4 ms·
It sounds like it was a combination of them still being civil servants (meaning they weren't eligible for severance pay) and management was doing everything the
by blihp 7y ago
It sounds like it was a combination of them still being civil servants (meaning they weren't eligible for severance pay) and management was doing everything they could to push them out while they were privatizing the company. Extremely bad doesn't begin to describe 2008-9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession)... there were no jobs being hired for in most sectors, in most countries during that time.
- chrisseaton 7y agoAh I thought the mention of public sector meant they had more protections and benefits rather than less.
- Scoundreller 7y agoSeems like a gaping hole in worker protections of public sector employees were exempted from severance pay. What’s the reasoning? Is it really because they just cannot lose their jobs?
- alexis_fr 7y agoYes, public servants are guaranteed a job for life, so they get neither severance pay nor unemployment if they “chose” to resign. Nowadays they can ask for a 3-year pause (e.g. to create a startup, etc.) but those plans come from the “flexible economy” and were introduced only recently.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mpweiher 7y agoThe “more protections” was they couldn’t be fired. Therefore they need less protection/benefits for the case that they were fired, that being impossible.