Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

The Company You Work For Is Not Your Friend

Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:36:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Everyone dreams of his future career prospects. Unfortunately, not everyone is aware of the true situation they could stumble into. Therefore, one should more carefully consider this issue, and this point of view partly coincides with the common view that the average company not only exploits its employees but drains all their power. Actually, this viewpoint is not entirely clear due to several reasons. Firstly, the situation could significantly differ between large multinational companies and small enterprises. Despite higher salaries in multinational companies, workers are viewed as less important there than in small startups, and therefore employees are sometimes ill-treated. Secondly, work conditions are different across industries. In many fields, employees are considered as the main driving-factors of their company. To put it in a nutshell, overall the situation depends on many factors. Thus, in order to shed the light on this issue properly we could compare two special cases, those of working in a large company and in a small startup.
Firstly, we observe that in large multinational companies, work performance mostly depends on the performance of your team or even that of your whole department. This fact typically leads to undervaluation or overvaluation of one"s performance due to a diffusion of project results. Thus, one"s work conditions could be significantly downgraded compared with those of a smaller company. That is, if you work in a prospective startup you could realize your potential and receive full feedback directly from your company"s head officer. Naturally, according to a prominent Japanese writer, Haruki Murakami, "Most young people were getting jobs in big companies, becoming company men. I wanted to be individual."" In other words, he admits that one could demonstrate his best abilities only if one works in a tiny company where the result of applied effort could have a substantial impact on the performance of the whole company. All in all, we could not agree more with this point because even statistics show that in large companies the turnover of young specialists is much larger than in their smaller counterparts. This fact permits the conclusion that big companies really exploit their young employees, albeit young workers who demonstrated their best efforts.
Secondly, working conditions significantly vary - not only by the scale of companies but also by industry. Particularly, we could compare two popular fields for young workers. For instance, in investment banking companies literally enslave their applicants, enforcing them to work extra hours and even overnight if the situation demands it. However, in the IT field many companies provide their employees with flexible schedules and attractive perks, such as lounge facilities, dry cleaning services, gyms, swimming pools, free haircuts and even restaurants in an their office. As world famous entrepreneur Larry Page acknowledges, "My job as a leader is to make sure everybody in the company has great opportunities, and that they feel they're having a meaningful impact and are contributing to the good of society. As a world, we're doing a better job of that. My goal is for Google to lead, not follow". In other words, he admits that one of the main goals of his company is to find and realize young talents for his IT industry. Indeed, Larry Page tells us a great deal about his industry. Nonetheless, can this positive attitude toward workers be generalized to every field? Obviously, this is not the case. This point is clear because different fields require different tasks. Thus, various objectives lead to specific working conditions in every area.
As is stated in our selected article, companies sometimes exploit their employees, without proper attention to their needs. Nonetheless, the situation could be different; therefore, this article exaggerates workplace reality a bit. Hence, we could acknowledge the author"s opinion since he provides great discussion and arguments for his position.
In closing, we can consider this issue of being exploited by a company from many different viewpoints. Firstly, large companies use their employees as much as they can. Reasons for this behavioral pattern are clear. It is hard to exactly estimate the input of each specialist and properly control them in a multinational company, while for small startups the situation is the reverse. Thus, in order to obtain maximum benefits from their labor and to avoid moral hazard, top management of such companies need to increase the requirements for their workers. In doing so, however, they lose creative individuals by depriving workers of opportunities for personal development. On the other hand, the industry is important. There are many industries, such as investment banking, in which, due to the specifics of a field, workers need to be in hard working conditions. Ultimately, it is up to the young specialist to choose his career path and select whether or not to work in a large company as a slave or to work in a smaller one in a more popular field with greater opportunities for personal growth, albeit for less pay. That is, his options should be really pondered over so that his final decision the matches his particular personality.
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 4:26:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's quite difficult to understand, what it is you're actually arguing for.

> As is stated in our selected article
What article are you referring to? A link would be useful here.

Considering your actual arguments, I'd pay attention to the following:
1) "Firstly, large companies use their employees as much as they can."
I'd argue that the most successful companies do the same. Moreover, I know of specific examples where this isn't the case for large companies. Could specify to how it is you're generalizing, especially given that you yourself say "it depends on the industry"?

2) It's hard to argue with your conclusion that "it depends" and that it's "up to the young specialist". But then the question is - what are you arguing for or against?