Should businesses hire employees for their entire lives?

Thanks for checking my essay :slight_smile:
Behind a company’s reputation, there are invisible efforts of its employees. Employees are the most significant determinants of success or loose in business. Therefore, company must be meticulous in hiring employees. Most companies waver among offering employees job security for their entire lives or changing employees regularly. After pondering this question in many aspects, I believe that offering job for entire life is not a judicious choice for the development of a company because of these obvious points.

First, job security dilutes employee’s working motivation. Workers who are certain that they never lose their job tend to be indolent. There are not any reasons that make them hand in their project punctually. And instead of finishing a tiny task in few days, they stretch the deadline to a month. Moreover, it is unacceptable to walk into a company and see employees are doing nonsensical deeds: filling their nail, making personal call on office’s telephone, or surfing Internet for fun. Thus, job security harms the company’s profit and reputation.

Second, in order to survive and thrive, a business, like a human body, needs new ideas and fresh minds into the corporation, and eliminate those positions that are superfluous. 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/her job. People generally think big companies like IBM or Wal-Mart are the kind of place where people can keep their jobs forever, but these days we often hear about the news that these companies also lay off hundreds and thousands of people due to economic depressions.

Third, job security frustrates employees in many aspects. In this rapidly improved society, hundred work choices are waiting for employees. They are more eager to seek for a better, higher salary job because they take the initiative. Thus, when they stick with job security, employees cannot change it until they retire. It is obvious that they are losing one of the greatest authorities in their life. Moreover, USA Today has just recommended that one should change their jobs after three to five years. New job will bring employees new refreshments, new chances to express themselves.

Although, there are many opponents about this issue. They said company should hire employees for their entire lives, company have the responsibility to guarantee employees ‘s job since the first day they work there until they retire. What will happen if the company fire a middle-aged person? Certainly, it is very hard for him to seek for another job. Most company will refuse to hire him. Government cannot provide him money until he die. Moreover, there is an adage: “The older the ginger the more it bites”. Elder people possess lots of experiences because they have dedicate their life to attempt. This idea has some merit on the surface. However, as I stated previously, in order to retain a business, we need breaking ideas and “exploded” mind. And business market does not march, they change everyday, every hours. Elder people may have more experiences but they are lack of promptness and nimbleness. And that is why, I think youngsters would substitute elders in business market.

All in all, I oppose the idea that businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Job security not only reduce employee’s motivation, harms company’s profit and reputation but also frustrate employees in seeking for a better job, a more appropriate environment

TOEFL listening lectures: Which country was not an important cotton grower in the 19th century?

Thanks for checking my essay :slight_smile:
Behind a company’s reputation, there are invisible efforts of its employees. Employees are the most significant determinants of success or LOSS in business. Therefore, companIES must be meticulous in hiring employees. Most companies waver among offering employees job security for their entire lives(,) OR RESERVING THE RIGHT TO RENEW employees regularly. After pondering this questio FROM many aspects, I believe that offering A job for ONES entire life is not a judicious choice for the development of a company because of these obvious points.

First, job security dilutes employee’s working motivation. Workers who are certain that they WILL never lose their job tend to be indolent. There are not any reasons that make them hand in their project punctually. And Instead of finishing a tiny task in A few days, they stretch the deadline to a month. Moreover, it is unacceptable to walk into a company and see employees WHO are doing nonsensical deeds: FILING their nailS, making personal callS on office’s telephoneS, or surfing THE Internet for fun. Thus, job security harms the company’s profit and reputation.

Second, in order to survive and thrive, a business, like a human body, needs new ideas and fresh minds (.), IT NEEDS TO eliminate those positions that are superfluous. 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/her job. People generally think big companies like IBM or Wal-Mart are the kind of place where people can keep their jobs forever, but these days we often hear about the news that these companies also lay off hundreds and thousands of people due to economic depressions.

Third, job security frustrates employees in many aspects. In this rapidly improved society, hundredS OF work choices are waiting for employees. They are more eager to seek for a better, higher salary job because they take the initiative. Thus, when they stick with job security, employees cannot change it until they retire. It is obvious that they are losing one of the greatest authorities in their life. Moreover, USA Today has just recommended that one should change their jobs after three to five years. A new job will bring employees new refreshments, new chances to express themselves.

Although, there are many opponents about this issue. They said companIES should hire employees for their entire lives, AND THAT A company HAS the responsibility to guarantee employees jobB(,) FROM the first day they work there until they retire. What will happen if the company fire a middle-aged person? Certainly, it is very hard for him to seek for another job. Most companIES will refuse to hire him. Government cannot provide him money until he dieS. Moreover, there is an adage: “The older the ginger the more it bites”. ElderLY people possess lots of experiences because they have dedicateS their LIVES to TRYING. This idea has some merit on the surface. However, as I stated previously, in order to retain a business, we need breaking ideas and “EXPLORATIVE” mindS. THE business market does not march, they change everyday, every hour. ElderLY people may have more experiences but they ALSO EXHIBIT A lack of promptness and nimbleness(,) and that is why I think youngsters would substitute elders in ANY business market.

All in all, I oppose the idea that businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Job security not only reduceS employee’s motivation, harms company profitS and reputation(,) but also frustrate employees in seeking for a better job, a more appropriate environment
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Quite good, but far too long. You would never write this in thirty minutes. Be more concise.

Kitos. 8/10