but again, why keep all salaried employees - I.e. the bosses of those they would supposedly let go? They make far more money, they aren’t unionized, and there wouldn’t be enough of them on the front lines for when that particular area reopened. They’d have to retrain and entire staff. It would make more sense to fire the salaried of area X - saves them some money when they reopen, and they aren’t unionized so they couldn’t fight for their job back - and then just transfer salaried people from various areas (just one per area) to fill the hole for that role. Leaders (for example) are always transferred around every few years anyway, and it’s still possible to run an area if you’re missing just 1-2 leaders.
And I’d like to see how the Unions would take the news if any union folk were fired while their non-unionized salaries or executive counterparts go to keep their jobs. No, I don’t think that would go over well.
I’m confident the hourly folk will just be furloughed as well. Today, at least.
I will fully admit, however, that long term, no one is safe. Maybe I didn’t make that clear, because I definitely agree with you there. But cuts would be made to salaried and no -union roles first, I think. I mean I could be wrong. But that’s what makes sense in my pea brain unless someone with more knowledge could explain why doing the opposite would make more sense.