Quote Originally Posted by griffin View Post
My furniture warehouse workplace ended up offloading half of its staff, up from about 20% that I was first being told. Two months ago they were looking at the option of having the place closed one day a week, and the staff would end up with a 20% pay-cut from that missing day each week... so I don't know why they didn't use that option first, because they would be cutting costs and keep all of the jobkeeper money from the government. This option of cutting half of the staff may have saved them a fair bit of money, but now they have lost tens of thousands of dollars of "revenue" each week that they are no longer getting from the government, from all of those people they let go that the government is no longer paying the company to keep.
I must be missing something there. Surely cost cutting that ends up cutting their operating revenue significantly when they already have sluggish sales, would be a more dangerous thing to do for the business. Because if their cash-flow takes a big hit all of sudden like this, it will make their budgets outlays look really red all of a sudden, and areas of the business, or creditors, that require regular payments could then suffer.
Possibly related to minimising leave/etc payouts for if/when they lay off large numbers/a solid percentage of staff after the stimulus period ends? I've read about a few businesses who don't feel they'll be able to pay out accumulated leave/etc. when they fold so they're just closing up shop early.

Pretty terrible for the poor laid-off staff though.