It's usually a sign that things are bad when 10% of the workforce are let go, so 45% does sound like cause for concern. It's usually pretty disruptive too, losing so much talent in one go. Much better to ask if people are willing to lower their hours (and wages) by 20-25% and thereby save a few of their collegues. I know a lot of people who would gladly work less if they could afford it/were given the option, but 40-hour weeks are the norm. 3 day weekend, anyone? Or an extra hour of sleep in the morning and getting home before the rush hour?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: