I need to be able to adjust my costs, and if that means firing two or three guys at will, and perhaps rehire them (or others) three or six months later, well then I'm sorry, but I don't see any alternative.
But the really evil point of this reform is fire-at-will without severance pay. In that case you're not sending fired employees to unemployment but to homelessness. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I think if profit sharing were more common, the world would be a better place for everyone. If profits go down, everyone is affected personally and to an extent everyone is in the same boat.
The current system of 'salaries' seems odd. The difference is between earning a fixed amount which can drop to zero without notice, or earning a variable amount that will offers substantial savings potential when things go well to offset lower income when things go badly. As well as direct investment in company performance.
But this assumes an inclusive rather than an adversarial and exploitative relationship between owners and employees. Smaller companies sometimes have that. Larger companies like to pretend they do, but often don't.
In fact, I've worked in organizations where profit sharing time was extremely damaging to morale because everybody got the same share--even the groups that lost money.
As to making people homeless because they don't get sevrance pay, surely that's hyperbole as well, isn't it? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I must be very dense because I read your posts and I don't understand what you want (for your country).
I don't want to build a straw man here. Explain to me in plain English in the simplest terms possible how you would like the average employer-average employee situation to be like?
Because I sure don't get what you're after.
