Guaranteeing the job stability of employees has been one of the most important slogans that lawyers, labor workers, trade unionists and politicians have raised since the social importance that work possesses and grants as a source of income and guarantor of the family and individual economy was understood., and that is not disputed.
It can be read in literal "d" of Article 7 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the "Protocol of San Salvador" that the States recognize the right to "the stability of workers in their jobs, according to the characteristics of the industries and professions and the causes of fair separation. In cases of unjustified dismissal, the worker shall be entitled to compensation or to readmission to employment or to any other benefit provided by national legislation «:
Likewise, in the National Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in its article 93 it is established that «The law will guarantee stability at work and will provide what is necessary to limit any form of unjustified dismissal. Dismissals contrary to this Constitution are null «.
In both citations it can be seen that the main concern is aimed at avoiding unjustified dismissal or, failing that, workers are recognized the corresponding compensation if this occurs, which is sufficiently provided in the Organic Labor Law, in the Venezuela case.
But, is that what is to be understood by job stability? That the state guarantees that the dismissals have to be justified? Doesn't this apply only to those who are employed? What about the unemployed population? Should they not enjoy such stability?
It cannot be ignored that the laws also highlight the right to work and the responsibility that States have in seeking sources of employment or the economic conditions for this to occur, but beyond the legal content, which is broad, is the administrative field and including individual performance that is also directly related to the concept of job stability that this article occupies.
It is incomplete to suppose that job stability depends exclusively on the responsibility of employers to ensure that dismissals will be made only in justified circumstances or the tenure or not of employment by workers; This occurs simply because neither of the above two elements offers a true guarantee of stability.
Where is the responsibility of the employee? Could it be that it also does not have its share in job stability?
In some cases, once the employee feels secure in his job, he stops worrying about offering an additional to his performance and limits himself only to what he believes to be his area of competence, which is unattractive and even less profitable than that entrepreneurial and innovative behavior that usually lends itself to the beginning of any labor relationship.
How can a company guarantee the stability of a staff that does not add value to it?
Previously, concern about employment had been related to tenure and the person's permanence in it, attributing a sense of perpetuity to their relationship with the company, which even resulted in recognition for years of service, since it was understood that In this way, the employee demonstrated his loyalty and commitment to the organization, so it was not surprising, from an administrative point of view, that the longevity of the relationship was considered as an attribute to determine whether or not he was a good worker..
However, in the present, such a concept tends to be questioned, since staying in the same company for a very long time could affect the comprehensive and holistic training offered by the multiple experiences and the exchange with the market and even diminish the initiative and the ability to innovate.
In addition to this, the aforementioned concept of job stability seems to start from the sole principle that dismissal is an exclusive attribution of the company, when the employee, by voluntarily leaving and expressing his disagreement with it, is "firing" the organization (See article: Reverse dismissal).
It is also prudent to consider that once the individual is fired, or retires voluntarily, at a certain age, he seems to immediately lose his place in the labor market, ceasing to be attractive to employers, who claim to justify non-hiring a series of reasons, some true and others purely speculative, based on subjective principles, objections that temporarily or permanently impede the person's reintegration into work and therefore affect their stability.
You cannot ignore what happens in today's changing world, competitive and sometimes absurd and fortuitous, where the same organizations lack stability, because what today can be a guarantee of success tomorrow becomes an example of failure, so ¿ How can someone who doesn't have stability offer it? Examples abound, entire empires have been negotiated and even auctioned off among their competitors who acquire their goods and brands, destroying whole years of tradition and custom. How can job stability be defined there?
All of the above allows for various reflections, and even a revision of the concept of job stability from a more contemporary perspective as a proposal, which is set out below:
We live in a world of change, where knowledge progresses so fast that it is not finished assimilating a concept when there is already another that contradicts or reorients it, a world where the only sure thing is that tomorrow he will not be the same, day is transforming.
Faced with this uncertainty, job stability goes from being an absolute concept to becoming a more open and relative one where both companies (understood as the entities that invest their capital in the business) and employees will have the same responsibility to guarantee their presence.
Regarding the person, he will have job stability as long as he does not lose his capacity for innovation and can guarantee that he will constantly add value to the organizations (note that it has been said in the plural) that are interested in his services, independently of their social condition, age or creed, because it does not have to be filtered through the same paradigms that are used today to be able to hire the individual.
Therefore, as long as it is employable, it will have job stability, since this will be the true guarantee of stability.
In relation to companies, they must guarantee the state the valuation and hiring of employable talent, without the limitations that they interpose today, based on their competences, which will allow the market to be open to anyone who worries about staying active, updated and with future vision.
In other words, job stability should be understood as the shared responsibility held by both the employer and the employee or candidate to ensure their effective participation in the work environment while both parties guarantee the addition of value to the processes, products or services that offer or generate.
It is implicit in this concept that if there is a dismissal it will be for justified reasons, because what company would get rid of its human talent on a whim? Or better yet, what human talent would be interested in working in a company that does not value it? As an additional element, the presence of the candidate enters the concept, in this case the talent employed or employable, so that job stability would also cover those who are not working.
What guarantee does that line of thought offer?
In the first place, it dissociates itself from the incomplete vision that assumes that stability exists as long as there is work and not the conditions for it.
There will be stability as long as there is a source that is in charge of generating employment, otherwise neither those who are working can be considered stable, because if the environment affects the company they will not only lose their jobs but would not have a guarantee of recovering it, unless their employability status gives them the corresponding appeal for that market that is looking for talent without the subjective restrictions present in today's market.
Of course, personal instability should not be confused with employability, as stated in the article "Employees? no!…
Employable », what this conception of stability intends is to broaden the criteria and allow entrepreneurs to have an innovative and updated human talent; and individuals the certain opportunity to be valued for their talent and ability, beyond the simple tenure of employment, since more than the duration and age of the candidate, and even that their status as an employee or unemployed, is valued by the value you add or can still add to the partnership.
This concept is even more demanding than the previous one, which seems to be limited to just dismissal and permanence in jobs.
In this vision, a shared responsibility is proposed, since both the company and the employee or the candidates are called to generate the desired stability, since each of them must offer the other what is expected of him without conditioning him to something else other than value generation.
It is simple, as long as value can be added and companies are committed to recognizing and hiring it, there will really be job stability in any scenario, since the conditions will be in place for it.
