-
Industrialisation coupled with technological advancement, admittedly have increased the employment opportunities in myriad fields ranging from computer hardware, artificial intelligence to hospitality and even health tourism. Should the appointment of employees be for life time or for limited tenure, has been a matter of debate and I personally am a supporter of long term employment.
Organisational goals do evolve over a period of time creating newer challenges, however the employees roles can simultaneously grow and compliment the same. As a matter of fact, long term employees are custodians of precedents which ensure continuity in the operations of the entity, apart from inculcating ownership in the individual, who has spent considerable time working in tandem with the employer, leading to alignment of perspectives too . For instance a study recently published on employee attitudes, pointed that long employed persons are more dedicated than those employed for shorter tenures.
On the contrary, it is sometimes argued that life term employment leads to complacency and reduced productivity as people loose competitiveness. These groups claim that tenure based engagements bring in project based skill sets apart from providing flexibility to the organisation in achieving its targets. However, proponents of this view, disregard the fact that constant influx and exit of employees creates a vacuum, in addition to fuelling materialism often leading to white collar crimes as been pointed by one prominent publication house, in its recent journal.
In conclusion, the advantages of selecting employees for working entire life far exceed the minor hiccups that are brought along, as elaborated above. Even otherwise from the point of view of equity, it will be immensely unfair to discharge the employees without extending them, the much needed job security which they truly deserve.
