-
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....?
deleted-
I think it is based on forcing businesses to make tough decisions, do you really want to keep lazy Dave because it was a bit of pain to get rid of him or he's been hear a long time when you are now going to have to overpay him for his output. It will force businesses to make 'efficiencies' which I guess is the intention but pretty shit for sectors like events and the arts where revenue is near zero now, so keeping people on will be incredibly hard.
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