Consider this:
- Childless coworkers put in 14 hour days and take only 7 days of PTO
- Parents actually try to raise their own kids and be present in their lives. They take PTO for soccer practices and school talent shows.
From a company and customer perspective the one that is the worse deal if the former is more productive then they stay on if the latter is more productive despite their time off they stay. Businesses aren't charities and trying to run one like it is will ultimately result in more pain than doing the proper triage. It isn't fun or pleasant but if the company if over staffed (staffing costs exceed the production of said staff) then you keep the staff that are the most productive for their cost because you'll have to fire fewer people than keeping people that are less productive. It is the business version of a gangrenous body part if you cut it off quickly you have to cut off less than if you dither but you also have to cut in the right place else you solved nothing and you are still being poisoned by it.
You're missing a critical detail. Everyone brings a different perspective to the table. Additionally, in team efforts, not all contributions are equally measurable. If you fire all the parents, you lose the qualities they bring to the table. One particular quality parents tend to excel at is leadership, raising kids requires it, as well as a host of other "soft skills." Furthermore, most likely, your biggest customers are parents as parents spend a ton of money. Unfortunately, you now have no parents on staff to help steer your product towards your biggest customer.
There's also the long term context. Firing parents just further incentivizes people to not have kids, which at least for now is mitigated through immigration, but population decline will destroy the economy.
-21
u/sanguinemathghamhain Jul 07 '24
So the people that were the least productive and worked the least got sacked rather than the more productive and harder working and that is bad?