The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
1 Points

freshers vs. laterels

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 79184
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Freshers have more enthusiasm, energy and motivation. They come up with new innovative ideas to the organization.
They don't have presumptions so they come up and fight challenges and try to change things.


Pre-Debate Overview
For those unfamiliar with Freshers vs Laterels, the essential difference between the two methods is that a Fresher-hiring company takes anyone with any set of qualifications of a certain level and encourages everyone to begin as an all-rounder and work their way into a role constantly switching them around until they settle finally into a specialization. Lateral-hiring corporations tend to hand-pick people with previous experience in the exact roles they are being hired for.

The Corporation's Point of View
From a corporation's point of view, the fresher system has only one advantage over the lateral one: getting replacement shifts for absences is easier. This means that with less staff in reserve (meaning less wages being spent) you can successfully run the company as long as everyone is ready to jump in and do a shift when anyone else is absent. This may seem like a clear-cut case for Con to win but it actually is not so black-and-white.

Lateral hiring firstly involves minimal training. Fresher systems require each and every employee to be trained in all departments to a slight degree, often by other previous Freshers rather than each department's own experts. This not only means that the Fresher-strategy corporation is having to waste a lot of its time and money hiring people for training but also means the quality of training is never that great for any department since freshers training freshers leaves everyone 'alright at everything' but 'good' at nothing. Lateral hiring ensures the person being hired has basically got all expertise required for that role and only needs to be trained on corporation-specific or location-specific policies. Oftentimes, lateral hiring is also easier to form contracts for as they merely use one similar to the person’s previous role and alter the length of work-time to whichever suits their needs. With Freshers either one generic contract is used for all (which results in many disliking or turning down the job due to the inflexibility of this) or result sin tedious, expensive tailoring of each and every contract to that particular person’s needs. Lateral hiring is almost unanimously used in any high-end jobs of any successful corporation in the world, Fresher style hiring only ever works at lower end corporations or jobs within corporations.

The Employee's Point of View
The Fresher system can, at first, seem the blatant winner for the employee. Once the contract ends, the employee is capable at a variety of roles within that field of work and can leave then to become either a fresher for another corporation (or the same one at a higher level) or, ironically, a laterally hired person for any one of those roles.

The issue is that ‘Fresher’ style hiring only works for simple, low-to-mid level jobs in industries that tend to also be low-to-mid profit margined industries. Factories and many primary and secondary tier organisations successfully can use Fresher system at lower ends as having a person who can only work the desk but can’t stack shelves or count the cash is ridiculous and inefficient. On the other hand, to have to pay for each and every floor manager to also be trained as a security guard etc is equally ridiculous as a concept. Lateral hiring always works for higher level sin companies and will create a glass ceiling for you in terms of work experience at a specific role as you progress higher in a corporation.

The sooner you get into laterally-tuned roles the better. This is why, in the long-run, lateral hiring is the best for both corporations and the employee. IT simply makes everyone great at what they do and avoids everyone having to be trained in things they will barely ever be doing anyway.

Con’s Round 1 Case
Con’s case is based on absolutely no sound fact whatsoever. The notion that being newer to an industry makes you more enthusiastic and energetic is not only ageist and extremely generalised but also false. Someone who has shown they love what they do for a longer period of time is objectively more passionate about that specific line of work than someone starting off at it.

As for the innovation point, most innovative ideas that successfully come to fruition come from the top-end of corporations, which has staff are almost always laterally hired for their experience at a specific role.

The only true and sound point that Con raised is that Freshers are far more likely to try and fight the establishment or find dissatisfaction with it than their more settled Lateral counterparts. This doesn’t make them better employees, it makes them disruptive at best.

Debate Round No. 1


Poonam_Siyag forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Poonam_Siyag forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF