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"?
The detail doesn't seem so important to me... I think the premise is both symbolic and plausible. But... maybe there is a lost-in-translation thing going on here. This isn't a "bonus" as in Christmas... This is the payment for the extra hours they already did to cover her when she was out.
... Isn't?
Sorry, but "unlogical" isn't a real word.
The point was not really about bonuses or that the company was in financial trouble. Employers engage in intimidation to pit workers against each other, so they see each other as the enemy, rather than the greedy bosses. That's the real world. That's how it happens.
Believe me: this movie was absurd, with a completely unrealistic premise. A waste of time and money.
share[deleted]
rbjmuse said everything that needs to be said:
The point was not really about bonuses or that the company was in financial trouble. Employers engage in intimidation to pit workers against each other, so they see each other as the enemy, rather than the greedy bosses. That's the real world. That's how it happens.share
A company might alternately fire certain employees while giving other employees bonus', but what is really hard to believe is that any company would have it's employees vote for either the bonus', or having a fellow employee fired. (and a public vote, where employees might feel pressure from co-workers, to vote for the bonus)
Marion Collillard and her husband should have forgot about getting co-workers to change their votes, and they should have just taken it to the media. This is a situation the media could have a field-day with. Even with a small company in a small town, small town's are covered by local media.
Just the threat of going to the media with this would give a lot of companies 2nd thought.
Well, we learn in the movie that what happened is as follow:
Sandra (the protagonist) went on medical leave for depression. And while she was away her smarmy foreman and the big boss realized they were getting the same amount of work out of 16 employees, and didn't actually need a 17th (Sandra).
So just before Sandra's about to come back to her job, the 16 employees get asked by their foreman (who may actually also be their union rep, according to some threads) to vote on whether they want Sandra back or bonuses. They vote for bonuses.
So here are some random thoughts:
It could be the big boss knows that legally he can't fire Sandra. But he also knows he can get more for less (the same work from 16 people, possibly with some negligible overtime thrown in). Add to that some prejudice people have against mental illness, and the fact that many don't believe Sandra is "fit" for work.
In any case, the big boss wants her gone. So because the boss is a manipulative jerk (or a coward) - or maybe for some Belgian legal reason having to do with unions - he puts the decision on his workers so to speak. If the workers feel like it's their vote that led to her not getting her job, it's not on him.
If indeed all these employees are represented by the union and their foreman is the union rep, it's even more screwy. Because basically the union leader is in the big boss's pocket. Under "normal" circumstances, the union would exist precisely to stand up for outliers like Sandra. But instead the union facilitates her losing her job for the short-term gain (or bribe) of bonuses.
Not sure if that really answers your questions. But I don't think the "bonuses versus Sandra's job" was actually a legitimate economic decision in the film itself (and that's precisely the point: the workers' are just being manipulated and turned against one another, it's a choice they shouldn't have to make and it boils down to the boss wanting to get rid of someone but not being able to outright fire them).