4 ms·
Maybe they could cut everyone’s hours and keep more people employed? This would make surging to meet future demand spikes much more easy. Novel idea I know.
by avidphantasm 3y ago
Maybe they could cut everyone’s hours and keep more people employed? This would make surging to meet future demand spikes much more easy. Novel idea I know.
- gruez 3y agoThat's just going to cause all the high performers to jump ship (heh), because they can find a new job that doesn't have cut hours.
- reg_dunlop 3y agoI thought there was decreased demand. Or is that decreased demand for this company only?
- gruez 3y agoCompanies are run with varying levels of competence, so it's not strange to see the weakest companies lay off first. Adding to the above, better capitalized companies can use this opportunity to poach high performers from weaker companies.
- interactivecode 3y agoThis layoff is due to market trends not company performance. So unless they are not telling the truth it has nothing to do with how strong this company is.
- vivekd 3y agoOntario Canada's NDP gov't tried this approach in the 90s for the public service in response to a budget deficit. They called it Ray days. The approach was very unpopular with public servants and the public generally. It was one of the reasons for the party's loss of influence.
- crote 3y agoCutting hours isn't going to be a viable option when you're also cutting their pay. There are plenty of people who simply can't afford to stay at a company when their pay is being cut by 10% or more. They need pretty much all of their salary to pay bills. Taking such a pay cut is only an option for the higher incomes, where there is some jiggle room due to significant discretionary income.