5 ms·
A fair question to ask. But, whatever the solution is, "firing all of the new blood" seems pretty much the opposite of whatever the solution might be.
by JohnBooty 2y ago
A fair question to ask. But, whatever the solution is, "firing all of the new blood" seems pretty much the opposite of whatever the solution might be.
- robertlagrant 2y agoIs that what's happening? Edit: I didn't see the bit about probation. I think that's probably because you have to start with people on probation if you're making people redundant, right?
- micromacrofoot 2y agoNo, they're doing it to probationary employees because they're aren't protected by the same laws that require cause for firing. Political appointees require 30 days notice, rank-and-file must be given cause.
- JohnBooty 2y agoYeah. They have less protection, less political power to resist. They also presumably generally aren't running important things and filled with tribal knowledge so at least in the short term they are more disposable (if you don't care about the future)
- robertlagrant 2y agoI don't mean that - I mean it's unlikely you can have people on probation stay on while making other people redundant, just from the perspective of regulations or union rules around redundancy.