So people making the decisions tend to incentivize the things that will maximize the return for their time.
There were other reasons to think that the club was in trouble (elderly membership literally dying off, dilapidated facilities, laying off beloved long-time staff, rust-belt economy not minting a ton of new rich people) so my best guess is that it was as simple as that: they needed short-term cashflow to stay in business, so they took it from the waiters and bussers. Either this wasn't enough and they had to close up anyway, or it actually brought the ultimate failure point forward.
A second later he was the embodiment of the surprised pikachu face meme when I told him that it won't be happening. Of course he went crying to my boss an hour later.
Even in a country where you can get a sick leave for burn out for weeks, paid 100% of your salary, by speaking 5 minutes to a doctor, the management is treating employees like slaves. This is a really fascinating mindset.
You're still on the project for another 3 weeks, so they'll be paying you for that time. Why are you refusing to work on it? Are you going on PTO during that time?
I think that was implied well enough by the last paragraph, or rather the PO has no recourse to the threat of taking PTO.
The comment is more about how managers don't think about the obvious consequences of their actions when it's their job to do so.
Aside from that, saying "do your best" right after you removed someone from a project is hilariously tone-deaf. So is the work valuable and I need to give it 110%, or is it not and I have 3 weeks notice?
Somehow they expected that knowing this I would finish my current ticket and just happily work on that pile of technical debt called a project with a smile. Instead a 5 minute call with a doctor got me a work break, which is compensated like work days (but doesn't consume vacation days, is effective immediately and can't be opposed to).
Why not working on that three more weeks? Because I hate that project that got me in a burn out state since a few months. Their decision was sudden and brutal, with no formal warning and no effort to try getting my point of view and improving things. Since management decided to play asshole game it's fair game.
Now you might ask what if I get fired? Well I could enjoy my 1 year half vacation with unemployment benefits north of 2K€/month working on interesting projects like research papers and my video game. Very scary indeed. I hope the boss can see the light of economic rationality again.
This might make a great story for fake internet points, but seriously, don't do this in real life.
Just do the bare minimum required.
https://doctorow.medium.com/the-long-bloody-lineage-of-priva...
That reminds me of an oft-cited study regarding parents being late to pick up their kids from daycare [0]. Once a monetary fine was imposed, late-pickups actually got worse, presumably because parents felt their lateness wasn't shameful anymore since they were justly paying for extra staff-time. That switch in customer viewpoints to proved difficult to undo.
While I do not think that case was an MBA-tier mistake, there's a similar theme: Something looks fine for sociopathic homo economicus but fails in the real-world of social relationships, implicit expectations, and long-term repercussions.
> actions that are negative to the point of verging on antagonistic towards their employees and customers
Besides raw greed, some of that may be from a quantitative/"McNamara" fallacy [1], where too much emphasis is put on easy numerical metrics when making decisions, and quarterly revenue is easier to have than measuring "customers resent us and our brand is recognizable but only in a bad way."