3 ms·
The business itself need not be a sellable thing. Sell the assets maybe, potentially to somebody who wants to use them to run the same kind of business in the
by __MatrixMan__ 5d ago
The business itself need not be a sellable thing.
Sell the assets maybe, potentially to somebody who wants to use them to run the same kind of business in the same kind of location with the same employees.
It's hostile to the consumer to call it the same business. A name change gives them the opportunity to decide for themselves whether the new owner is worth supporting. It's similarly hostile to the employees to assume that their loyalties can be bought and sold. Let the new owner of the assets re-hire them for the same position in the same location if he wants to, but lets not have them be for sale.
- 1123581321 5d agoI think that last point is opposite; it’s seen as heartless when the new owner of a business goes through rehiring existing employees instead of assuring them they still have a job.
- __MatrixMan__ 5d agoIsn't offering them a job that's equivalent to their old one indistinguishable from assuring them that they still have a job? No need to make people reinterview, but at least give them the option to turn down the offer. Maybe I'm making too big of a deal out of semantics, but every time somebody buys me it makes me angry.
- 1123581321 5d agoI don't think it's equivalent because it's paperwork they now have to think about, they're wondering if it's wiping away old employment promises or systems, did everyone get one of these offers, etc. Definitely see how some would prefer the job reconsidered, though. There's no system that makes everyone happy, including to never sell a business. These things are good to think about; appreciate it.