it's completely fair to them when the alternative is liquidation. i think a 5-year moratorium on layoffs under these circumstances is reasonable.I see your point about "to the extent practicable", but you need to look at the other side.
i criticized pelosi for her overreach but completely disagree with this narrative. the republicans are way more shady in this. if you look at what the republicans proposed, bailed out companies weren't even required to keep their staff employed as a condition for the money.
"Recipients of government bailouts would be required to avoid job or wage cuts only “to the extent practicable” — a loophole so large it amounts to a lack of any meaningful obligation."
this part is also a bit disturbing
"the Treasury would also get $75 billion for targeted bailouts. The Treasury undoubtedly needs resources and flexibility to confront the crisis. But it would be unpardonable folly for Congress to grant too much latitude to an administration that has repeatedly proved itself to be a careless steward of public resources. To take just one example, the bill would let the Treasury bail out hotels owned by Mr. Trump on whatever terms his administration might care to dictate — and Mr. Trump refused on Sunday night to pledge that he would refrain from taking any federal aid."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/o...-congress.html
If they are required to keep the same jobs and same wages intact, when many of these people are no longer needed due to vastly changed market conditions, it's not fair to burden these companies with such dead weight -- nor is it a good use of government bailout dollars.
There's no easy solution to this one. Either they write in a requirement which is unenforceable, or they write in something more concrete and likely create major unnecessary burden in the short and long term.