Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then hire year-by-year (or 6-month by 6-month) contractors with the explicit understanding that they're being hired to cover a surge that they expect to end, and that their contract will not be renewed after it ends.
Why should they? In what world would that be better than continuous employment as long as needed, for either the company or the employees? (The good times usually last longer than just one year.) More to the point: Why do you think you have the right to tell them how they should structure their employment practices? Why do you think the entire economy should be restructured to match your preferences? I agree with mak…
More to the point: Why do you think you have the right to tell them how they should structure their employment practices? Why do you think the entire economy should be restructured to match your preferences?
Of course I have the self awareness to recognize that I'm just a random guy sitting on the couch supplying my 2¢ on the employment practices of an enormous corporation in a different country. But I assume that's not what you're talking about, since a fundamental conceit of Hacker News (and, frankly, most of the internet) is that random anonymous people bored at work or at home with vastly varying competence, understanding, and reasoning are free to indulge their hubris and make broad, sweeping judgements well outside their own domains, safe in the knowledge that they have zero power to actually enact those judgements.
So that makes the question more "Why should the public have any interest or say in the business decisions of a private corporation?" And if we don't already see eye-to-eye on that, I very much doubt that we will, since it tends to be a very baked in opinion.