Because it’s a transparent attempt to confiscate a windfall that was intended to encourage people to keep buying, not prop to up one particular company. If it were intended to prop up a company, the checks should have gone to the company, but they didn’t.
If I worked in a company of 68,000 people, I would rather that the management identify the least productive employees/projects and let them go. With numbers that large, odds are that I wouldn’t be the one laid off, and the company would be in better shape to weather the downturn. The majority of employees are better served in that scenario.
How about firing the incompetent management that got the company in trouble in the first place. Or eliminate their performance bonuses since they didn’t actually perform.
It is meant to inject money directly into the economy, not subsidize labor cost at immoral companies. Your assessment of my intellect would matter more if you grasped such basic concepts. Your previous post shows, at most, rudimentary math abilities.
So is your issue that they are using the exact amount of the stimulus check? If they had picked a different number of a pay cut, then everything would be okay? That seems forced and silly to make a company hide the ball.
It is not confiscation unless you view any pay cut as confiscation. And if you don’t like pay cuts, would you prefer that no choice be offered to the employee at all? To me, reduced pay is better than no pay.
Do you have evidence that the management is incompetent? Should they have foreseen a worldwide pandemic?
Even if they are incompetent, do you support a government review board to tell every business in the country what their pay structure should be? There’s a word for that, and it’s not socialism, it’s communism.
What I said to HMS Irruncible. Is any pay cut inherently bad because then the worker will have to dip into the stimulus check that was meant for economic stimulus? Is any lay off “immoral” because the worker will have to use the stimulus check for ordinary expenses? Or is you object the dollar for dollar match to the stimulus amount?
If it’s Conduent, the settlement was in regards to Medicaid fraud so yes, management was incompetent.
And I never said one fucking word about a government review board.
You think it is a good thing for the economy, for workers, and for companies to have them unemployed and sitting at home instead of working for reduced pay? In some cases, this new unemployment compensation level makes it better for a worker, but if that isn’t a moral hazard, I don’t know what is.
And it is not that I “can’t pay [my] employees.” It is just that the shitty economy has made their value in the labor market less. That’s isn’t my fault.
But again, isn’t it better if the workers have a choice? Maybe I would rather keep my job at a reduced pay rate. But people want heads on pikes for the choice? And not all choices, but just this one because it just so happens to be the exact amount of the stimulus check?
It’s almost always better to lay off 10% of your workforce than to cut everyone’s salaries 10%. People hate a salary cut, and even if they “agree” to it, they feel misused and start looking for a new job. The most qualified quickly find them, leaving you only with the ones that couldn’t hope to do better. Better to lay off the 10% you wanted to lose, than drive off the top performers.
How would you feel if the banks just started a “temporary” $1200/month “covid-19” fee on your account? The poor guys are hurting after all. You don’t want the banks to shutdown do you?
The legislated package includes various and sundry incentives, credits and tax reliefs for employers who continue to have workers on the payroll, to cover *their *needs. They should not need to put forward something that in effect says, “We who can fire you for any reason or no reason, think it would be a very good idea for you to surrender a benefit that was assigned to your person.”
And I don’t buy that this should be seen as just a coincidental adjustment that could happen any time. If their cash flow situation is so bad, how come they did not propose a temporary cut ***before ***this was legislated?
I guess you don’t know what a moral hazard is, then. If tons of people were going to quit jobs just for fun, and employers couldn’t find workers, then we’d have a problem. If we have 10% unemployment, not a problem. Not to mention that you don’t get unemployment if you quit.
That your company isn’t profitable in the new economy isn’t their fault either. I hope you are against the bailout for small companies then.
Just so happens. :rolleyes:
I bet this scumbag management is going to be way surprised that their employees stop hustling, leave whenever things get better, and basically don’t give a shit. Kind of adjusting their hours to get the same hourly wage.
I’ve done layoffs. I’ve survived layoffs. People understand it. They even understand a cut in pay if it universal. They don’t understand their company stealing their government checks.
The issue is that the pay cut is clearly predicated on the existence of the stimulus, as evidenced by the the timing and the dollar amount. We heard you’re getting $1200, so we’ll just help ourselves to $1200 of your paycheck because we deserve it, and we can do it. It beggars belief to suppose this was a coincidence.
I already described why most parties would be better off with laying off less-essential employees. In a company of that size, most people wouldn’t be affected at all. Unemployment insurance would allow the affected employees to collect that reduced pay that you seem so enthusiastic about, while being at liberty to find better employment.
On the contrary, pay cuts across the board are management malpractice. The highest performers would be incentivized to find better jobs, leaving you with the less essential/underperforming workers. That’s a pretty incompetent way to manage cash flow problems, which is why most companies don’t do it.
Do you have evidence that the stimulus confiscations are in fact intended to prevent layoffs as opposed to fluffing up dividends or management bonuses?
I’ve seen you make this same assertion before and I’ll ask you again what I asked then: where did you get your business ethics training? Who taught you this?
