Re: Circuit City Dumping Employees for Cheaper Ones


"Luke Howett Fitzhugh" <fitzhugh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:87nl03h7rhetco2afesi37pvtcekuqfl81@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:35:05 GMT, "SpammersDie" <xx@xxxxx> wrote:

So if you decide you've been overpaying for groceries the last ten years
because you were too lazy to shop around, it's "unethical" to fix your
mistake now and switch to a lower priced supermarket?

Comparing employees to groceries, huh?

No, to supermarkets. The groceries are the metaphor for the services
provided by the employee.

Your supermarket switch could be the straw that drops the market's revenue
to the point that the management decides to lay off an employee.

Yet consumers regularly switch shops without a second's worry that their
action might put someone out of a job.



The employer-employee relationship has greater commitment than the
consumer-cabbage relationship, so the switch requires more time and
usually a severance package to minimize the impact of the switch.

The cited article said nothing about how imminent the pink slips were or
what kind of severance is planned.

Certainly, it can't be *less* generous than what a consumer who switches
supermarkets typically gives (zero advance notice and zero severance.)

In any case, this was a response that their action was somehow "unethical"
because it was the employer's fault for paying too high wages in the first
place. Nobody was suggesting that the switch to a more competitively priced
vendor of labor occur with the kind of casual perfunctory with which a
typical consumer changes his shopping venue.



.