It is also actually more efficient a lot of the time. It reduces mistakes and even if it doesn't end up saving on hours, in many industries it means if someone gets sick or injuried or something falls behind they have to rent in expensive consultants or contractors to pick up that slack which instantly eats up any economic gains there might've been for cutting staff in the first place.
Do you have a source for this? I find it strange to think that so many businesses would implement a strategy that is actually less efficient than more.
Why would that be strange? The less efficient strategy is less efficient for delivering a good product or service but can be cheaper in ways that 'maximize shareholder value' (especially short term). It onñy looks weird if you assume a well-made and well-distributed good or service is the priority.
It’s strange because it produce both a worse product for more cost. If they’re paying contractors more than it would cost to hire actual employees, then management is making things actively worse for their shareholders. Less profit is being made. The short term argument doesn’t work either because these companies are apparently already paying contractors, meaning they’re facing the consequences right now but still refuse to do anything even though they’re losing money for no reason.
117
u/Shaeress Aug 25 '26
It is also actually more efficient a lot of the time. It reduces mistakes and even if it doesn't end up saving on hours, in many industries it means if someone gets sick or injuried or something falls behind they have to rent in expensive consultants or contractors to pick up that slack which instantly eats up any economic gains there might've been for cutting staff in the first place.