Sponsored Ad:
See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: #034: Businesses should hire employees for their

  1. #1
    Ankylosaurus Forum Admin Erin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,299
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    61


    Good post? Yes | No
    Sponsored Ad:
    Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

    ☼ Waiting for Godot

  2. #2
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    9
    Rep Power
    17


    Good post? Yes | No
    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.


  3. #3
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    10
    Rep Power
    17


    Good post? Yes | No
    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.

  4. #4
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    10
    Rep Power
    17


    Good post? Yes | No
    Sorry for indentation, I edited the essay with notepad !

  5. #5
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    17


    Good post? Yes | No
    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.



  6. #6
    Within my grasp!
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vietnam
    Posts
    196
    Rep Power
    17


    Good post? Yes | No
    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.

  7. #7
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16
    Rep Power
    17


    Good post? Yes | No
    [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.

  8. #8
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    10
    Rep Power
    17


    Good post? Yes | No
    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.

  9. #9
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    16
    Rep Power
    17


    Good post? Yes | No
    [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.


  10. #10
    Eager!
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    59
    Rep Power
    16


    Good post? Yes | No
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-21-2013, 10:01 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2008, 08:32 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2007, 05:01 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-02-2005, 01:21 PM
  5. 034 Instead of requiring students to take courses
    By sow1225 in forum GRE Analysis of an Issue
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-06-2003, 04:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •