|
|
|
|
|
by Folcon
1992 days ago
|
|
This makes me wonder, considering the cost of acquisition of talented staff why I don't hear about more large companies with lots of capital on hand requiring that people instead of being fired, just asking them to take a period of paid leave. It would have to be for a while to shake out issues, but if you suddenly discover you need the person, then they're not gone. You also get to experiment with different team combinations to see if the problem was a management issue, or if they would be better suited in a different role? Obviously you still need to fire people now and again, but this large scale firing followed by huge hiring cycles always seemed a bit odd. |
|
It makes zero sense to keep people who are being fired, they are being fired for a reason.
If you're talking about normal employees. They can take holidays anytime (what's the holiday allowance in the US?). Large companies usually have a concept of sabbatical, you can take a large break (let's say 3 months) after some years of service.