Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
No no no, I was assured a long time ago by a number of posters on this board that an employer would never do such a thing because hiring/training costs would vastly outweigh any potential salary/vacation/benefits savings an employer would make. Unless perhaps I wasn’t so off base with my claim and maybe those who were making that rebuttal were actually wrong.
|
A successful organization will shed a certain percentage of employees, every year. Some employees simply do not produce. They do not have a right to a job, they must produce value. As you know, in a union situation even the weak are sometimes protected, but that is not always the case (the Canada Post union in particular is feeding upon itself these days).
This is an example of Shaw not firing the low performers, but rather opening the offer to everyone. They're not even unionized. Its quite fair. It might not be a good move for Shaw as the top performers might consider the company is failing, and jump ship to better opportunities, leaving the low performers behind. The counter to that is, Shaw is restructuring because they're losing cable subscribers and with this they will emerge stronger and more profitable, and the remaining employees will be part of future success.
Refer to whichever posters you want, the base fact is Shaw is responding to market conditions, and doing so very fairly to their employees. In a workforce of many thousand there will always be need to hire even if you are firing at the same time. There is no obligation to transition a low performing employee and nor should there be. If the company needs a specific type of talent they can advertise and hire for it, and existing employees have all the right to apply. Most companies of size including Shaw often allow internal applications in addition to external ones.