1. Some people prefer to work for a large company.
Others prefer to work for a small company. Which would you prefer?
Use specific reasons and examples to support your choice.
The issue whether working for a large company is better than working for a small company is a controversial one. From my everyday experience and observation I think that every option has its advantages and disadvantages. I base my opinion on the following points.
From the one side working for a large company brings many benefits. First of all, one has better medical insurance, higher salary. Often employees of a large company have less responsibility. Moreover, they feel more secure because their company has more clients and this means better chance to survive on the modern market. However, one working for a large company has less chance to be promoted because one’s manager does not want to lose his or her job unless she or he is promoted too. Also, from my observation, managers of a large company do not pay much attention to one’s solutions and suggestions.
From the other side working for a small company has many advantages too. Firstly, one has better chance to be promoted. Secondly, one can talk to the owner of the company about any improvements that can be done in order to get more profit. Another important aspect of working for a small company is the opportunities to find out more about how company works. As a result of this one can gain more experience and get better recommendations. However, this also has some disadvantages. For instance, one can get less salary, worse medical benefits, etc.
To sum up, I think that every person chooses for himself what he or she wants. If one wants better career and more responsibilities then a small company is better choice. Otherwise, working for a large company may be a good option too.
2. We all work or will work in our jobs with many different kinds of people.
In your opinion, what are some important characteristics of a co-worker (someone you work closely with)?
Use reasons and specific examples to explain why these characteristics are important.
A large number of people spend most of their time at work. Our life is divided into three equal parts: 8 hours – sleep, 8 hours – work, 8 hours – family time. So, in the most cases, one’s co-worker plays an important role in one’s life. From my opinion, the essential characteristics of a co-worker are the following.
First of all, a person who works closely with me must like his job. I think it is very important for a person to feel satisfaction with his job. My husband is a software developer. He is fond of his job and people enjoy working with him because they see how many energy he puts into his job.
Second of all, my co-worker must be persistent and never give up. I like when people who came across a problem try to solve it, find a good decision instead of looking for another person to hand it over. Another important aspect of this is that a good worker should always ask himself “What can be improved?” and suggests new solutions.
In addition, he must be a good team player. In the modern world good communication skills and the ability to work in a team are among the common position requirements. Personally, I think it is great to help each other, share new ideas, develop new solutions, etc. It helps to create a team spirit and improve labor productivity.
Finally, my co-worker must be punctual. He or she should finish the job on time I think that It is unacceptable to make the rest of a team wait while a person finishes his or her job. Also, my “ideal co-worker” should always be ready to offer his or her help and be supportive.
To summarize, I think if a co-worker possesses all of these qualities mentioned above he can make work with him really enjoyable and productive.
3. What are some important qualities of a good supervisor (boss)?
Use specific details and examples to explain why these qualities are important.
Many people have to work under somebody’s supervision. In most cases an employee does not choose his or her boss, unless a supervisor is elected. In the following paragraphs I will list the most important qualities of my “ideal boss”.
First of all, he must be impartial. I believe that it is very important to make a technical decision, think about somebody’s promotion, etc. impartially. For instance, my friend is a supervisor on a dairy mill. It is his family’s business so a lot of his relatives work there. But he never promotes someone because he or she is his family. I think it is a good quality for a boss.
Second of all, my “ideal boss” must be honest, patient and attentive. He should pay attention to people’s feelings, encourage them by increasing their salary, listen to their suggestions about improving labor conditions and productivity. For instance, if he does not satisfied with the result he should understand the origin of the problem and explain people how to fix it. In addition, he must know how to solve conflicts that can arise between employees.
Another important quality of a boss is the ability to choose the right decisions and to learn on somebody’s mistakes.
Finally, I think a good boss must value his or her employees because the profit directly depends on the people who work there.
In conclusion, I think a good boss should be able to make his people enjoy the work they are doing and encourage their diligence.
4. Businesses should hire employees for their entire lives.
Do you agree or disagree?
Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
I would have to completely disagree with the statement above. In the following paragraphs I will outline the basic concepts of my position.
First of all, I will least the major disadvantages for employers. On the today’s market a company must be very flexible in order to compete with other firms. So, imagine the situation when a company can not fire its employees to stay on the market. It will lead to loosing not only a profit, but the clients, market share and competitive ability. Now, imagine the situation when a company is growing fast, everything is good and the next few years are going to be excellent. So, employers need more people to extend the production. However, nobody can tell what will happen in a few years. In this case, employers will be afraid to hire new people and extend their business because they will not be able to fire them if something goes wrong. Another important aspect of this is that a company can not have the best employees. It can not hire the better one without dismissing another employee.
What kind of disadvantages will have an employee in exchange for this kind of job security? First of all, it will be very difficult to find a job if one is not the best, because an employer does not want to spend money on one’s education. Besides, employer will not have a chance to fire one if he does not do his job well. Second of all, employees with this kind of security tend not to perfect themselves because after they are hired they can not lose their job.
In conclusion, I would like to add that this statement has some positive aspects too such as constancy, a strong spirit of the company, etc. This system takes place in Japan and some companies succeeded in it. But I think that the reason of it subsists in the Japanese traditions, the particular cultural features, habits and customs. However, on today’s market here in the United States a company can not afford to hire employees for their entire life.
5. Some people like to do only what they already do well.
Other people prefer to try new things and take risks. Which do you prefer?
Use specific reasons and examples to support your choice.
Form my everyday experience and observation I think that all people who succeeded in life had to work hard and gain more knowledge and experience in order to reach their goals. From the other hand, people who all their life do things they already do well and do not improve their knowledge do not move forward. I base my statement on the following points.
First of all, people who want to succeed must constantly improve their knowledge and gain more experience. Moreover, they must be the best at their profession. So, they need to try new things, take risks sometimes and work hard.
Second of all, it is impossible to live without trying new things. Imagine one wants to learn how to drive. He will never be able to do it without learning new things such as driving rules.
Personally, I think that it is very interesting to learn new, to gain more experience, to make new goals and reach them. Life is too short to stay on one place. People need changes because they make our lives more beautiful and exiting. We find out new things, learn new things and dream to know other things. People need challenges because while overcoming obstacles we make new discoveries, become stronger, perfect ourselves and move forward.
To sum up, I believe that people’s aspiration for learning new things is the main reason the way we live now. People make many discoveries and inventions that make our lives easier, happier and longer.
6. Companies should encourage employees who work in a high position to leave at the age of 55 in order to give opportunities to the new generation.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
I totally disagree with the idea of high-level employees leaving at the age of 55 to make room for the upcoming generation. While it is true that the energy level and fresh ideas of youth can rejuvenate a company, the steady hand of experience can still best guide a company in most cases.
In English there is a saying, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In the fast-paced world of business, bolstered by even faster hi-tech innovations, a younger more pliant mind would seem to be able to adapt with greater flexibility, while such an environment might boggle an older more set-in-its-ways mind. Take, for example, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, whose energy and brilliant insights as a youth helped him to pioneer new territory in the computer software world and establish a digital empire. Now as a more mature CEO, this king of the “computer” mountain is constantly on the verge of being knocked down by upcoming digerati entrepreneurs. However, it is now the experience he has accumulated as an older man which keeps him on top. So, combining the vigour and innovation of younger workers with the experience of older workers would seem to be the winning hand in the world of business.
The assertion is to give opportunities to the younger generation. If everyone retires at 55, there will be smaller pool of experience at the company. So, who will show them the ropes of the trade? It would be as if we lopped off the last few chapters of a textbook. On this point the argument would seem to be built on false presumptions.
And think of all the other problems retirement at 55 would create. With life expectancy in many advanced nations at 70-plus years, how would the state along with private enterprises be able to support their retirement pensions? The economic repercussions of such an idea could be great.
Besides, the Western form of capitalism is built on competition and merit and not seniority according to age, and democracy is built on equality for all regardless of one’s age, so the argument clearly goes against these two pillars of Western society.
Granted, my counter-arguments are perhaps as simplistic as the original assertion itself, but without qualifying the assertion with greater supporting evidence or background information, both sides can be argued. Nevertheless, even after thoroughly considering the argument, I believe I would still adhere to my viewpoint that the assertion lacks merit for the aforementioned reasons. Besides, when I am 55 I do not fancy the idea of being put out to pasture. I think I will still be full of vitality and have a desire to work, so I hope my workplace will view me as a treasure house of valuable experience to pass along to the next generation and keep me on until I am at least 65 if not older.
7. In some countries the average worker is obliged to retire at the age of 50, while in others people can work until they are 65 or 70. Meanwhile, we see some politicians enjoying power well into their eighties. Clearly, there is little agreement on an appropriate retirement age.
Until what age do you think people should be encouraged to remain in paid employment?
Mandatory retirement age varies from society to society, perhaps a reflection of economics, population pressures or simply value systems. Indeed, retirement at 50 can probably be as easily justified as that at 70. It is my belief, however, that the longer an able person is allowed to work, the better for both the individual worker and the employer.
Chronological age is not always a true indicator of ability. While some 65¬ year-olds may not perform as well as they did in their past, many workers at this age do just as well or better than they used to. People’s suitability for a position should be a reflection of their performance in the job, rather than the number of wrinkles or grey hairs they have. Employers concerned about the increasing age of their employees need only observe their work records. Those doing poorly may be asked to retire, but those as yet unaffected by age should stay on. Indeed, it would appear economical for an organisation to retain its older employees when possible rather than spend time and money on training new workers.
Remaining in one’s job for as long as one is able makes sense as life expectancies increase around the world. As people live longer, they are longer able to contribute to society in the form of meaningful work. But they are also in need of income for a longer period, so a mandatory retirement age of 55 for someone who is statistically likely to live to 77 becomes increasingly difficult to justify. At a time when populations are ageing, governments are less able to provide for their senior citizens, so by keeping able workers in paid employment for as long as is practicable, public expenditures are less strained.
Thus, workers who can still demonstrate their capacity to carry out their work should not be asked to retire simply because they have reached a certain age. Societies that insist on early retirement may do well to look again at their policies.
8. When should people be made to retire? 55? 65? Should there be a compulsory retirement age?
Many old people work well into their 70s and 80s, running families, countries or corporations. Other people, however, despite being fit and highly talented, are forced to retire in their or even earlier because of company or national regulations. This essay will examine whether people should be allowed to continue working for as long as they want or whether they should be encouraged to retire at a particular stage.
There are several arguments for allowing older people to continue working as long as they are able. First of all, older employees have an immense amount of knowledge and experience which can be lost to a business or organization if they are made to retire. A second point is that older employees are often extremely loyal employees and are more willing to implement company policies than younger less committed staff. However, a more important point is regarding the attitudes in society to old people. To force someone to resign or retire at 60 or 65 indicates that the society does not value the input of these people and that effectively their useful life is over.
Allowing older people to work indefinitely however is not always a good policy. Age alone is no guarantee of ability. Many younger employees have more experience or skills than older staff, who may have been stuck in one area or unit for most of their working lives. Having compulsory retirement allows new ideas in an organization. In addition, without age limits, however arbitrary, many people would continue to work purely because they did not have any other plans or roles. A third point of view is that older people should be rewarded by society for their life’s labor by being given generous pensions and the freedom to enjoy their leisure.
With many young people unemployed or frustrated in low-level positions, there are often calls to compulsorily retire older workers. However, this can affect the older individual’s freedom – and right – to work and can deprive society of valuable experience and insights. I feel that giving workers more flexibility and choice over their retirement age will benefit society and the individual.
9. Many people think that nowadays people are being subjected to more and more pressure in their work, and thus are having less and less time to relax.
What is your opinion?
In modern society, especially in big cities, undoubtedly hard work has become a very important feature of ordinary people’s everyday life. It seems that many people are under the impression that their work is becoming more pressing and urgent, and thus
they sacrifice more and more leisure time.
In the first place, with the rapid development of science and technology, work today is more demanding than it used to be. For example, college graduates nowadays have to master English, computer science and driving skills before they can find decent jobs. People have to spend more time acquiring new techniques and skills. And their spare time tends to be fully occupied, not with leisure pursuit, but with work-related pursuits.
In the second place, competition is becoming more intense. Many people feel anxious that they may be “laid-off” if they can’t work as hard as others. And they also feel at a disadvantage before new graduates. Therefore, it is understandable that people keep themselves involved in intensely hard work in order to preserve their positions.
In my opinion, the worst aspect of this phenomenon is that the huge pressure of work will gradually affect people’s mental health. Excessively hard work means that people can never get rid of the fatigue of their work, even in their leisure time. This means that they can not enjoy a normal life.
In a word, in modern society overwork is stealing our leisure time. however, I believe this problem will be settled eventually with the development of science and technology.
10. People have different job expectations for jobs. Some people prefer to do the same job for the same company, whereas others prefer to change jobs frequently.
Write about the advantages and disadvantages of each viewpoint?
In the modern workplace there is no longer the attitude that „a job is for life‟. Nowadays, many people take the option to change jobs, while others prefer not to. In my essay, I will explore the good and bad points of the above attitudes.
One of the main benefits of staying in one job is security. Changing employer often means a period of instability, where one may have to think about moving house, or temporarily losing a steady source of income. Staying in one job means these problems are avoided.
Another benefit of not changing occupation is that one is able to gain a lot of experience and expertise in his specific profession, thus enhancing job security. One’s company may recognize their loyalty and reward their service. On the other hand, those who often change jobs may be seen as unreliable, lacking in experience and employers might be reluctant to hire and invest training in them.
However, there are arguments in favour of changing job frequently. One is that a worker improves his employability. Working in several different jobs often means that the individual has more skills. Such people are seen as more dynamic and versatile. Another benefit of changing jobs frequently is that one never gets stuck in a rut. From my own experience, I got bored when I spent too long in a job. Following this, the quality of my work would suffer. I also believe that employers generally don’t tend to greatly reward loyalty or commitment. Increased wages and promotion are often easier to attain by changing jobs.
Overall, it can be said that the disadvantages of changing jobs are the advantages of staying put, and vice versa… In my opinion, I feel that changing jobs every once in a while is of more benefit.