- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
A private company has several options in the job market, such as hiring, outsourcing, or dismissing employees. The management flexibility of dismissing employees, even without just cause, provides an economic benefit for companies. By addressing real options, this study aims to measure the effects of this flexibility on the employer’s decision to hire more employees as well as to invest in the more productive employees through graduate incentives. This article evaluates the adverse impacts of labor laws that restrict this flexibility, such as the Severance Indemnity Fund (FGTS) fine and the prior notice of termination of employment, in order to find out how much the employee adds value to the company and, consequently, to itssalary. Using this methodology, thisstudy also evaluates, from the employer’s perspective, the relevance and value maximization of the company’s financial support programs for employees taking graduate courses. Results show that severance costs reduce the net value of the employee to the employer. Should these costs be disconsidered and the benefit in value transferred to the employee this could be equivalent in a 4.5% increase in salary. Likewise the possibility of investing in graduate course at the correct moment but only for the more productive employees can increase their net value significantly, doubling the net value of the employee to the employer.
Even though the legal imposition of costs when dismissing employees without just cause brings a financial benefit to employees and their families at a moment they are economically weak, as well as it being a factor that can protect jobs during recessionary times, this study suggests that, on the other hand, it partially removes the employee’s economic value. This can cause the company to not hire the potential employee or to limit the salary being offered to a lower level than compared to the situation in which the dismissal without just cause is free of extra costs, especially in sectors of the economy where there is a high volatility in revenues. The situation in which the company decides not to hire an employee can occur when, although intuitively, the employer considers that the net present value is negative for the company when hiring the employee. As the study shows for a base case in Brazil, the decline in the net present value of the employee for the company can be significant in the presence of costs when terminating the work contract, which can cause an employee with a potential positive NPV (that may be contracted) into an employee that is no longer wanted.When analyzing the economy as a whole, one can infer, therefore, that the existence of these expenses can negatively impact the level of employment in a situation of equilibrium. In the base case studied, the fall in NPV due to the existence of indemnified prior notice proportional to length of service and the FGTS fine is R$ 15,100, which is equivalent to more than the monthly wages of two employees. By applying the methodology to the case of the same employee under the labor legislation previous to the publication of Law 12,506/11, which is with prior notice of 30 days regardless of length of service, then there is decline in the NPV of R$ 13,600. The difference of R$ 1500 can be attributed to the new rules that were introduced with the proportional prior notice that expanded the prior notice by three days for each full year of service provided by the employee to the company