4 ms·

> And yet, that did not cause the business to pay the current employees less, or downstaff, did it? > After all, if the financial implication did not involve c

> And yet, that did not cause the business to pay the current employees less, or downstaff, did it? > After all, if the financial implication did not involve cutting costs down just to survive, then it is not comparable to an individual, who literally has to spend less money and cut out existing costs just to survive. I’m not sure you understand. It still costs the company. It was the employees decision to leave because he decided he didn’t want to do the work he was hired to do. Should the company say “oh no problem we will just pay you because we have some money in the bank right at this very moment in time”?

lelanthran 4y ago
> I’m not sure you understand. It still costs the company. I'm not contending that, I'm saying that for the employee it is a matter of survival. For the company, it's not. > Should the company say “oh no problem we will just pay you because we have some money in the bank right at this very moment in time”? Where in " the employer can easily weather (or not even notice) the ending of that employment, while the employee undergoes a life-changing event. " did you read that? I said that it's not an equal risk; the individual stands to lose a lot more by losing their job than the company stands to lose by losing the individual.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  But the risk to the individual doesn’t matter. Yeah it’s difficult for different people. But ultimately it’s better for both parties to end it sooner rather than later.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > But the risk to the individual doesn’t matter. To the company, the risk to the individual doesn't matter. To the individual, the risk to the company is irrelevant. IOW, when someone leaves their stable employment and starts with a new company, the company's risk (lose some money) is almost insignificant compared to the individual's risk (starve). Hence I said that the risk isn't equally shared between the parties. In comparison to literally dying, the company's risk looks almost negligible.

lelanthran 4y ago

> I’m not sure you understand. It still costs the company. I'm not contending that, I'm saying that for the employee it is a matter of survival. For the company, it's not. > Should the company say “oh no problem we will just pay you because we have some money in the bank right at this very moment in time”? Where in " the employer can easily weather (or not even notice) the ending of that employment, while the employee undergoes a life-changing event. " did you read that? I said that it's not an equal risk; the individual stands to lose a lot more by losing their job than the company stands to lose by losing the individual.

philliphaydon 4y ago
But the risk to the individual doesn’t matter. Yeah it’s difficult for different people. But ultimately it’s better for both parties to end it sooner rather than later.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > But the risk to the individual doesn’t matter. To the company, the risk to the individual doesn't matter. To the individual, the risk to the company is irrelevant. IOW, when someone leaves their stable employment and starts with a new company, the company's risk (lose some money) is almost insignificant compared to the individual's risk (starve). Hence I said that the risk isn't equally shared between the parties. In comparison to literally dying, the company's risk looks almost negligible.