- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 4,278
- Reaction score
- 2,755
- Points
- 598
- Location
- Gig City in Tennessee
- Resorts Owned
-
Legacy HGVC
FAVC-Cabo
HGV to cut ~1,600 jobs in pandemic response - Link
Usually layoffs will require the employee to be rehired. They don't have to rehire the same employees. With a furlough they will often retain benefits during their furlough, but with a layoff, benefits are cut off at a certain point and they would get severance if eligible.Furloughs are temporary, and usually for a specified period of time. Layoffs can also be temporary, but often (and are more likely to be) permanent.
As COVID cases spike this fall more layoffs and resort closures are a real possibility. Most hospitality companies are hurting from the closures earlier this year along with the low occupancy rates mandated on reopenings.
Plus they will probably be doing their job and their former co-workers job for the same pay.We have some friends who work at the Hilton Hawaiian Village who have been subjected to the layoffs. When the Village was closed back in April the workers were furloughed. (I am not sure I know the real difference between the two.). Now some of those workers have been officially job cut and others have been told they will be reporting to work on a certain date. From my understanding both groups of people are really not happy. The former because they are unemployed, and the latter because they fear getting the virus from going to work.
I don't want to digress into a COVID discussion thread, but one thing I saw today in the NY Times daily blog is germane to this point. The story mentioned that while we are seeing an increases in cases lately, much of this is likely attributable to higher testing rates as justified by reduced hospitalizations and steady to declining death rates. In the end, this could mean that real cases are not increasing and the impact on HGVC (and travel, in general) may not be as pronounced.
Again, not trying to start a debate on this, just adding a counterpoint that I happened to read today.
We can hope.
Cheers.
Positivity rate seems like an odd metric to use since you really don't control how many are tested and most often one would only get tested if they think they are sick. Wouldn't a better metric to use be new cases per 1000 population or something like that?The positivity rate is one of the stats that public health officials use to determine whether to suggest opening up more or bring in more regulations. It’s the ratio of how many people are testing positive. Right now NYC has a 7 day rolling average of a 1.3% positivity rate. You want the number below 5% to open up and NYC’s is very good. Here in Michigan, we are up to a 4.3% rate and climbing.
FYI - The highest rate is Iowa with a 49.9% positivity with Nevada close behind with a 46% rate.
Other HGVC states:
Utah: 15.1%
Florida: 12%
S. Carolina: 5.8%
Illinois: 5.5%
Colorado: 5.3%
Hawaii: 2.5%
California: 2.4%
Washington DC: 1.2%
Public health officials look at a number of different metrics - but new cases per 100K people and % positive are the most common. Percent positive per test gives you a good view into how widespread the disease is...but as you say it sometimes says more about a state's interest in testing than it does COVID.Positivity rate seems like an odd metric to use since you really don't control how many are tested and most often one would only get tested if they think they are sick. Wouldn't a better metric to use be new cases per 1000 population or something like that?
Positivity rate seems like an odd metric to use since you really don't control how many are tested and most often one would only get tested if they think they are sick. Wouldn't a better metric to use be new cases per 1000 population or something like that?