Organizations have always been under pressure to retain people, especially the brightest ones. But never before has this exercise taken such a dirty shape. Retaining the original documents of academic credentials, getting employees to sign agreements/contracts and bonds are a common sight.
But now what we have seen has broken alll limits. Such organizations want selected employees to place a "security" deposit equivalent to one month's salary. This is more prominent among small sized organizations which keep losing the best talent to the corporate bigwigs. The said deposit is returned after one year. This is apparently to ensure that the employee works for at least a year. Now let us step in to the employees' shoes for a while. Does the organization guarantee employment for a year? What if the employer-employee relation turns bitter? This agreement is not documented in the first place. In any case, legal recourse is both expensive and time consuming.
A better strategy is to hire the right person for the right job. An overqualified candidate will leave as his market value and demand will be great. An underqualified candidate is not of much use. So a change in the hiring process should ensure that only candidates, whose market value will significantly increase only after working in the organization for a couple of years, are hired. Binding a candidate with such rules may be futile. One, good candidates may not be willing to join. Two, employees may try to while away time to pass one year-which is again an economic loss for the organization.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment