They're both at fault since each side expects the other to catch those who fall into this unfortunate situation.
The government should provide for people in this situation so that if you lost your job due to the circumstances, it shouldn't be a double-whammy that will sink the rest of your life.
In the absence of a government safety net, the company should pick up that slack if they value the employee more than the cost of hiring and training someone new. In fact, it may be in their best interest regardless, because loyalty among your employees is a very expensive asset.
If two outfielders are running to catch a fly ball and then both stop at the last second because they each think the other one had it and the ball hits the ground, I'd consider them both at fault.
I mean, the government has legislated that full-time employees HAVE to get benefits from the employer... I don't think it is quite a "both at fault" situation because the government can actually change the rules, companies just have to follow them...
The government should provide for people in this situation so that if you lost your job due to the circumstances, it shouldn't be a double-whammy that will sink the rest of your life.
In the absence of a government safety net, the company should pick up that slack if they value the employee more than the cost of hiring and training someone new. In fact, it may be in their best interest regardless, because loyalty among your employees is a very expensive asset.
If two outfielders are running to catch a fly ball and then both stop at the last second because they each think the other one had it and the ball hits the ground, I'd consider them both at fault.