A brand with a questionable and untrustworthy name, such as Yes Madam, reportedly terminated fifty per cent of its employees who expressed experiencing stress at work. This incident gained significant media attention. Subsequently, the company clarified that it did not discharge stressed employees but provided them with leave to alleviate their stress. It is widely acknowledged that this situation needs to be more credible. Nevertheless, the public relations agency executed its strategy effectively; today, we prominently recognise the brand name, Yes Madam.
However, this observation diverts from the central issue at hand. I wish to address the pervasive and one-sided enthusiasm surrounding employee welfare, wellness, work-life balance, and mental well-being. Do we ever discuss employer stress, health, and work-life balance? Have we ever considered the substantial costs of hiring, training, and onboarding new employees?
As a business owner, I can attest to the challenges of finding suitable talent—to train and impart fundamental skills—only to be informed after two or three months that they wish to part ways. The reasons for such departures vary; after acquiring the necessary skills for their roles, which essentially contribute to my portfolio, they often feel overqualified or seek opportunities for travel, exploration, or alternative professions, among other motivations.
We endeavour to recruit candidates exclusively from esteemed institutions. Regrettably, not a single candidate is deemed employable despite completing a four-year academic program. The deficiencies in software skills and a fundamental lack of understanding necessitate significant time and effort to impart even the most basic knowledge.
Graduates from institutions such as NIFT and the College of Arts often exhibit a misplaced sense of entitlement and an inflated ego. Many are explicit in their demands: no work on Saturdays or beyond six o'clock. However, it is disconcerting that they lack the essential competencies to fulfil their roles. They often need help interpreting a simple brief, conceptualising a creative approach, and developing a campaign. It raises a concern about their intellectual readiness for the professional environment. Moreover, considering a modest salary of 30000 per month, one must question the quality of life being led. Thus, what balance are you advocating for?
I acknowledge that the work paradigm has evolved, and I respect this change, although choices may be limited. Nevertheless, work should be regarded as an endeavour rather than a recreational activity.
Sustaining employment is a formidable challenge, undergoing training can be even more rigorous, and persevering through the grind is daunting. Therefore, one should refrain from pursuing employment, assuming that work would be devoid of challenges. For those who prefer a more leisurely lifestyle, perhaps sticking to the new-age role of Papa Ki Pari or Para is advisable.
Comments