Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives. Do you agree or disagree?
In this day and age, managers are facing the issue of recruiting staff members in their business lifestyle. Some entrepreneurs argue that they should hire employees for their entire working lives. I, personally, contradict this outlook inasmuch as it is detrimental for the development of individual enterprise and this essay will address the explanations for my viewpoint as follows.
To begin with, employing someone to work in a company for a total of sixty-five years or so is beneficial for the company. In terms of the economical aspect, the company's resources are saved since it is no longer necessary to pay money and time for training new novices. Before candidates officially apply into a new workplace, managers squander the amount of money to create a competitive as well as fully furnished ambience for newcomers which can assist for the need of new ones. It, furthermore, will take time for firm’s experts to guide new apprentices and that period can be up to several months. When it comes to job knowledge, long-serving staff are inclined to be more familiar with the job than neophytes. To illustrate this premise, the old have more experience and profound insight of almost all sectors of their company which give rise to the convenience when working. However, remaining staff for their whole working lives is not actually favorable for the thriving growth of business.
By contrast, there are a slew of compelling reasons why each enterprise necessitates turnover of their staff members. First of all, recruiting new people is a superb approach for a firm to uncover innovative variables. They have the ability to come up with a plethora of ideas which were obsolete prior. Additionally, long-term employees do not acclimate to the harsh conditions on-site. For instance, manual jobs such as loading and unloading are no longer feasible for the elderly, thus it is necessary to replace them with strong people. Besides, most long-serving workers have a tendency to not want to learn novel things regarding technology such as learning how to apply cutting-edge devices into working.
To sum up, keeping staff members or not has dual sides; however, this statement of permanent employees is not pragmatic and changing is paramount.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-07 | nhub2409785 | 73 | view |
| 2024-09-19 | chino0301 | 84 | view |
| 2024-06-25 | MEBC Class | 80 | view |
| 2024-06-22 | MEBC Class | 80 | view |
| 2024-04-06 | Anh Thi | 78 | view |
- The bar chart below shows the proportions of English men and women of different ages who were living alone in 2011 The pie chart compares the numbers of bedrooms in these one person households 89
- The maps below show a bookstore in 2000 and now 78
- The two pie charts below show some employment patterns in Great Britain in 1992 Summaries the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 67
- Big salary is much more important than job satisfaction To what extent do you agree or disagree 73
- The diagrams give information about changes in a student accommodation 82
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 26, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'slews'?
Suggestion: slews
...f business. By contrast, there are a slew of compelling reasons why each enterpri...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, first, furthermore, however, if, look, regarding, so, thus, well, for instance, such as, as well as, first of all, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 41.998997996 119% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1895.0 1615.20841683 117% => OK
No of words: 366.0 315.596192385 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17759562842 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88006785108 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 176.041082164 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595628415301 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 506.74238477 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.9316922116 49.4020404114 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.470588235 106.682146367 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5294117647 20.7667163134 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.29411764706 7.06120827912 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224952515397 0.244688304435 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711821629512 0.084324248473 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.078242597303 0.0667982634062 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128000076732 0.151304729494 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0768322888927 0.056905535591 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 50.2224549098 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.3001002004 102% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.4159519038 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.68 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 78.4519038076 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.