Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree? Use specific
reasons and examples to support your answer.
Sample essay 1.
There are many advantages and disadvantages to off 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 profits 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.
Sample essay 2.
Should business hire employees for their entire lives? My answer is no. A business has the
responsibility to take care of the right and interests of its employees, therefore it should keep them
as long as it can. But it is not realistic that a business can hire its employees for their entire lives.
Firstly, on the business side, in order to survive and thrive, a business, like a human body, needs to
constantly bring in new ideas and fresh minds into the corporation, and eliminate those positions
which are not needed any longer. Although this might sound cruel, but it is for the survival of the
business. If the business itself cannot continue, every employee will lose his job. People generally
think big companies like IBM or Nortel are the kind of place where people can keep their jobs for
ever, but these days we often hear about the news that these companies also lay off hundreds and
thousands of people due to economic situations.
Secondly, on the employee side, securing a life-time job in one company is not good for his
personal advancement. He tends to be satisfied with his current job, and make no plans for future
career advancement. This is harmful for both the company and himself. In fact, it is those hop
around among different companies who can get a big increase in terms of salary and benefits, and
bring new experiences and skills to their new employee.
In conclusion, I think it is not a good idea to hire employees for their entire lives. It is both
harmful to business and its employees, and therefore, also harmful to the society.
reasons and examples to support your answer.
Sample essay 1.
There are many advantages and disadvantages to off 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 profits 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.
Sample essay 2.
Should business hire employees for their entire lives? My answer is no. A business has the
responsibility to take care of the right and interests of its employees, therefore it should keep them
as long as it can. But it is not realistic that a business can hire its employees for their entire lives.
Firstly, on the business side, in order to survive and thrive, a business, like a human body, needs to
constantly bring in new ideas and fresh minds into the corporation, and eliminate those positions
which are not needed any longer. Although this might sound cruel, but it is for the survival of the
business. If the business itself cannot continue, every employee will lose his job. People generally
think big companies like IBM or Nortel are the kind of place where people can keep their jobs for
ever, but these days we often hear about the news that these companies also lay off hundreds and
thousands of people due to economic situations.
Secondly, on the employee side, securing a life-time job in one company is not good for his
personal advancement. He tends to be satisfied with his current job, and make no plans for future
career advancement. This is harmful for both the company and himself. In fact, it is those hop
around among different companies who can get a big increase in terms of salary and benefits, and
bring new experiences and skills to their new employee.
In conclusion, I think it is not a good idea to hire employees for their entire lives. It is both
harmful to business and its employees, and therefore, also harmful to the society.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar