|
|
|
|
|
|
by ipaddr
1182 days ago
|
|
|
Paying only 50% means mortgages go under. Spreading your loses to employees who don't have the upside is not fair. Did you share 50% of the profits (upside) or just pay the amount you took back from them.
You are not going to win employer of the year by shifting your risk to the backs of your employees and rewarding them by paying money they should have never lost. They should get a bonus.. you did. Did they not share in the risk? Should have taken a loan or let people go.. |
|
|
Given that the country shut down with 3 days notice, everyone was in the same boat. Banks offered the usual payment holidays and so on.
Certainly a lot of companies did as you suggest, and simply let everyone go. I'm not sure that's better than 50%. Clearly all our employees were welcome to quit, and since none of them did, I guess they preferred 50% to 0%.
I'll be sure to mention to them next time that they're welcome to take 0% instead.
Loans were not an option given that the banks were closed. (And given that our appetite for large loans is zero.)
>> They should get a bonus.. you did.
Did I? news to me :) I was on 50% like everyone else, and I was made whole last. As it happens we issued 2 bonus' the following year. So yeah we share profits.
Obviously there were different approaches to dealing with unprecedented events. I'm not looking for employer of the year, but on the other hand I don't like firing people unnecessarily.