Should business hire employees for their entire lives?

Hi, Kitos. Could you look at it? Thanks a lot for your help

With the development of the society people changes their look at the job security. Although some think companies should hire employees for their entire lives, others consider this method out of date and suggest hiring on contract basis. In my opinion, the latter one is more preferable.

First of all, hiring an employee for his entire life calms him down, and he does not feel any necessity to work on himself. On one hand, doing the same work during a long period of time he becomes a master of his business, makes friends at work and easily copes with routine tasks. One the other hand, a worker gets used to daily work and does not look for new ways for execution of his duties, which is not positive either for an employee or a company. Moreover, in some state organs, where hiring is almost ‘eternal’, staff become quite indolent and do not want to fulfill their duties properly.

On the contrary, the worker, who takes an exam or an attestation in the end of every year for prolongation of his contract, feels responsibility and tries to improve his work. He is interested in going to different courses and trainings to improve his skills and certify them. Thus, he would be able to contribute much more to the growth of productivity. Furthermore, if he achieves a success in his field, he could demand a pay rise or a promotion that is advantageous for him. He will not be satisfied with unfair treatment by his boss, and he will easily change his job. For instance, my friend had worked an IT specialist for a state body for more than 5 years, but his direction paid attention neither to his work experience nor to his diligence. Therefore, after acquiring a certificate of Microsoft he applied to another company and was employed for the amount surpassing the previous one by twice.

All in all, hiring for the entire life hinders the development of both staves and companies that consequently reflects on the country’s economy. Taking into account all these factors, I would give preference to hiring on contract basis.

TOEFL listening lectures: A university lecture on agriculture

Hi, Kitos. Could you look at it? Thanks a lot for your help

With the development of the society (stop using the!)people changeD their look at the job security. Although some think companies should hire employees for their entire lives, others consider this method /out of date/OUTDATED/ and suggest hiring on A contract basis. In my opinion, the latter one is more preferable.

First of all, hiring an employee for his entire life calms him down, and he does not feel any necessity to /work on/IMPROVE/ himself. On THE one hand, doing the same work during a long period of time he becomes a master of his business, makes friends at work and easily copes with routine tasks. One the other hand, a worker gets used to daily work and does not look for new ways for THE execution of his duties, which is not positive either for an employee or a company. Moreover, in some state organs, where hiring is almost ‘eternal’, staff become quite indolent and do not want to fulfill their duties properly.

On the contrary, the worker who takes an exam or an attestation AT the end of every year for prolongation of his contract, feels responsibility and tries to improve his work. He is interested in going to different courses and trainings to improve his skills and /certify/VERIFY/ them. Thus, he would be able to contribute much more to the growth of productivity. Furthermore, if he achieves a success in his field, he could demand a pay rise or a promotion that is advantageous for him. He will not be satisfied with unfair treatment by his boss, and he will easily change his job. For instance, my friend had worked AS an IT specialist for a state body for more than 5 years, but his directOR paid attention neither to his work experience nor to his diligence. Therefore, after acquiring a certificate FROM Microsoft he applied to another company and was employed for /AN amount surpassing the previous one by twice/DOUBLE THE WAGES/.

All in all, hiring for the entire life hinders the development of both STAFF and companies that consequently reflects on the country’s economy. Taking into account all these factors, I would give preference to hiring on A contractUAL basis.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Very good work Remula.

Kitos. 9/10

Thanks, Kitos. Yu are very kind :slight_smile:

As I see the smaller the essay, the less mistakes :slight_smile:

But I have questions again.

  1. Isn’t plural form of staff staves?

  2. How should I use contract as an adj? There are different versions in dictionary, and you also edited it in one sentence, but left in another.

best regards

:slight_smile: Good morning Remula. Staff is plural.
“I spoke to a member of the staff.”

Contract and contractual have the same meaning.
“He is under contract with us.”
“We employ him on a contractual basis.”
The length of the contract can vary, but it is still contractual.

Hello Remula,

To clarify one of your points:
The plural of ‘staff’ is ‘staves’ when speaking about a music staff or a length of wood or the verse of a poem.

When speaking of a group of people employed by an organisation, as Kitos has already pointed out, ‘staff’ is plural.

Hi, Kitos and Beee

I meant adjective forms of contract are shown as contract, contracted and contractual. What is the difference? : contract cargo, contractual obligation and contracted period. Is there any difference what I write contract, contracted or contractual?

As to staff, I know staff is collective noun like people. My question is could I use staves for many companies for example, staves of different companies like peoples of the world?

thanks a lot

“could I use staves for many companies for example, staves of different companies like peoples of the world?”
No Remula. Bev has already outlined the use of stave.

Is there any difference what I write contract, contracted or contractual?
A contract is exactly what is stated. A legal agreement signed by two parties to fulfil their obligations to the letter of the contract. Whatever form you need to use is determined by the context of the situation that you are describing.

Hello Remula,

As adjectives:

contract - under contract, hired to execute a contract (as in contract killer) or arranged by special contract (the cargo that was arranged by special contract).
contractual - of, pertaining to, or secured by/agreed in a contract (an obligation agreed to in the contract).
contracted - drawn together, condensed, restricted (the specific period of the contract).

Ok, staff is clear, but contract is too complicated …

Thanksssssss

It isn’t too complicated! It depends entirely on what you wish to convey in your text.

“The employee has a contractual obligation to his employer.”
“The employee and the employer signed a mutually agreed contract.”

The other forms of Bevs explanations were entirely different is meaning.
To contract is to reduce in size. Hot metal contracts upon cooling.
A contract is a deal between a killer and a person who pays him to kill a third person. This “contract” is a slang term used in movies.

Hi, Kitos

I meant an adjective, not a noun.

I can’t differentiate agreed and executed under contract. Cargo is conveyed under contract (contract cargo), at the same time it is agreed (what kind of cargo, when, how much etc: contractual cargo). Or period may be used with contactual, because it is agreed, then with contact, because it is arranged and contracted, becaused it’s restricted with the terms of contract … For example, a project, if I don’t look into dictionray I will not know what adj to put in front of it. It’s executed, aranged, agreed and at the same time restricted (regulated) under contract… May be I can’t express my opnion clear enough …

Anyway, let’s not stick in contract

Thank you very much for patience :slight_smile: