It would be a viable option if the three parties were in agreement. The two employees might well have to take significantly less than 50% of their previous salary to compensate for the additional employer costs of having two employees carry out one task.
enabling them to have a well earned life style and a little money coming in to settle some bills. Hopefully there would be no loss of face involved as I am sure there must be many employees who could afford to take the pay drop involved.
Sounds lovely, but I am not too sure there are "many" employees who could afford to take the pay drop involved. Running a home and a growing family at any time, let alone in these difficult economic times is usually a major challenge for most people. Often both partners have to work to make ends meet and provide for such luxuries as annual holidays, Christmas etc. Those that can afford to take part time work, often already do. Of course that is usually because they benefit from new found pension income, or a significant drop in outgoings by virtue of such things as their mortgage payments ending.
Or have we all got so greedy and to hell with everyone else as I'm alright Jack? Like pigs at a trough.
Maybe, but I think it is simply a case of survival in a very cut throat business environment. The employers we work for cannot behave like charities. They are busineses with a need to maximize profit and minimize cost in order to survive. Those skills that they need to hire in, will often be at the minimum market rate as part of that survival. In turn those employees will find a very unsympathetic ear from their own creditors, when they suggest halving their loan repayments or mortgage repayments in order to share their job.
Pigs at a trough? Outrageous! Next you will be suggesting our elected leaders behave in this manner.