3 ms·
When you mention cost the underlying assumption is that being able to easily fire employees makes the workforce more efficient. What if it doesn't? What if perc
by Firadeoclus 8y ago
When you mention cost the underlying assumption is that being able to easily fire employees makes the workforce more efficient. What if it doesn't? What if perceived job stability increases performance? What if decisions to fire someone are often poorly thought out, and forcing employees to consider alternatives first is actually a good thing?
- AmericanChopper 8y agoThe ability to fire unproductive or toxic employees will undoubtedly improve the productivity of the company. Companies will nearly always attempt to improve poor performance before dismissing employees because it simply costs less. What you're suggesting is that they are forced to retain them, at their own cost, and at the cost of the good employees. Workplaces that retain bad employees not only have to pay for their lack of productivity, but they must also pay in the form of churning out good employees. People know when their colleagues aren't being productive, and they really can't stand carrying them. There are few things that push people out the door faster than bad team mates. Being forced to retain them is the dead sea effect on steroids.