# A job for life



## purple (26 Aug 2004)

Given the job cuts in Aer Lingus and what the unions are looking for, the benchmarking of public against private sector and the change in the culture of employment from long term to contract work should anyone in this day and age have a more or less guaranteed job for life? Is the notion of a job for life a good thing or a bad thing in principal?


----------



## OhPinchy (26 Aug 2004)

*...*

My gut feeling on this one would be that its a bad thing - if an employee is told (or the environment leaves them without much doubt) that they have a job for life, there is a very real risk that they will lose their competitive drive and their skills may become stagnant if they are not challenged. 

In a situation where you cannot take your job for granted (as a percentage of those who are told they have a job for life are bound to do) you must constantly strive to show your ambition and do the best you can in order to progress through the company. 

That said you don't want to have a sword constantly dangling above your head either. I just think that an environment where everyone knows they could lose their job pretty quickly leads to an environment where everyone naturally feels the urge to impress and show their worth.

What I want from my career is a constant challenge that forces me to ask questions of myself and to push myself to rise to those challenges. If you tell me that I should still try my best but the job is there for life even if I just do a mediocre job, well then there would be the temptation to do a good job rather than a great job and to me that wouldn't be good in the long run.


----------



## rainyday (26 Aug 2004)

*Re: ...*



> I just think that an environment where everyone knows they could lose their job pretty quickly leads to an environment where everyone naturally feels the urge to impress and show their worth.


You are over-simplifying human nature here. It may indeed encourage some people to 'impress & show their worth'. It may also stress other people to the point of mental illness. I may lead some people to seek other more secure jobs, or drop out of work altogether.

Not everyone in the workforce is a Thatcherite loadzamoney go-getter.


----------



## Spacer (26 Aug 2004)

*..*

I believe the concept of a job for life will become less relevant as time passes.

Years ago, if you got a job at all you hung on to it for grim death as the likely alternative was unemployment.  Happily, in current circumstances, there are alternatives available (although admittedly  these can be restricted for some sectors of society (elderly, socially excluded, etc)).

A mutually accepted feature of US industry is the ease of mobility of workers between employers to meet peaks/dips in demand.  There's an increasing awareness that an employer can't guarantee a job for life, even with the best will in the world and that lay-offs are often necessary to maintain competiveness.

In may be only a matter of time before this outlook becomes the norm on this side of the world.


----------



## OhPinchy (26 Aug 2004)

*...*

rainyday- I agree that is an over-simplified view on it, but I reckon that if you change it to read (how do you do quotes by the way?)  "I just think that an environment where everyone knows they could lose their job pretty quickly leads to an environment where most people naturally feel the urge to impress and show their worth" well, then its pretty close to the mark.

I'd also argue that your point "Not everyone in the workforce is a Thatcherite loadzamoney go-getter." is guilty of simplifying the matter as wanting to impress and get ahead in your career does not necessarily make you a Thatcherite loadzamoney go-getter. Ambition can be a healthy thing so long as it does not get out of control.

Spacer, I fear that you may well be correct in your prediction that we might end up with a US style situation where jobs become increasingly temporary and part-time, though I think this is a very negative thing, and that the "ease of mobility of workers" is really a situation whereby employers have very little loyalty to employees.


----------



## OpusnBill (26 Aug 2004)

Hi folks,

An interesting point is raised here - it really depends on which sections of the workforce you refer to.  I would think due to the nature of the work involved, contract posts are applicable for certain types of work, while longer term work, presumably should attract longer term or permanent contracts (aka jobs for life)

For example, in the public sector it's reasonable to see middle and (relatively) senior management in a long term way as their bosses (the top civil servants and ministers) are effectively on contracts.  You do need some degree of consistency in order to ensure progression.


As to Ohpinchy's point namely,

"My gut feeling on this one would be that its a bad thing - if an employee is told (or the environment leaves them without much doubt) that they have a job for life, there is a very real risk that they will lose their competitive drive and their skills may become stagnant if they are not challenged. "

The answer is fairly simple, move them around - and in fairness the public sector do this, if nothing else it does boost one chance's of promotion!!

I note that in the UK Civil Service, if you join one Department, you are likely to be there for the duration - mind you I found that in a lot of cases, I found their level of expertise to be excellent, so there might be something to that approach too!

I suppose, given the numbers there would also be economies of scale at play too.

Cheers,

OpusnBill


----------



## ajapale (26 Aug 2004)

Hi Purple,

Workers in IFI and Irish Shipping did not have a job for life. Some did not even leave with their expected pension. I think it is unfair to make broad sweeping statements about workers in the commercial semi-state sector, the public sector and the civil service.

I do however agree with you that the days of a job for life are numbered.

ajapale


----------



## OhPinchy (26 Aug 2004)

*...*

I don't think that the original poster, or myself for that matter, was alluding to public sector versus private sector jobs. There was a previous thread on that issue and I recall that OpusNBill made some interesting points in defence of the public sector.

I was responding to the question "Is the notion of a job for life a good thing or a bad thing in principal?" and I feel that if you are going to be doing the same thing for the rest of your life then its a bad thing. That's just my opinion, though I'd be interested to hear from those who feel it would be a good thing to have the same job for the rest of your life.

OpusNBill makes a point that in the public sector that they move staff around to new positions. So to me, if this involves new work and new challenges then they are not doing the same job forever and so are in the ideal situation of having a secure paycheck with a constantly interesting job (though I'd be surprised if this is actually how it transpires in reality). If they are moving to new positions and then doing similar jobs, then its pretty much like doing the same job forever, which wouldn't be for me.


----------



## Asimov (26 Aug 2004)

*Job for life*

I think a further distinction should be made between the term Job for Life and the concept of a 'Living for Life'.

For example...Doctors, Accountants, Architects, Solicitors, Plumbers, Brickies, etc etc...they don't need a 'Job for Life'. They have a profession, or professional qualification that almost certainly guarantees them employment and is highly portable.

The only people needing a 'Job for Life' nowadays are those who have few tradeable skills, or skills which are not transportable.

I'd feel sorry for anyone whohas a Job for Life, because they are probably in fact disadvantaged!


----------



## OpusnBill (26 Aug 2004)

*....*

Hi OhPinchy,

"I don't think that the original poster, or myself for that matter, was alluding to public sector versus private sector jobs."

Fair enough, although Aer Lingus and Benchmarking were referred to ;-)

Mind you it appears that the last bastion of job for life (or at least someting close to same) is probably the public sector (although those paying full PRSI can be lumped in with the rest of the working population).

"So to me, if this involves new work and new challenges then they are not doing the same job forever and so are in the ideal situation of having a secure paycheck with a constantly interesting job (though I'd be surprised if this is actually how it transpires in reality)."

Well it's a question of grades and jobs - it's certainly possible to be in the same grade for a long time, but the work you do can vary enormously - eg, I've done statistical work, ecomonic work, policy work etc etc. I like to think it's added to my skills base as a result, but I've still been at the same grade so technically same job.

"If they are moving to new positions and then doing similar jobs, then its pretty much like doing the same job forever, which wouldn't be for me."

A fair point. However, you would have to accept that there would be some commonalities due to the nature of the work in the public sector (like the private sector), so it's a little difficult to see how some can completely destroy and reconstruct a career after say 10 years or so.

Mind you I do take your point about clicking and out for 40 years - not my cup of tea either really... should probably be up for a change say every 5 years even witihin the organisation.

Regards,

OpusnBill


----------



## piggy (26 Aug 2004)

*Re: Job for life*

*I think a further distinction should be made between the term Job for Life and the concept of a 'Living for Life'.*

I think this is partly true. Certainly if you're a solicitor then it doesn't matter what the economic environment is like you'll do okay regardless. Same if you're a doctor etc...
However certain tradesmen like brickies wouldn't do so well if the housing market were to suddenly flop here. 
Also, IT professionals with degree qualifications might not agree that they can go anywhere with their job. Right now there's a lot of IT people out of work.
The same applies to Printers. Printing is a trade yet due to the present economic environment there's many printers (AFAIK) out of work due to quite a few printers going under in recent years.


----------



## OhPinchy (26 Aug 2004)

*...*

OpusNBill - yeh what you've described above is what I'm talking about - of course you can't be a programmer one minute and in marketing the next, but as long as your job description is changing and you are taking on new responsibilities and developing new skills (like the examples you gave) you're not stagnating and so there's less chance of rotting away.


----------



## Spacer (26 Aug 2004)

*..*

I think the point is that employees should move away from the belief that anybody owes them a job for life.  Instead, they should concentrate on making themselves more mobile for situations where they do lose their jobs.  

Everyone should have an escape plan.


----------



## OpusnBill (26 Aug 2004)

*...*

OhPinchy - 

But that's my point. you can be in the same organisation or even the same grade and still have change in your job!
In any event, the possibilities are there in the public service so you can have job stability but also career change/modification!!

Otherwise, you might as well be like a sea squirt who's sole aim in life if to float around until it finds a nicd rock and sticks to it.

Do you know what it does then?  Eats its brain!

Mind you I have come across a few of those types in my career to date. :rolleyes .

Regards,

OpusnBill


----------



## OhPinchy (26 Aug 2004)

*...*

OpusNBill - I was agreeing with you: having that variety is definitely a good thing, and if you could get job security to boot then its a sweet deal.

It does seem though, that bar those in the public sector, employees will have to prepare themselves for the scenarios Spacer alludes to.


----------



## OpusnBill (26 Aug 2004)

*things to come*

Hi OhPinchy,

Fair enough.  I was agreeing with you too!!  Otherwise, you'll go insane before you retire..!

Must try to be less defensive.... AAARRGGHH!

think Clear blue ocean, clear blue ocean ;-)

"It does seem though, that bar those in the public sector, employees will have to prepare themselves for the scenarios Spacer alludes to."

God, I hope not..... while I don't mind flexibility in the workplace, I wouldn't like employers to have too much power - checks and balances and all that....

All the best,

OpusnBill


----------



## purple (27 Aug 2004)

*Re.*

The idea of doing the same job from day one 'till the day you retire (or die!) would fill me with dread. The issue of people moving from job to job while still having total security of employment, while removing the bordome factor, does not remove the "so what if I do nothing, I can't be fired so they'll have to find a job for me somewhere" type of attitude.

I agree completely with the posters who said that a sword over your head does nothing for productivity. Everyone needs to feel that if they give their loyalty to a company or organisation it will be returned. The thing is that a balanced carrott and stick approach is required. In any organisation one without the other leads to low moral and a bad work ethic.

I have said it before on AAM but the real key to a well run organisation is mutual respect and good informal channels of communication from top to bottom and bottom to top. 
Things like aggressive management who treat their employees as a commodity or workers who know their bosses aren't really in charge because they can't fire them are some of the factors that stop that respect and communication from developing.


----------

