I'm not surprised the letter was rejected. It's the most stupid suggestion I've ever come across in my entire life.
The whole idea of retrenchments is to get rid of deadwood who are no longer productive.
Asking these useless employees to take leave isn't a permanent solution to anything. Employees who are liabilities need to be culled and now is the perfect time.
Not necessarily true. That is only one of the two reasons. Retrenchment is also for downsizing during bad times and companies who opt for this method usually keeps both the young and the old (young for renewal sake and old for experience sake). There are also those who unethically downsize to increase profits - and overstretch their remaining staff (again, may be young or old).
However, I do agree that Tan Kin Lian's suggestion a little out but for a different reason - because it may not work with corporate industries. For state or government employees, the entire system is nearly froze in stone, so this method can work.
However, for a manufacturing company, reducing manpower via no-pay leave is as good as reducing production, which comes down to reducing output and reducing profits, which then boils down to the same thing. Unless the customer base drops drastically, this may not be a good method.
