The Instigator
The_Gatherer
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Max.Wallace
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Employers should be made to hire the most experienced, qualified person.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
The_Gatherer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 608 times Debate No: 60947
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

The_Gatherer

Pro

Rules: Round 1 for acceptance only.

Round 2: Opening cases from Pro and Con.

Round 3: Rebuttals from Pro and Con.

Round 4: Closing statements from Pro and Con (Can include comments on Round 3).

I look forward to an interesting debate, thank you.
Max.Wallace

Con

I accept this debate, as long as you swear to not forfeit.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Gatherer

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. I certainly do not plan to forfeit.

I am proposing in this debate that employers should be made to hire the most experienced, qualified person for any available job.

I believe that this would be beneficial in a few different ways.

Firstly, it would reduce opportunities for nepotism within a workplace, thereby ensuring a fairer playing field for everyone within any chosen career path.

Secondly, it would help to reduce unemployment, whilst also ensuring that people were matched to jobs which suited their skills and experience.

Thirdly, that it would create a much higher level of standards within all levels of industry and service, as in virtually all cases businesses would have 'the right staff for the job'.

Lastly, it would reduce stress and discord within the workplace, leading to a much happier and more well motivated team of employees. This is due to the fact that everyone would know that each staff member gained their job fairly and based on their own merit. It would also eliminate the cases which we are all familiar with, whereby someone very much under-qualified and / or under experienced ends up in a position of authority over other staff and could potentially ruin the business, as well as making employees lives hell.

I realise that there are a few objections which could be made to this proposal.

As far as I can guess, these would likely be as follows:

1) Lack of freedom of choice for employers, 'nanny state' argument.

Although to an extent I do agree that this should not be necessary, unfortunately it seems that it is as we do not live in an ideal world. Employers will very often seek to cut corners, hire the staff which they can pay the least and exploit the most and / or give 'premium' job positions to friends or relatives. This results not only in an inefficient business and unhappy workers, but also a high turnover of staff which then leads to more benefit claimants. If employers do not choose to comply with a set of basic rules for hiring the 'best' staff, then perhaps they should be made to. Particularly when you consider the hoops that jobseekers are made to jump through. Why is the unemployment problem one sided? Shouldn't the employers be made to take some responsibility by the Government?

2) Perhaps the most qualified or experienced applicant is not the best fit for that workplace, and someone with a different personality would be better argument.

This may well be the case, however if the person clashes so much with the other staff / employers that it causes a problem for the business, the business can easily sack the person and hire the next most qualified applicant. Employers would of course have to prove their reasons for sacking the person.

3) Some people like taking on jobs which are below their level of skills or experience argument.

This is also true and of course people would still be free to choose which jobs to apply for. If someone with a doctorate in physics wants to apply to clean toilets let them. However in this case someone with 20 years cleaning experience would still be a preferential candidate.

Ultimately, I believe that this would be a sensible plan, as it would allow maximum employment among those people who could work and were willing to do so. By ensuring that people were given fair opportunities in job roles which were suited to their personal qualifications and experience, it would ensure that everyone from the most to the least qualified person would be able to fit into their respective 'category' without one end or the other being 'blocked up' by people who simply shouldn't be there, and who are taking up a job that rightly should have gone to someone else.

Here are a couple of case examples:

A) John is qualified as an IT specialist. He applies for many jobs in his field, but despite his qualifications and years of experience he fails to gain employment. He finds that most positions are going to younger less experienced candidates who may be paid less and expected to work more. Many of the jobs are also given to friends and relatives of the hiring managers. Desperate for income, John takes on a minimum wage job to make ends meet. He ends up stuck in this job for a number of years.

B) Bill has no particular qualifications but has worked at a number of minimum wage low skilled jobs all his life. The company he works at closes down after 30 years and he is suddenly unemployed and requires a new job. Despite applying for everything he can find, Bill finds it impossible to get a new job and discovers that a lot of the vacancies have gone to people who rightly should be working in more technical jobs. Bill ends up having to claim unemployment benefit for a long period of time.

In both these cases, should my proposal have been applied, it is much more likely that both candidates would have found work quicker, which was better suited to them, as well as they being much better suited to the company's which were hiring. Both candidates would have ended up unemployed for a shorter period of time, would have been left with higher self esteem and would not be demotivated by an unfair system.

This is my opening argument and basic outline of my case.

I look forward to your reply.

Thank You.
Max.Wallace

Con

The bottom line with your methodology is the that we would need an equal amount of government employees that are experts in the fields that meet your requirements for judgement. You believe that the government really has the potential to be in charge of judging hiring qualifications? You do pay taxes right? What would it cost to employ government agents in every field to judge employment qualifications? Certainly it would be more then we could afford.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Gatherer

Pro

My opponent has failed to make a case for his side of the debate (Con / Against the idea). As such, Con forfeits the chance to do so, as this round is for rebuttals only, and the final round for conclusions.

In response to my case, my opponent states only one objection, despite my providing examples of others in my original argument.

My opponent states that in order for my idea to be successfully implemented, Government officials would be required, who are experts in every field, in order to ensure that employers hired the best candidates. My opponant goes on to state that this would cost too much.

In my country (UK) unemployment is generally handled by Jobcentres. There is no reason why Jobcentres could not implement a new 'job matching' system, whereby a computerised system automatically matches jobs to suitable applicants, on a first come first served basis (i.e. the job goes to the most qualified person on the list at that time).

This would actually SAVE money, as less Government staff would be required to work in Jobcentres / Unemployment services generally.

It would also ensure a more efficient distribution of jobs, and allow also for some degree of predictability regarding when an unemployed person could expect to find a job.

This is just one way in which the idea could easily be implemented and would, contrary to Con's objection, save both time and money.

As no other objections have been proposed by Con, I will rest my case here for now.
Max.Wallace

Con

So you are supporting the UK's version of indentured servitude based on citizenship? All taxpayers are slaves to the institution as long as they support the further enslavery of the populace is what I get from your comments.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Gatherer

Pro

My opponent has again failed to address any of my points, or to make any of his own which disprove them.

My opponent also does not seem to understand how things work in the UK, and so probably shouldn't comment on it.

As there is nothing for me to answer here which my opponent has said, I will close by saying that I extend my original argument and all my original points.

Vote Pro, thank you.
Max.Wallace

Con

The fact is you expect there to be a group of people employed by government to judge whether or not people are employed fairly. Who will pay all the judges? You sir are very naive. Government employees are paid by the loot they collect from the taxpayers, are they not? HOW WILL THIS BRILLIANT IDEA BE PAID FOR? Government employees love to live high on the hog and to pretend otherwise is complete idiocy. Where do they get that pay? It is mostly confiscated from the free people, not the dependents, or the pseudo Robbin Hoods of parliament or any other agency. Soft tyranny sounds pretty OK with you eh?
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rhesh 2 years ago
Rhesh
The idea wouldn't ensure a fairer playing field for employment, wouldn't reduce unemployment and wouldn't create higher standards within any industry. Further, the Con side is actually correct in that it would be too expensive to create infrastructure for an oversight committee dedicated to ensuring only the most qualified people were ever employed not the mention it's not the government's job to tell corporations (who generally hire who they believe are the most qualified anyway, not always, but generally) who to hire.

In a free market society you should not try to force employers to hire specific people just because you believe they should be forced to.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
this is the ultimate statement of atheism, where man is god and all else are fools to suppose otherwise. congratulations on your devotion man god.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
The_GathererMax.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never did anything much except make claims. I will quote what i said on one of my other rfd's with other dubious claims from max. "max Wallace, stop. Please stop. Actually don't, it is funny to read
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
The_GathererMax.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con never addressed pro's points
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
The_GathererMax.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never even tried to counter Pro's case in any meaningful sense. Pro presented some justifications, and Con focused on tangents regarding his opinion of taxation, and never actually presented a coherent case against the motion. Arguments to Pro. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.