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.
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.
In the modern society, people are taking a fresh look at whether companies should offer employees job security for their entire lives, since many businesses are now realizing that job security make employees less motivated to work and this leads to less profit for the company. Even though job security also has its own merits, it is becoming a conspicuous obstacle to develop businesses. Consequently, after pondering this question on many occasions, I believe that offering job for entire life is not a wiser choice for the development of a company and the society. My arguments for this view are based on the following points.
The main reason is that job security has an obvious disadvantage to motivate employees' work attitudes. Further, it leads to decreased productivity for companies. Workers who are certain that they can never lose their jobs tend to work less efficiently. Many government workers are so indolent that it can take them days and months to complete a task that should only take a few days to finish. Moreover, it is not uncommon to walk into a government office and see employees filing their nails, making personal calls on the office's telephone, or surfing the Interment for fun.
The above reason is but one of many factors, in addition to, for the employees, there is a growing awareness that job security is not absolutely beneficial. With improvement of the society, workers are more eager to choose a better job, because a new job means a higher salary as well as challenges. Even some career consultants are starting to recommend that employees should find new jobs every three to five years.
Admittedly, job security has its own advantages, as a proverb says, "Everything has two sides." The most extreme manifestation is the fact that 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. However, we have no complete evidence to agree that businesses should hire employee for their entire lives.
Generally speaking, taking into account of all these factors, I do strongly disagree that companies should offer their employees jobs for entire life. Job security was regarded as an outmoded way of conducting businesses. Nevertheless, the temporary professional jobs are proving to be the most effective way to raise the standard of living of a country.
Whether businesses should hire employees for their entire lives is relatively a subject of discussion as hiring employees for the lifetime increases the level of commitment and an undying loyalty and gives the feeling of security to employees whereas hiring new employees brings fresh blood into an organization.
I personally believe that businesses should hire new employees from time to time as this process brings new ideas, new expertise, new motivation, new energy, new technology, new beliefs, new culture, motivated spirit and other similar features which is very necessary for an individual and organization growth.
The inculcation and stirring of fresh blood in an organization keeps the company/organization/business going towards achieving more sales and more profits as new employees are better motivated to take new challenges with a positive attitude and proactive approach. They embrace new culture and offer their values, they bring potential ideas for the internal and as well as the external employees. Rejuvenating new employees helps the company from many perspectives as after certain period of time old employees becomes less contributing because of the same monotonous work, same environment, same relationships and no new challenges and risks to take on.
If you look at all the new multinationals i.e. Microsoft, HCL, HP, etc., they are achieving stunning annual growth and profits because their policy is to bring the best in an organization and keep hiring new employees. Employees are the back bone of every organization and pumping fresh blood to it after certain period becomes evitable for growth.
My advice to all will be to adopt a policy to inculcate fresh employees from time to time and investing time and money on them to help them deliver their best and also to retain some amount of old employees because it is said “OLD IS GOLD” to get the ship going through hard times and conquers at last.
