No sense


I haven't seen this movie yet, but the premise sounds unlogical to me. No company in the world in financial trouble would give out bonuses on it's employees and fire people at the same time. The company would just cancel the bonus (and maybe fire people).

I mean, what kind of logic is that "We have no money so let's fire one employee but let's pay the others extra money"?

reply

LOL yes, it actually does happen A LOT, all the time, with almost every company.

(•_•)

can't outrun your own shadow

I AM DEE BEE -- 10 years !

reply

LOL yes, it actually does happen A LOT, all the time, with almost every company.


*beep* its illegal

reply

Tell that to the banks and corporations that lay off workers and then give their executives huge bonuses. It happens all the time, whether it's legal or not, because nobody will successfully prosecute the people who play golf with judges and politicians.

reply

Probably fits with the writer's premise that Capitalism is evil.

reply

I feel like this movie appeals only to people that don't work for bonuses and have no idea what it is. Granted, I'm speaking from a US perspective, so perhaps the bonus system is different in France; Where I'm from, jobs usually have two options: You either get paid a salary for a 40-hour work week and then you're paid additional compensation for hours worked beyond 40 hours which is usually expected OR you are paid a flat salary and get nothing for the additional hours you're expected to work until you get a bonus at the end of the year to compensate you for the effort. People actually do take jobs on the expectation of a bonus... it's not like it's free money that you should be happy to receive, for most middle class workers, it's a necessary part of their compensation to meet the cost of living.

Now, I have yet to see this movie and I'm not going to assume that this dynamic is ignored in the film, but I wouldn't be shocked if the writer skirted the issue to create a deeper sense of sympathy. I would presume that France has unemployment benefits... generally, the expectation is that you scrape by on that for a bit until you find a new job. I imagine the film throws some things in about her life and why she is extra desperate for money, but when she's talking to her coworkers wife with the newborn baby, I really wonder what that could be that she would be begging a person in that situation to give up their earned money so that she can avoid having to look for a new job.

Anyway, sorry to speculate... the concept didn't impress me and none of the reviews gave any insight that makes me feel like she's in a more dire situation than I assume she is. I do intend to see the film before passing any final judgement on it, but I would be really disappointed if this was just a nonsensical script from a screenwriter that's never actually held a real job.

PS: To the OP, it does happen that a company would give bonuses to the remainder of employees while letting go of another. You should understand that more than likely (unless the movie specifically says otherwise) their bonuses combined don't add up to even half of what her salary would be (and that's salary, not total expense to the company). Generally bonuses are in the 2-3% range in an down-turned economy, if that. This would imply that the total of the bonuses would be at most 48% of the average salary. Additionally, if a company doesn't actually need the number of staff that they have, it is nonsensical to disappoint your entire staff than let go of one extra person that is redundant to the work being accomplished. Twelve happy people are going to do a better job than thirteen upset people. As far as my own job... I work for a major financial institution and they cut bonuses around the same time that they started layoffs. I don't think they've given bonuses to more than one or two people in my department each year for the last four years. The same goes for salary increases. Right now, about 80% of my department has worked long hours for four years with no bonus, no overtime, and no salary increase while they watch their cost of living go up each and every year.

EDIT: I corrected the percentages because I thought it was a 12 person work force, not 16.

reply

[deleted]

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. I'm aware of who wrote it. Perhaps it would have been better phrased if I said "screenwriters" instead of "a screenwriter", but my point is still the same... I feel like people hear bonus and think the multi-million dollar bonuses that CEOs get... regardless of the figure, it's seen as a luxury rather than earnings.

Thought, to the point I made in what you quoted... it would be unfair of me to pass true judgement on it until I see what the filmmakers put out there and whether or not they give fair representation to each person in the group regardless of how they choose to vote on the following Monday.

reply

[deleted]

perhaps the bonus system is different in France
Belgium even 👀
I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.

reply

SMH at this thread

reply

The film is Belgian, not French. People in America are often expected to work overtime without compensation, to keep the job they already have. Walmart, which pays one of the lowest wages, often demands its workers stay after work; in the past they have not been compensated with overtime. The script was written by the Dardenne Brothers, not "a screenwriter (who has) never actually held a real job." They have won the highest award at Cannes twice.

In the States, the corporation's "right" to discharge whoever it wants, for whatever reason, continues to discriminate against blacks, Asians, women, Jews, gays, and Hispanics. White males make up some 33% of the vote in the US but hold 92% of all the power positions. They run, e.g., law enforcement, the law, tenured professorships, medical schools, law schools, The authority to hire and fire comes from the top from white males with both power and wealth, though they often "pass it on" to lesser management. Workers are told they can't speak in their native language at work; they have both salaries and benefits cut; whatever bonus system has been contracted disappears without explanation. I'm just beginning to wonder if YOU have ever "held a real job." Until you understand the difference in salaries (US employers take advantage and pay people less than the $7.25 federal minimum when they an get away with it), scheduling, bonus systems around the globe, don't criticize this fine film for what you perceive as "gaps in logic."

And we haven't even discussed the uneven education in America which keeps minorities and women without skills to compete in the workplace. So chill out on this.

reply

In the States, the corporation's "right" to discharge whoever it wants, for whatever reason, continues to discriminate against blacks, Asians, women, Jews, gays, and Hispanics.


Actually, it's illegal in the U.S. to fire someone because of race, color, religion, national origin, age (40+), sex, pregnancy, citizenship, disability, veteran status, or genetic information. The problem is that the burden of proof falls on the person being fired. It's often hard to prove that someone was fired for one of these reasons.

reply

In the States, the corporation's "right" to discharge whoever it wants, for whatever reason, continues to discriminate against blacks, Asians, women, Jews, gays, and Hispanics.


Actually, it's illegal in the U.S. to fire someone because of race, color, religion, national origin, age (40+), sex, pregnancy, citizenship, disability, veteran status, or genetic information. The problem is that the burden of proof falls on the person being fired. It's often hard to prove that someone was fired for one of these reasons.

reply

[deleted]

What I don't get is why she would even want to keep her job there. Everyone just sold her out and even if she got her job back they would just sell her out again the next time. Maybe she wants to stick around until she gets a new job, I guess that would make sense. But imo it doesn't make sense for her to try so hard to keep her job or that the other workers get a vote in firing one of their own. Seriously, I have never heard of a business being run that way. Maybe the Lord of the Flies style of management works in Belgium but I honestly doubt it.

reply

my thoughts exactly. my boss wants to fire me because he decided he can afford giving out 12 bonuses (but somehow not enough for 13) and still I want to stay? in the trailer we see her boss telling her that all of the 12 must refude the bonus in order for her to keep her job. so why not just ask your boss to, you know, just not give anyone any additional cash instead of begging the others to decline it?

and to the iAMBilln: we are talking about a small business consisting of 13 employees. this is not a multi-million/-billion dollar company that can afford giving out additional money to their top-notch coworkers and fire a few hundred.

reply

Plus, they are basically paying 12 workers to do the work of 13. How is that going to work out for the bottom line in 1 years time? Are they going to have to fire 2 people if they want bonuses then? I don't get the reason why an employer would fire a worker and give her salary to someone else, unless they honestly don't need her any more.

Maybe the explanation they give if you see the whole movie makes more sense.

reply

I don't get how that's relevant that it's a small company... if the employees expect a bonus at the end of the year because that is how it has been or how it was offered to them when they took the job then they're going to put out the effort to earn it. If the business can't afford to give bonuses, they wouldn't offer it and the employees wouldn't expect it.

Again, that you call it additional money makes me feel that you're misunderstanding bonuses. Bonuses are factored into a budget at the beginning of a fiscal year... they only get cut if the company or department of a company has a operating loss by the end of the year. Eating into the bonus pool for a company is like eating into savings for an individual.

To the question being posed which I believe is keeping people off track is why take the operating costs of losing an employee to keep others happy... to be frank, no business with any hope of success would fire a necessary worker to pay out bonuses. As someone has said, it wouldn't make sense for the bottom line and would only lead to a spiral of trying to fit bonuses into the budget by letting someone go. There has to be an assumption that the 13th employee is to some extent redundant meaning to say the cost of the employee outweighs the productivity produced.

All that said... if Europe has truly had a practice of letting employees vote on their bonuses or on their coworkers employment, that practice has to stop immediately. Firstly, it promotes discrimination. Secondly, working out a budget and identifying cutbacks is what a manager is paid for. This business practice alone is worthy of an awareness film like this one... but I guess the thing that irked me was the idea that they're highlighting this terrible business practice and wrapping it up in a story that seems to put blame on the workers rather than the management.

reply

[deleted]

I haven't seen this movie yet

And that is why...
the premise sounds unlogical to me.



SPOILERS:

You're shown pieces of the story throughout the film, you must put it all together yourself.
Not much is spoon fed to the audience, it is a rather economic movie.


It is explained when she talks to one of her colleagues that the management decided that the job could could be done with 16 instead of 17 workers - while she was ill.
It is further hinted that 16 could do the job of 17, but that they might have to work overtime.

Later, it is confirmed that it was decided that she is to be fired cause 16 REALLY CAN do all the work.
Not because the company needs to fire someone to stay afloat.


Seen like that, bonus is provided by the salary of one now unnecessary employee.
Plus, company saves on benefits NOT paid for that one employee.
Everyone profits, right?
Morale is high despite that recent firing of a colleague for being ill.
It's not like anyone left should worry about getting ill in the future, right?
Look! A bonus!


Also, it is a "taste" of the benefits of future overtime for the remaining 16.
Wo-HO! More money!
So what if you now have to work 11 hours instead of 8, right?
Your family won't mind if they see you 3 hours less, and if you have only 5 hours of personal time instead of 8, right?
You can always just sleep less, right?
Cause more money bitches! WOOOOOO!!! WE'RE GOING TO DISNEYLAND!!!


reply

erm cough cough .. constructive dismissal, redundancy pay. It's Factory work so unions involved. Plus in France you receive the equivalent to your last salary whilst unemployed.

So many errors its shocking

reply

Biggest error being you assuming the movie takes place in France.

reply

A manager is paid to make managerial decisions, so to put the decision of whether an employee should be sacked to a public vote, is actually pretty ludicrous. That is a manager unable to do their own job.

"Please don't eat me! I have a wife and kids. Eat them!"

reply

[deleted]

You know this has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand, correct?

This certainly is an upsetting number of pancakes.

reply

[deleted]

They had the money to employ 17, but saw 16 could do it, so spent her salary on bonuses.

reply