notion that business should not hire employees for their entire lives. As a result, a flexible employment system is more practical in today's society.

cpt10
11-25-2002, 05:21 AM
Lately, a lot of debate has been over the professional lives of people, about
social security, about pension age, about life time employment. While appealing, I consider the idea of life time employment in the same company wrong.
First, the purpose of a business is to generate profit. Given the economyc cycles,
the dynamism of modern society, it is improbable that a company will operate in the market for 30, 40 years, generating profit at the same. The period of time long enough to permit all its emplyes a retirement it is simply too long. Only big, multinational companies, have a presence on the market in a time interval longer than the active professional period of a person. If a comapany is not generating profit, it will be closed, no matter the pension planes of its employees.
At the same time, different companies, based on their profile, may require different ages from their employees. Tourism industry requires usually younger people, while teaching or medicine requires older people. There is no reason to keep somebody employed, if the company operats with a different kind of personell structure, and will not be able to guarantee a pension to its emplyees. In the first case, the employee will for sure change work in a finite interval of time, while in the second case the moral profile of the people says that they are doing the job for the benefit of the society, and the pension is secondary interest to them.
Besides, human nature has its place. The history of the last century proved that in societies where life time employment is offered, the things are not working well. All communist countries did it, and all of them had problems. Low productivity, low quality of public services, low quality of products. While a discussion about human nature is out of the context, it seems that competition has a beneficial effect on individuals, keeping them motivated. Therefore, offering a guaranteed retirenment in a company would be a
de-motivator factor for certain individuals.
Competion seems to be the key for achieving a balanced activity, between professional life and social security. The best thing is to give the people the reasons to work and the companies the opportunity to maximise profits.

cpt10
11-25-2002, 05:32 AM
Sorry for indentation, I edited the essay with notepad !

amulya
11-25-2002, 09:50 AM
Hi,

Can you pl tell me my appx score and also wish me luck.. my exam is on Nov 27th:-)

Thanks,
Amulya.

#34: Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business is business, and business should not be run on obligations. Otherwise the business may no longer run profitably and might have to be closed down. So, I strongly believe that Businesses should retain only employees who can deliver what the business needs. In the below paragraphs, I discuss the reasoning behind my thinking.

The main motive behind business is to gain profits. For achieving this, business set targets and work towards achieving this targets. All employees of the business should be aware of these targets and should realise the importance of their contribution. If some employees can no longer contribute towards the realizing the targets and is just idling around, the business is wasting its money on such an employee. The business should have a right to replace that employee with one who can contribute to the business.

Also suppose the skills of the employee are outdated and no longer match the needs of the businesses. THe business should try to train him. If that doesnt work out, again the employer has no option left other than ousting the employee. There might be numerous such employees and the business cant afford to keep them. Though it might seem rude, courtesy is not the goal of a business. Its better being rude than being out of business.

Further, now a days the businesses are announcing that the employee's job security, perks, promotions, etc depends on the employee's performance. THis allows the best performers to move ahead fast and also it works as a lash at the back of non-performers to improve their performance. Fear is the most stimulating factor and all the employee would try to perform at their best. This improves the productivity and hence helps the business in achieving their targets.

We are living in an age of freedom, where even marriages don't continue on obligations. Why should businesses? Hence, i strongly believe that, both businesses and employees should be given the freedom to choose what is best for them.

cinderellahn
11-25-2002, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by cpt10

Lately, a lot of debate has been over the professional lives of people, about social security, about pension age, about life time employment. While appealing (what does this mean?), I consider the idea of life time employment in the same company wrong.

First, the purpose of a business is to generate profit. Given the economyc(economic) cycles,
the dynamism(are you sure of the using of this word) of modern society, it is improbable that a company will operate in the market for 30, 40 years, generating profit at the same(???). The period of time long enough to permit all its emplyes a retirement it (2 subjects here) is simply too long. Only big, multinational companies, have a presence on the market in a time interval longer than the active professional period of a person. If a comapany is not generating profit, it will be closed, no matter the pension planes of its employees.

At the same time, different companies, based on their profile, may require different ages from their employees. Tourism industry requires usually younger people, while teaching or medicine requires older people. There is no reason to keep somebody employed, if the company operats with a different kind of personell structure, and will not be able to guarantee a pension to its emplyees. In the first case, the employee will for sure change work in a finite interval of time, while in the second case the moral profile of the people says that they are doing the job for the benefit of the society, and the pension is secondary interest to them.

Besides, human nature has its place. The history of the last century proved that in societies where life time employment is offered, the things are not working well. All communist countries did it, and all of them had problems. Low productivity, low quality of public services, low quality of products. (this is not a sentence at all). While a discussion about human nature is out of the context, it seems that competition has a beneficial effect on individuals, keeping them motivated. Therefore, offering a guaranteed retirenment in a company would be a de-motivator factor for certain individuals.

Competion seems to be the key for achieving a balanced activity, between professional life and social security. The best thing is to give the people the reasons to work and the companies the opportunity to maximise(in American-English, maximise -> maximize) profits.



Hi,

I think your ideas are good! However, because there are too many typos and grammatical errors in your essay, which I pointed out some, it is hard for the readers to understand your view clearly.

Although we don't have much time writing the essay, it is important that you don't make too many typos. It is not good at all and will be a big regret 'cause actually we can avoid them. If you don't know how to spell a word, think of another, more simple one. When you type, think carefully and then you don't have to spend time rewrite them afterward.

I can understand your idea in the first paragraph. However, in my opinion, it will be much better if you have a topic sentence here.

In the conclusion, you should mention again that you don't agree with the statement of the topic.

That is my advice. Hope you can find something useful.

P.S: The italic words are the ones which I think you should reconsider.

maytinlee
11-25-2002, 01:00 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Erin Billy

Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.


Hi, Erin,
Please check my essay, thanks a million.


The issue whether businesses should hire employees for their entire lives has been debated for a long time. It is important because it concerns how a company can survive in the long run. A variety of arguments have been claimed. According to my experience, I totally disagree the idea that businesses should hire employees for their entire lives.


It is claimed that the company can have stable human resources by hiring employees for their entire lives. So this argument goes, you can find most Japanese companies use this system, such as SONY, NEC and National. However, as economist states, company can only benefit in the short run instead of the long run from the entire lives hiring employee system. During the recession period, it is so tough for these companies to maintain their profit and control their cost. For instance, with the recent recession, most Japanese companies have huge deficit. In fact, even the famous Japanese companies like NEC, FUJI, National have to announce job cut.


In Additional, the entire lives employees system limits the reform and innovation of a company. A company in the modern society, in the long run, has to develop the product that customers desire. In the entire lives employees system, it is difficult for young people to be promoted to the higher position. The older the people in the higher position, the more difficult the company has the drive to reform. Without new idea and new aspect, how could a company survive in the new decade?


In conclusion, based on the reason above, the entire lives employees hiring system will damage the innovation and reform of a company. With this system, it is hard for the company to survive in the more and more competitive society.

cpt10
11-26-2002, 06:11 AM
Hi cinderellahn,

Thank you for reviewing my essay.
You have good points about the introduction and conclusion.
I have made a lot of spelling mistakes, since when I practice, I try to write for
only 30 minutes. Writing a better essay in a longer time is not my purpose, because
in the test day we have 30 minutes, not much.

Cheers.

maytinlee
12-12-2002, 02:28 PM
[quote]Originally posted by maytinlee

[quote]Originally posted by Erin Billy

Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.


The issue whether businesses should hire employees for their entire lives has been debated for a long time. It is important because it concerns how a company can survive in the long run. A variety of arguments have been claimed. According to my experience, I totally disagree the idea that businesses should hire employees for their entire lives.


It is claimed that the company can have stable human resources by hiring employees for their entire lives. So this argument goes, you can find most Japanese companies use this system, such as SONY, NEC and National. However, as economist states, company can only benefit in the short run instead of the long run from the entire lives hiring employee system. During the recession period, it is so tough for these companies to maintain their profit and control their cost. For instance, with the recent recession, most Japanese companies have huge deficit. In fact, even the famous Japanese companies like NEC, FUJI, National have to announce job cut.


Another reason why I disgree with the entire lives employees system is that this system limits the reform and innovation of a company. A company in the modern society, in the long run, has to develop the product that customers desire. In the entire lives employees system, it is difficult for young people to be promoted to the higher position. The older the people in the higher position, the more difficult the company has the drive to reform. Without new idea and new aspect, how could a company survive in the new decade?


What is also worth noticing is that entire lives employees system
hedges the development of the young talent employee. In this system, it will take young people more than 10 to 15 years to be in the management position.

From the evidences above, we can safely draw conclusion that the entire lives employees hiring system will damage the innovation and reform of a company. With this system, it is hard for the company to survive in the more and more competitive society.

miwa
03-01-2003, 07:27 PM
Hi, Erin, Please make some comment on my essay. Hopefully, score too.


Currently, Japan has been afflicted by a long recession and deflation. Unemployment has been increasing year by year, and now stands at the highest rate of 5.3 percent since the post-war record of 5.6 percent. Many companies are being pressed to abolish lifetime employment, and to dismiss their employees. This may be regrettable, but I entirely disagree with this statement. I'll relate why in turn.

First of all, the notion of lifetime employment is no longer out of mode. Now is the time mobility of labor is the rule rather than an exception, many people seeking for more challenging and better-paid employment, and changing their jobs.

Moreover, as world-wide business transactions become more common, companies need to adjust to the state of the world economy at any time, and also, need to deploy personnel. I, therefore, think it inevitable that today's companies dismiss unnecessary employees and in turn hire necessary ones.

Furthermore, I belive that lifetime employment deprives companies of dynamism. Many Japanese companies adopted it, and worked well until this recession and deflation. Yet now Jpananese belatedly realize that it was largely due to an unprecedented economic boom in the 80's, and not to their labor and system.

What lifetime employment caused actually is the state of being overstaffed and the laziness of employees. Also employees were not required both to work hard and to compete with their colleagues and other companies. Consequently, many companies seem to have lacked the strategies of their exsistence, and be ailing.

To summerize, lifetime employment is out of step with the times considering the present states of the world economy and employees' ways of thinking about employment. In addition, it strips companies of vigor, allowing their employees to be too lazy and collusive.

iuli
07-06-2003, 10:17 AM
Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer

this topic is hard for me..:crazy:
I do not consider that business should hire employees for their entire lives, for several reasons, which I will further discuss.

Firstly, it is possible that a company or firm go bankrupt and therefore people can not rely on o certain job forever. In my town there is a huge steel factory and half of the people of the town worked there before the romanian revolution. Everybody thought that would never loose his or her job there, since the factory has a strategic economic importance. However, because our country developed from a communist to a capitalist society many changes took place in the economic field and many factories went bankrupt, or needed economic reshape as it happened with my hometown’s one, and because of which many people face unemployment now.

Changing jobs sometimes is necessary if we want to grow and develop professionally. It is not unusual for somebody to find himself in the situation in which he must accept a job that does not satisfies him, considering his career goals or personal preparation, only because he has a poor economic condition. Therefore, he might find in the future a more suitable job that provides him more personal and professional satisfaction.

Overall, when we argue about the fact that a certain business can or can not employ a person for his entire life, we must consider all the factors that make this quest rather impossible or undesirable like the economic and social changes in a society that make the business environment unstable, or the fact that people might not want to have a permanent job because they can get bored doing the same thing day after day, or because the job they have does not meet their professional standards.

napoleon
09-28-2003, 05:31 PM
Nowadays businesses search relentlessly for the best qualified workers. After all, the human resources are the biggest capital in any respect. This search should not be limited by a lifetime employee hiring. Therefore I strongly disagree that businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. An employee may not keep up with the scientific evolution, may get tired of the same job and not perform at his best or may be too bad to face certain jobs.

First of all, the main criterion of hiring an employee is professionalism. An employer tries to judge the potential of a worker and put him in the position in which the employee can provide the maximum output. However things are not always this simple. In the modern days, the working technologies evolve very quickly and many people simply cannot cope with this avalanche of modifications. So the employer must hire a younger man to do the job. For instance, in the past cars were manufactured by hand. Now the car factories are filled with huge working lines for the various kinds of robots. The employees need only to supervise the process in case something goes wrong. It is silly to presume that we need mechanics for mending the engine or even using a screwdriver. These men are useful only in repair shops and the employers realized that concentrating on the workers capable of supervising the robot lines.

Secondly, any employer expects that his adjuncts give one hundred percent on working hours. The employee must be motivated and determined to get things done. Nevertheless if a worker knows he will be on a job all his life, he will probably cool down and temperate his efforts. He cannot be fired even if he does not do anything. This behavior can be very damaging to any business. On the other hand an employee hired for a year or only a try out period, will do his best to convince the boss he deserves the job and most of all to advance in the firm. For instance I worked about a year for an IT programming firm. I had a fifty year old colleague that knew the boss very well because he worked there for a long time. The man would not do anything while the rest of us tried to provide the functions needed for the never ending deadlines. This is what can happen when a person is kept more than required in a job.

Thirdly, the working force is a colossal mass of competitors. Everybody tries to learn faster and compete with the other racers. The employer picks the best man for the job at a certain time. Let us say that law firm wants to hire a lawyer and at the interview only one person appears. That person could not be the best qualified, but since he had no competition he will be hired. In addition if the firm abides this lifetime hiring, the firm must keep this conjunctural lawyer for years to come. Maybe in the next years another more qualified individual wants to work for this firm. Naturally in this case the firm should fire the first employee if he failed to live up to his duties and hire the more professional worker. The change is something obvious and it would be against nature to force a firm to pay a lazy man.

For all that I believe that not only employers should not hire employees for their entire life, but also that lifetime jobs can destroy the competition and the healthy working climate. Furthermore any company should try to rotate its working staff and make the most profit of the human resources available. This is a free-market society, this is democracy.

ditoman
02-23-2004, 11:52 AM
Topic #034:

Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or
disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

People sometimes talk about hiring employee for their entire lives. Although
most of the companies would disagree with the statement in their view, like
many individuals, I strongly agree with it because it guarantees the future
of individuals.

More than anything else, it could guarantee the future of individuals. People
always worry about their future: especially, money is a big part of it. If
person must worry about the fire by attending company and losing the source
of money, he would not be comfort in everything. In this respect, the
guarantee of future itself could play a key role in easing individuals.

The next thing i'd like to mention here is that it has a possibility of
people becoming lazy. If those who attend company are guaranteed for their
entire lives, they would not have any necessities of making an effort. This
would cause society to have serious damage. We could examples of this in
communism. All of the products are evenly distributed regardless of their
efforts. It had a seriously detrimental influence on the desire of people and
finally, it collapsed. In this manner, it could produce an bad influence on
the society.

In conclusion, I agree with the statement that employer should hire employee
for their entire lives for the well-being of individuals. But it also has
serious problems of becoming lazy and they must be seriously considered these
facts and complemented to hire employee for their entire lives.