Re:Splunk to Cut Workforce by 7% After Cisco Deal
by lotsofpulp on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @01:03PM
(#38101280)
There is no reason to involve businesses in the equation. If your goal is to ensure people have cash in the event they are terminated from their job, then have the government give them cash in the event they are terminated from their job.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Splunk to Cut Workforce by 7% After Cisco Deal
by jdbernard on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @05:54PM
(#38105857)
Why should the taxpayers bear this cost instead of the business who is choosing to terminate the person, especially in situations like those discussed where it has nothing to do with the performance of the individual?
Re:Splunk to Cut Workforce by 7% After Cisco Deal
by lotsofpulp on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @06:14PM
(#38106082)
The government can collect taxes from the businesses, and call it something like unemployment insurance premiums in the US.
There is no reason to over complicate things and require businesses to directly pay, figure out how much cash to always have to be able to pay, hire auditors to make sure they have enough cash, then take them to court when they don’t have enough cash to pay, yadda yadda.
Business sells product or service. Employee sells labor to business. Government takes care of the safety nets.