> over a bureaucratic error
Doesn't sound like an error to me.
Getting rid of "legacy employees" is always a huge pain in the ass, sounds like his management found a solution. (Even though, frankly, a cowardly one.)
Doesn't sound like an error to me.
Getting rid of "legacy employees" is always a huge pain in the ass, sounds like his management found a solution. (Even though, frankly, a cowardly one.)
They don’t usually care. I know a couple of people who do very little every day.
But really there's all kinds, from "we don't want this guy who insists on keeping the old C++ codebase alive" to straight-up people who engage in fraud because they think the company owes them.
That said, my personal view is that you should keep "legacy employees" unless they explicitly refuse to work.