5 ms·

This makes me wonder, considering the cost of acquisition of talented staff why I don't hear about more large companies with lots of capital on hand requiring t

by Folcon 6y ago

This makes me wonder, considering the cost of acquisition of talented staff why I don't hear about more large companies with lots of capital on hand requiring that people instead of being fired, just asking them to take a period of paid leave. It would have to be for a while to shake out issues, but if you suddenly discover you need the person, then they're not gone. You also get to experiment with different team combinations to see if the problem was a management issue, or if they would be better suited in a different role? Obviously you still need to fire people now and again, but this large scale firing followed by huge hiring cycles always seemed a bit odd.

jokethrowaway 6y ago
There are some companies doing this. It is a way to uncover hidden dependencies and reduce the bus factor but also to uncover fraud.
user5994461 6y ago
The bar to be fired in large bureaucratic companies is usually pretty high. Like you'd have to physically assault your coworkers or steal money from the company account. It makes zero sense to keep people who are being fired, they are being fired for a reason. If you're talking about normal employees. They can take holidays anytime (what's the holiday allowance in the US?). Large companies usually have a concept of sabbatical, you can take a large break (let's say 3 months) after some years of service.
- barthvr 6y ago
  > It makes zero sense to keep people who are being fired, they are being fired for a reason. The problem addressed here was "is my reason valid". If you fire someone for the wrong reason, and then everything crumbles, having them on paid leave for 1 month or 2 won't hurt the company financially, and allow to test "how are we doing when X is not there anymore".
  - user5994461 6y ago
    And that's exactly why middle managers in large companies have zero power to fire. They can't be trusted to fire for valid reasons so they don't get the ability to fire. Gotta go through HR and due process, that typically sets the bar to assaulting coworker and stealing from the company.
    - devdas 6y ago
      Or you give people low performance ratings repeatedly.

by Folcon 6y ago

jokethrowaway 6y ago

There are some companies doing this. It is a way to uncover hidden dependencies and reduce the bus factor but also to uncover fraud.

user5994461 6y ago

The bar to be fired in large bureaucratic companies is usually pretty high. Like you'd have to physically assault your coworkers or steal money from the company account. It makes zero sense to keep people who are being fired, they are being fired for a reason. If you're talking about normal employees. They can take holidays anytime (what's the holiday allowance in the US?). Large companies usually have a concept of sabbatical, you can take a large break (let's say 3 months) after some years of service.

barthvr 6y ago
> It makes zero sense to keep people who are being fired, they are being fired for a reason. The problem addressed here was "is my reason valid". If you fire someone for the wrong reason, and then everything crumbles, having them on paid leave for 1 month or 2 won't hurt the company financially, and allow to test "how are we doing when X is not there anymore".
- user5994461 6y ago
  And that's exactly why middle managers in large companies have zero power to fire. They can't be trusted to fire for valid reasons so they don't get the ability to fire. Gotta go through HR and due process, that typically sets the bar to assaulting coworker and stealing from the company.
  - devdas 6y ago
    Or you give people low performance ratings repeatedly.