The Webster definition for Bond - something that binds or restrains. Be it bond servant, coordinate bond, covalent bond, hydrogen bond or bond paper, the relevance of the word ‘bond’ remains the same. The Employment bond is no different. An employment bond binds an employee to his employer and the organisation. However, note that the ‘binding’ is more often, not preferred. From an employee’s perspective, an employment bond restricts the freedom, mobility and flexibility that an employee generally desires for. He envisages the bond as something which marks the strict boundaries to his freedom. This restriction frustrates the employee, for the simple fact that no human being wants to be bound by choking rules or bonds.
The post on the forum gives a clear picture as to the various ways in which an organisation can actually impose a bond on an employee, marking its ultimate authority over the entire workforce. This is true for any organisation or institution. I can quote my senior’s experience during my graduation as an example. My college senior was placed in a reputed IT firm which makes its trainees sign a bond for two years. If one leaves the organisation during the bond period, a payment of 2 lakhs has to be made to the company. She signed the bond, but when her confirmation letter reached her, she realised that she was not allocated the project she was promised nor the location. She was faced by a lot of difficulties during the initial training (genuine personal reasons), so much so that half way through her training she had no other go but to quit. All she forgot was that quitting is not that simple a task. She was asked to make a payment worth the training she had undertaken until then. No reason, personal or professional, genuine or not does not matter when it comes to the implementation of the bond. On the outset it might sound and look cruel against the employee but the employer’s perspective is not to be forgotten either.
Everything comes down to business ultimately and the employer tries his best to sustain the business profitably. In his attempt to run his business efficiently, the employer will have to impose certain rules and conditions which protects the interests of the business. If every employee in the organisation is given a free hand to resources, decisions and benefits, then the organisation is sure to fail. It is important to have a framework and it is even more important to ensure that all abide by it. By issuing these bonds, the employer makes sure that his resources don’t slip out of his hands. Taking forward the example quoted before, if the organisation had shown lenience to the girl and cancelled the bond, tomorrow it will become a ritual for employees to state ‘genuine’ reasons and quit the job in search of better prospects.
Bond is a security for the organisation. However it fulfils that purpose only when the employees’ interests are taken into consideration as well. Employment bond is a useful tool to sustain business, but there must be immense integrity attached to it. It is a double edged sword, which can either kill both the parties (employer and employee) or save both.
The post on the forum gives a clear picture as to the various ways in which an organisation can actually impose a bond on an employee, marking its ultimate authority over the entire workforce. This is true for any organisation or institution. I can quote my senior’s experience during my graduation as an example. My college senior was placed in a reputed IT firm which makes its trainees sign a bond for two years. If one leaves the organisation during the bond period, a payment of 2 lakhs has to be made to the company. She signed the bond, but when her confirmation letter reached her, she realised that she was not allocated the project she was promised nor the location. She was faced by a lot of difficulties during the initial training (genuine personal reasons), so much so that half way through her training she had no other go but to quit. All she forgot was that quitting is not that simple a task. She was asked to make a payment worth the training she had undertaken until then. No reason, personal or professional, genuine or not does not matter when it comes to the implementation of the bond. On the outset it might sound and look cruel against the employee but the employer’s perspective is not to be forgotten either.
Everything comes down to business ultimately and the employer tries his best to sustain the business profitably. In his attempt to run his business efficiently, the employer will have to impose certain rules and conditions which protects the interests of the business. If every employee in the organisation is given a free hand to resources, decisions and benefits, then the organisation is sure to fail. It is important to have a framework and it is even more important to ensure that all abide by it. By issuing these bonds, the employer makes sure that his resources don’t slip out of his hands. Taking forward the example quoted before, if the organisation had shown lenience to the girl and cancelled the bond, tomorrow it will become a ritual for employees to state ‘genuine’ reasons and quit the job in search of better prospects.
Bond is a security for the organisation. However it fulfils that purpose only when the employees’ interests are taken into consideration as well. Employment bond is a useful tool to sustain business, but there must be immense integrity attached to it. It is a double edged sword, which can either kill both the parties (employer and employee) or save both.
No comments:
Post a Comment