I believe companies do not do anything wrong if they are asking their prospective employees to sign a bond, the person recruiting you(HR) is responsible and liable for your action and his selection, he has to be answerable in case the recruited employee does anything wrong or is not upto the mark. Also, as mentioned in the opening of the blog, companies spend a good deal on training the FRESHERS and subsequently on more experienced employee to upgrade their skill sets to remain competitive to make you a JAMES BOND, in lieu of all this if company asks one to sign a bond, then is it asking for too much?? I mean that is the organization which took you in first place, groomed you and made you fit for market, can't one be loyal to it in return for some stipulated time.
I would rather call it an act of professionalism, to give back something to company. In today's age of cost cutting, higher efficiency and all round working ability, loss of even 4-5 employees from a single can cripple the operations of a division as we saw in the example of the case Wipro Biomed and Beckman Coulter, where the work of North division's work almost came to a halt as 4 out of 9 employees from the sales and marketing team put down their papers. In such a scenario, sudden exit if such key employees can be damaging to the company's image in the market as it is unable to fulfill its commitments on time and may be penalised with heavy fines.
In an interview, the interviewees say yes to whatever the HR says and asks, such is the level of desperation, why not do the same when company needs you. One can always inform one's head in advance of such future conditions, such as giving up job in pursuit of higher studies, or boredom and dissatisfaction as reasons(though indirectly and discreetly) as mentioned by some of my friends. I would like to point out that some firms also go out of their way to pay for your higher education expenses if it is for a good reputed institute (Very helpful), after finishing the course they would be promoted with a higher package. If the firm asks you to sign a bond for this, there is nothing wrong in this, else if you go and join some other organization then you would be sort of free-riding on companies expenses Ghar ka Diya aur Roshni Padosi ke Ghar ko (Courtesy Hindi Movie Swades "Lamp of home, lighting up neighbour's home").
A similar situation with an uglier and worse face was the Brain Drain problem faced by India, when its IITians and other highly competent workforce left their country in lure of fat pay packages from foreign MNCs, The investment per IITian by Govt. of India runs into lakhs every year, while they are charged a measly 35K per year. DIDN'T THEY HAVE A DUTY TOWARDS THEIR MOTHERLAND?? If that was wrong, so is this!!!
At the end of the day, it may just be another two lines on a piece of paper, but just because it is not having legal authority does that mean we will ignore it?? Even the Kazi's Nikaahnaama (Marital Proof) is on paper but we consider it sacred and abide by it, Amen.
Of course, charging exorbitant fines and illogical clauses should be avoided by both parties, but no clauses is a definite no no. 3-5 years of bond period and 2-3 lacs of bond amount is absurd of course, but then we do have firms with logical clauses. As they say excess of anything is bad, ti holds true for both sides too much power for the employer and too much autonomy and too less accountability for employee is bad. Bond is a must for both.
No comments:
Post a Comment