[ad_1]
Permanent employment in the US often includes benefits, but some employers avoid providing them by hiring part-time or temporary workers. In Japan, the concept of permanent employment is deeply ingrained, but employers cut costs by reducing wages rather than laying off workers. Arguments against guaranteed lifetime employment include reduced purchasing power and limited opportunities for younger workers.
In the United States, permanent employment generally refers to regular full-time employment that often includes benefits such as health insurance, paid time off, and retirement savings plans. While there is no legal requirement that full-time employees receive benefits, the general rule is that an employer that provides benefits to some full-time employees must offer benefits to all such workers. Many US employers, to avoid incurring the cost of benefits packages, adopt the practice of only hiring part-time or temporary workers, especially in retail and fast food outlets. In addition, many employers have adopted the practice of characterizing such employment as “regular” rather than “permanent” to avoid potential legal complications that may arise from the dismissal of a permanent or permanent employee.
Permanent employment sometimes means guaranteed employment for life. While few employers guarantee employment for the lifetime of an employee, some employment situations, such as a partner in a law or professional accounting firm or a tenured professor at a college or university, certainly carry a guarantee. In some countries, government employment is considered permanent employment, and some union jobs, in the United States and elsewhere, are also considered permanent. The fact is that keeping a job depends on many factors, including the financial health of the employer and the good behavior of the workers.
Some countries, such as Japan, do not have formal policies establishing permanent employment, but the concept is so deeply ingrained in the national culture that employers go to great lengths to prevent dismissal of employees, sometimes assigning them to do unsafe work. related to the company’s business. When faced with tough times, Japanese employers cut their amortization costs by releasing temporary and part-time workers and cutting bonuses and overtime before laying off full-time workers. When buffers run out, they cut hours and pay to avoid layoffs. When surveyed, Japanese employers rarely report that they are considering downsizing, even when neighbors like South Korea are projecting significant layoffs.
While guaranteed lifetime employment may seem like a working man’s dream, there are in fact some good arguments against it as a national policy. Some taxpayers, for example, may lose respect for a government whose workers tend to consider permanent employment a right, for example. Furthermore, when private employers, such as those in Japan, cut wages rather than lay off workers who could look elsewhere for employment, they reduce the purchasing power of their employees. Reluctant to hire new workers to whom they will feel an obligation to full employment, these companies also keep younger workers out of the workforce. In some cases, workers simply prefer the flexibility of independent contracting, which can allow them to set their own hours and work from home, as well as enjoy the freedom of hiring multiple companies instead of just one.
Asset Smart.
[ad_2]