4 ms·
If they go to work and get everyone sick their bonuses would be lower, right? Seems like this policy aligns incentives well, in theory. May actually lead to a
by itsdrewmiller 10y ago
If they go to work and get everyone sick their bonuses would be lower, right? Seems like this policy aligns incentives well, in theory. May actually lead to a lot of people at work while sick and providing lower productivity days, in practice.
- jacquesm 10y agoNo, that's not a good comparison. The comparison should be: team of 20 people with one person sick at home versus team of 20 people at work but all sick. The first one will handily outperform the second one.
- squeaky-clean 10y ago> If they go to work and get everyone sick their bonuses would be lower, right? Only if those people choose to go home. Otherwise you've got a sick team in the office trying to hold onto their bonuses.
- GCA10 10y agoMost serious illnesses are not contagious. So if sick days were largely a function of how many people came down with the flu, we could analyze both options. But when people are out sick for protracted periods because of pregancy-related complications, cardiac issues, battles with cancer, or even injuries related to car crashes, skiing misadventures, etc., there's nothing that aligns group bonuses with compassion or prudent quarantines. If anything, the policy feels as if it skews toward minimizing compassion.