Dear Editor,

The work environment is undergoing a major shift in dynamics not only in terms of professionalism and dress code but also in terms of the notion of job security.

Generally, people aspire to secure a good-paying job with sufficient benefits. But before that, it is important to surmount the probationary period and secure one’s letter of permanency. In the higher education sector, lecturers work towards tenureship. Traditionally, job security is about being confident that an employee and their role are safe from being fired, laid off, or obsolete.

To ensure job security, many employees overexert themselves, working over time without any form of recognition or compensation, being pushovers to their superiors, and doing their best to protect the reputation of their workplaces, even if the culture there is toxic. Some do everything to secure a promotion, only to be overlooked in the end.

However, other employees visualise the bigger picture and are not willing to settle in any particular company for fear of not having job security. In fact, in today’s dispensation, job security is not spending 20 years in a firm; rather, it is having the experience, qualifications, and competencies to be marketable and secure many job opportunities glocally (globally and locally). Our young people are constantly upskilling themselves and are in high demand; therefore, why should they remain boxed in?

As it stands, the onus is on the human resource department and leadership to ensure that employees, especially the young ones, have good working conditions and benefits, adequate resources to complete their tasks, and assignments that will allow them to use their skill set and creativity. One of the worst feelings for an employee with good work ethic is to feel stifled in the workspace.

Does it mean that young people should automatically ascend to the pinnacle of their careers as soon as they graduate university and start working? Of course not! In fact, some of them demonstrate a strong attitude of entitlement, which should not be encouraged. However, they do notice the sabotage, favouritism, internal politics, disdain, and systematic discrimination that are prevalent in the workplace. Truthfully, they will not tolerate toxicity for much longer.

Young people are also not too concerned about pensions. Giving significant number of years of service to a company that mistreats and underpays its employees is through the door. Young people study the market and realise that there are other companies that are paying double and triple the amounts they are being paid in their current roles. That is enough encouragement for them to leave. Moreover, with the option of contributing independently to their pension plan and investing in stocks and bonds, young people are taking charge of their future financial freedom and stability.

No company is guaranteed complete loyalty from any employee. Working many years in a company does not, by itself, combat inflation and daily cost of living. Besides, a company may choose to terminate an employee that thought their job was secure, especially in this perpetual technological era; therefore, one has to be wise.

Furthermore, people often question the minimum duration that an employee should aim to spend in a company before moving on. Some suggest at least five years. However, to what extent will an ambitious, competent, and qualified person spend five years in the same role without any hope of moving up the ranks? Interestingly, changing jobs every two to five years could be seen as the employee being adaptable and curious and having various experiences to offer in a new role.

Undoubtedly, the face of job security is changing in the workplace. Job security now means being marketable and employable.

Oneil Madden

maddenoniel@yahoo.com