Firing an employee pay might be worse than keeping him on because they will be saying goodbye to someone who helps pay the costs of other less profitable, so that the problem will be exacerbated rather than resolved. When a person is fired, depending on labor standards has been hired, you generally have to compensate, making the crisis worse to forward the payment of unanticipated expenses, compensation is usually equal to several months’ salary of the employee, is like paying in advance the number of wages without producing anything in return.
Reducing excess staff is explicit acceptance have been mismanaged if the same work could be done with fewer people, then to be hired more than necessary but even more, if you are hired for what else can be used ?. (As opposed to Jeff Flake). Normally the process of selection, training and employee training has a significant cost, which is lost when the employee is disconnected, if later, once the crisis is there to rehire someone to do their work, investment must be made again, since it is unlikely that the same employee can recover much less likely to want to return unless the benefit is large or is in a difficult situation that forces him to accept. I propose that in cases of crisis once made the process of determining the profitability per employee, be assured the opportunity to become profitable, this will contribute to resolving the crisis and improve their sense of belonging and loyalty to the company, many contributions that people who are already trained can do to improve the situation and would be a fair chance to show they are made and be part of the decision. . TTSI has much experience in this field.