▶ Your Answer :
Losing a job is a serious problem for an individual, so many employees want the company to guarantee their job for their entire lives. However, I argue that businesses do not need to hire employees for their entire lives because employers have to fire incompetent employees for the company and hiring employees for their entire lives will make employees sluggish.
First, it is an employer's job to fire the person who is inept in their work. Every company wants to hire an employee who has a good skill and personality. However, as company's selection process is not perfect, sometimes who are inadequate for the team can be selected. If the company overlooks their inadequacy, they can harm the whole team eventually. 나의 입장은 평생 고용해야 한다는 입장에 대한 반박이므로, 이 내용을 나의 입장과 연결해서 '그러니까 평생 고용을 보장하는 것은 기업 입장에서 risky하다'와 같은 주장을 함께 제시해주어야 합니다. In Korea, for example, it is quite hard to fire an employee once the employee is they have been hired. As a consequence, a person who even doesn't don't know how to operate Excel or Power Point programs became the boss of the team. In order to maintain their position, they harass their subordinates using the power, and steal the work of junior employees and pass them off as their own work. These are the direct result of not firing them at the past.
Second, hiring employees for their entire lives makes lazy workers. Without a pressure of being kicked out of the company, it is hard to motivate employees to do their best at the work. The public institutions in Korea can be the great example. Since public institutions are is not a place that pursuits profit, one can maintain his position throughout his lifetime even though he doesn't make any makes no noticeable contribution. As a consequence, lethargy is common in public institutions. A few months ago, many employees in the government office in Sejong, Korea, were accused of making numerous false records of overtime work, and frequently being absent during the business hours. Despite being insincere in their work, non of them lost their job and ended up having their salaries cut. 잘못을 했는데도 해고되지 않은 사례가 아니라, 평생 직장을 보장한 것 때문에 직원들이 일에 성의를 다하지 않은 사례를 제시해주어야 맥락이 맞습니다. This shows how high stability of the public institution led to the insincere work ethics of the employees.
In conclusion, I believe that business should not hire employees for their entire lives because employers should fire workers who are inadequate, and hiring employees for their lives makes them lazy. Losing a job can be desperate to an individual. However, without everyone taking a risk of losing a job, the entire team cannot move forward.
Comment : 두 주장 모두 입장을 뒷받침하기에 reasonable합니다. 내용을 설명하는 과정에서 '그러니까 평생 고용은 안 좋다'라는 입장이 드러나게끔 연결을 더 강조해보셔도 좋을 것 같아요. 사례가 주장과 맞지 않는 부분들도 흐름을 다듬어주세요. 또한 사례 내용이 모두 한국에 국한되어 있는데, 한국인이 답을 채점하는 것이 아니니까 다른 한 내용은 외신 기사를 활용하는 식으로 좀 더 보편적으로 적용되게끔 활용하면 좋을 것 같습니다. 수고 많으셨습니다~!
Independent Writing Rubrics Score 3/5 An essay at this level is marked by one or more of the following : - Addresses the topic and task using somewhat developed explanations, exemplifications and/or details (일정 수준의 설명과 예시를 활용하여 문제의 요구사항을 해결함) - Displays unity, progression and coherence, though connection of ideas may be occasionally obscured (문맥이 모호한 부분들이 있을 수 있으나 통일성, 연속성, 일관성이 어느 정도 드러남) - May demonstrate inconsistent facility in sentence formation and word choice that may result in lack of clarity and occasionally obscure meaning (문장의 구성 또는 어휘의 선택에서 내용의 명확성이 떨어지거나 의미 전달이 불분명한 부분들이 있음) - May display accurate but limited range of syntactic structures and vocabulary (답안의 내용은 주제에 부합하지만 제한된 문장구조나 어휘를 사용함) |