4 ms·
What you write makes sense, or is at least reasonable to a point where I can believe that people genuinely think so. But my question is then, why the company d
by Isinlor 7y ago
What you write makes sense, or is at least reasonable to a point where I can believe that people genuinely think so.
But my question is then, why the company did not argue that they need to fire these 22 000 workers without resorting to shady methods?
"Company executives thought they needed to get rid of 22,000 workers out of 130,000 — a necessity contested by the prosecution — to ensure survival."
Was there some additional cost to triggering mechanism you describe?
- stzup7 7y agoYes indeed, it's a cost issue. Typically when you want to fire people for financial reason you need to start talking with unions, explain them the situation, decide how many people you need to fire and how big the severance package should be. On the other hand if an employee resigns, it's free. For a time, big French corporations were known for their aggressive methods, putting employees in empty rooms with no computers and no work to do to "force" them to resign.