But that doesn’t make sense even in capitalist mindset. Finding another specialist is going to take time and resources. Plus, this is apparently a very good employee, already tested. The new one will likely be not as good if this one is perfect.
I understand that this comic is a hyperbole, but seems like firing people over using their sick leave is financially detrimental.
It doesn’t make sense but it happens constantly, especially in low-level environments Where Heads Are a dime a dozen, it’s usually not straight out being terminated however it’s done in the case of yeah you did everything perfectly but we can’t financially afford to give you a higher rating than average. Which does more or less the same thing cuz it tells the employee well it’s time to go elsewhere so they’re going to be doing training costs anyway
Yeah, but the new guy’s gonna be cheaper than the one with experience!
I mean, think about the next quarter benefits! Stop searching for stuff like ‘reliability’ or ‘long term’. That doesn’t mean anything to the shareholders who’ll jump ship the next month.
(It’s definitely an hyperbole, but it does raise a good point over hyper short-termism leading to mass layoffs for ‘profitability’. The sick days are just the excuse needed to part the employes that will support their hyper toxic management structures from the ones who aren’t ‘team players’)
Onboarding a new employee is incredibly expensive. I think the stat is that it takes on average 6 months for the company to break even for the hiring costs. That’s what I’ve read through. No idea how true it is
Six months is the most conservative estimate I’ve heard. There’s some specialties where it’s closer to 24 months.
But the boss’ bonus will have arrived in their account, before then. And with a little luck, the next company wide reorganization will make it someone else’s problem.
It most definitely is, and it is such an idiotic mindset when actual number crunching happens.
Employee A: Been here for a year (due to getting a performance review in the comic), already trained, already knows much about the system and environment, apparently perfect
Gets fired for using a sick day
Employee B: newly hired (since we fired the last guy), needs to be trained (as each work environment can be totally different even in the same field), knows next to nothing about the work flow or systems or environment, might be perfect but we won’t know for sure until next year or until they mess something up really bad
Loss of money on training someone for a role that used to be filled by a person who was already engrained into the work
= a really fucking dumb way of looking at how you handle management
The new person could also use EVEN MORE sick days or whatever. Just…? Brain… are you there…?
![Performance Review [Mr. Lovenstein]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d0e1dd89-f03c-40f6-bc8e-2b4ae8519d74.png){kind=link}
But that doesn’t make sense even in capitalist mindset. Finding another specialist is going to take time and resources. Plus, this is apparently a very good employee, already tested. The new one will likely be not as good if this one is perfect.
I understand that this comic is a hyperbole, but seems like firing people over using their sick leave is financially detrimental.
It doesn’t make sense but it happens constantly, especially in low-level environments Where Heads Are a dime a dozen, it’s usually not straight out being terminated however it’s done in the case of yeah you did everything perfectly but we can’t financially afford to give you a higher rating than average. Which does more or less the same thing cuz it tells the employee well it’s time to go elsewhere so they’re going to be doing training costs anyway
companies do this kind of stuff everywhere. for me thats usually the time to work less and pretend i’m working more.
Yeah, but the new guy’s gonna be cheaper than the one with experience!
I mean, think about the next quarter benefits! Stop searching for stuff like ‘reliability’ or ‘long term’. That doesn’t mean anything to the shareholders who’ll jump ship the next month.
(It’s definitely an hyperbole, but it does raise a good point over hyper short-termism leading to mass layoffs for ‘profitability’. The sick days are just the excuse needed to part the employes that will support their hyper toxic management structures from the ones who aren’t ‘team players’)
Onboarding a new employee is incredibly expensive. I think the stat is that it takes on average 6 months for the company to break even for the hiring costs. That’s what I’ve read through. No idea how true it is
It’s very true!
Six months is the most conservative estimate I’ve heard. There’s some specialties where it’s closer to 24 months.
But the boss’ bonus will have arrived in their account, before then. And with a little luck, the next company wide reorganization will make it someone else’s problem.
It most definitely is, and it is such an idiotic mindset when actual number crunching happens.
Employee A: Been here for a year (due to getting a performance review in the comic), already trained, already knows much about the system and environment, apparently perfect Gets fired for using a sick day
Employee B: newly hired (since we fired the last guy), needs to be trained (as each work environment can be totally different even in the same field), knows next to nothing about the work flow or systems or environment, might be perfect but we won’t know for sure until next year or until they mess something up really bad Loss of money on training someone for a role that used to be filled by a person who was already engrained into the work
= a really fucking dumb way of looking at how you handle management
The new person could also use EVEN MORE sick days or whatever. Just…? Brain… are you there…?