A company in Hangzhou has an annual lottery, and there is a suite in the shopping cart to be emptied. What is the final result?

The thing is, a company in Hangzhou has set up the first prize for the annual company lottery? Empty the shopping cart? As a result, after an employee of the company won the prize, the boss of the company refused to empty the shopping cart because it was put into a family. The winning man thought it was the boss of the company? Lose credibility? The boss of the company thinks this person is very? Excessive? So this man went to the media.

For this matter, if we judge it only by the brief reports of the media, can it really be called? Is commitment a problem? Although it is not pointed out in the specific report whether the house is within the boundaries of Hangzhou, as far as the current house price is concerned, there is no need to explain what the house means, which leads to public opinion tending not to support the man's help, but to think? Playing chicken thief? .

To a certain extent, as the boss of the company, he didn't let go? Empty the shopping cart? The boundaries are clearly drawn, and it is indeed a matter of negligence. But as a general sense? Empty the shopping cart? Or should it be based on? Reasonable appeal? The above is based on the size of the company and the setting of awards in previous years, which requires employees to have basic common sense judgment in this respect.

The boss of the company behind said that the house deposit can be paid (if it is a house deposit in Hangzhou, it is not a small amount), but it is definitely impossible for the company to pay in full. As far as things are concerned, the boss of the company involved is a relatively open-minded person, at least on the basis of fairness. However, as employees and company bosses, it is not just a question of whether to honor or not, but whether the two sides? Bonus entanglements? Can you continue to maintain the basic employment relationship after that? After all, a lot of things can only be seen? Is it fair? In the specific practice process, it can only be maintained until? Relatively fair? On the scale of ...

Meanwhile. The boss of the company called it? Ignore? , may be deliberately? Empty the shopping cart? Allow employees to set. Because really smart employees will never roast the company boss on fire, unless they are already dissatisfied with their work and want to take the opportunity to jump ship, they plan to cut the company boss by tearing their faces. Just, for? This knife? Generally speaking, it may be difficult to cut. Let's assume that the company boss finally promised to help the man pay the house deposit (it is unlikely to pay the full amount), but as a man, he is accepting the company boss? Bonus? After that, you will go through a long career ordeal, so-called? Can't stay, or can't afford to leave? .

Can't stay? It means that his career in the company will not be too long, because his serious behavior has embarrassed the company boss, even if the company boss does have negligence problems. And then what? Can't afford to leave? More means that after accepting the bonus, he can't leave immediately. At least he needs to create more value for the company before he can afford it, otherwise he will really be scolded.

Indeed, most people don't think that there is a house in the online shopping cart. I believe that many bosses will learn from their experience in the future and directly set no reward or upper limit for emptying shopping carts. Therefore, if the reward promised by the company is broken or revoked at will, it will violate the principle of honesty and credit of the law to employees and is not conducive to the normal development of the company. In the future, when setting rewards, we should integrate the company's property status and performance ability, and employees should also grasp them within a reasonable range, so as to finally achieve a win-win situation for employees and the company.