The real problem with this thread is people making it an either/or issue. If one ran an experiment with holiday pay versus no holiday pay I believe beyond a reasonable doubt holiday pay would make a difference. If you ran a second experiment sending out warning letters versus no warning letters, I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that would make a difference also. So the question is how much of a difference would each approach make? Or a combo of approaches. It is quite possible to do this as scientists do about treatments for any medical condition. To do it as real scientists do would be possible but you have to control for any variables that might affect the outcome. In the end you can do an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) which would tell you how much each strategy would affect the outcome. Currently my thought is some but not all f/as feel a sense of entitlement linked to management bonuses. In other words their Corporate loyalty is being tested. Highly loyal employees are more likely to follow company policies on sick leave where less loyal employees just blow off company policy. In the end I'm certain beyond a reasonable doubt that there are some employees who will take Christmas off loyalty, holiday pay, warning letters or harmonious company atmosphere or not. AA may have come to a similar conclusion, that beyond putting a horse's head upon the front porch of abusers, there is not a great deal they can do to control the outcome. Such a deterrent may go over in Sicily but has limited use in Corporate America.
Don't fall off your chair, but, I agree 100% with you.....at least this post.