You have to be joking. Are you ready to pay 30%-50% more for all of your products? The business has already been put out of business involuntarily... One thing I would suggest for the friend is to contact the DEW in his area and report that he has offered employment to those individuals which may stop the UE benefits which were meant only during the period of UE, not for the rest of their working career.
They will be back when the adder runs out, and if they are not smart about it, they will be left without a chair when the music stops. The adder (to the level that it was) was ridiculous, but the system would not provide for a way for the adder to be adjusted per each person to only make them whole to previous wages.
Not joking at all, as we went back and forth on this previously. If anything, you might be the one out of touch with the way most of the business world and employers operate these days. You believe that all employers are doing right by employees, employees should be gracious, and that is simply not the case. Most employers take advantage of employees at every turn. Wages have not kept up, benefits have been reduced and eliminated, pensions rarely exist. At the same time, more is expected of employees. Most white collar employers want to be able to call/contact employees 24x7, they are made to feel guilty taking earned vacation and lawful paid time off. Many employers currently receiving the PPP loans are looking how they can keep employees just long enough to meet requirements for not having to pay it back. Then you have the megacorps looking at this as an opportunity to trim their ranks, figuring that they can operate with less headcount, reduce expenses, increase profits. Again, the view of the ruling class employer is that the employee is nothing more than an expendable/replaceable/interchangeable body that will be cut the moment it is advantageous for the employer to do so.
You've also already posted your suggestion about reporting employees who turn down employment. And I will again suggest that no employee go back to work minimally until the adder ends, and if justification is needed, claim that employer is not sufficiently protecting employees. In my view, if the employer is not testing all employees at the beginning of every shift with the ability to have immediate results, then whatever they have implemented is not sufficient. Simply taking temperature is almost useless for determining if someone is infected. Similar with installing a few hand sanitizers and mandating washing hands periodically - insufficient.
Sure, if employee does not return to work immediately when offered he/she risks not having a job to go back to, but, that is the way things work in a Capitalist free-market economy - everyone knows this. No job is guaranteed, yet, employers think that they can lay off an entire work force one day and then have them at their beckon call to return when they want them to.
The adder was not ridiculous in the context that the government shut down the economy. They forced businesses to close and effectively made it impossible for employees to work, taking away their income. There was no ability to get a new job in the interim. A Capitalist free market economy does not do that. The alternative to the adder would be an almost immediate collapse of the economy and financial markets...which is still very possible depending how things play out.
You seem very pro-business, and that's fine. I am pro-employee and will advocate on their behalf encouraging they do everything possible to get as much money as they can through this unprecedented period of history. If the government is going to shower corporations with tens of trillions of dollars, there's no reason why individuals shouldn't be getting some number of trillions just the same. The government already gave the corporations a few trillion in tax breaks the past few years. They spent it all and much more not on enhancing their businesses or to benefit employees, but repurchasing their own shares at inflated prices - to further enrich their management. If employers are pressed and can't operate because of lack of employees, then raise the wages to get employees to return. Match what the employee is getting by not working. If you are unable to, then that's the employer's problem, not the employee who the employer laid off as it was convenient and has not been paying. If you have to raise prices 30% to 50% to do it, then go ahead - if it's a competitive price for the product/service, then consumers will pay it. If consumers won't pay it, then that's the employers problem - you cannot force folks to work for an uncompetitive wage. You have millions of unemployed workers today, surely you should be able to find some willing to work for the wages being offered. You say the prior employees know the business and had specific skills? Then pay them appropriately.
Not debating any further. We have differing views and neither will convince the other of their view.