You are reading a single comment by @greentricky and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Or, what'll more likely happen:-
Why pay someone 55% to work 33% of the time when you can give them the option of being laid off or working 66% of the time but only 33% of the time on the books and getting paid 55%+22% = 77%.
-
It's based on the assumption that businesses have recruitment and training costs embedded in their employees and that those employees are important to them so they will want to retain them.
But then it's also aimed at the service and hospitality industries and having worked briefly in both retail and service, I can tell you that they don't give a fuck about their employees and training is a 30 minute endeavour. So, who knows....?
Greenbank
deleted
@greentricky
Exactly, why pay someone 55% to work 33% of the time when you can lay them off and pay someone 33% to work 33% of the time