Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2008, 04:25 AM
 
90 posts, read 331,595 times
Reputation: 75

Advertisements

There is talk at my company that they are going to cut our merit increases in 2009. They may also do cross the board pay cuts for most workers also. This would be instead of layoffs.

The thought is that in today's economy, they can either:

Cut everyone's pay by 10% or lay 10-20% of us off. If there is layoffs everyone suffers because we have to do the work of the people who were laid off. If there is pay-cuts then we keep most of the workers because there is so few jobs to run to anyway and productivity stays the same after a few weeks of complaints.

For the sake of discussion, you are in charge and we have to cut payroll expenses 20% but the workload stays the same. What should be done:

Layoffs
Forced unpaid time off
Pay Cuts

or a forth option?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2008, 05:50 AM
 
28,453 posts, read 85,413,242 times
Reputation: 18729
Layoffs -- if there are paycuts the net effect on productivity is greater AND people end up leaving anyway.

Time off without pay is not a bad option, but generally does not result in great enough savings (all benefits are intact), and if the firm actualy has clients to service the real number of people that can stay home is pretty low.

If there truly are too few jobs to run it is silly to have pay cuts, because people would still be getting paid for not doing something productive...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2008, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles Area
3,306 posts, read 4,157,230 times
Reputation: 592
Given that inflation is now effectively below zero not getting a raise is not a big deal. "Merit increases" are usually just keeping your wage up with inflation, its just a bunch of smoke and mirrors though. Getting a pay increase each year makes people feel good even if in real terms their pay is identical to last years pay.

Regardless, usually a company has a certain number of loafers and waste they can cut if they really start to analysis matters. So lay offs usually make more sense. But cutting at least future increases and bonuses of employees you want to keep can be effective too.

When the media starts talking about bad times it gives companies an excuse to cut waste, just as last year and the first half of this year companies will all increasing their prices because everyone was talking about inflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2008, 06:52 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,805,597 times
Reputation: 24863
I suggest cutting pay 20% by going to a 3 or 4 day work week. If you go to a 3.5/12 day/hr week you can run 24/7 with four shifts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2008, 07:04 AM
 
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
6,588 posts, read 17,555,130 times
Reputation: 9463
If I were at a company that cut my pay or my hours, I'd look for another job. I have no loyalty to any company, because it has been proven time and time again that companies aren't loyal to their employees. I believe nothing that the corporate hotshots say, either; I guess I consider myself an "informed skeptic".

I've been through several layoffs in my careers, three of which were at the same company. Whenever I kept my job, it's only because I had skills and knowledge better than the people I was competing against for a remaining position. The one time I got laid off, I was one of the last people out of 500! I've always told my kids to learn as much at a job as possible, because the more you know and the better your skills are, the more likely they are to keep you if there's a downturn in business.

To answer the question, I'd probably lay people off. I can always rehire if things get better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2008, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles Area
3,306 posts, read 4,157,230 times
Reputation: 592
This isn't a normal job market, many people are fearful of getting laid off and not being able to find another job. Employers can (and will) exploit this fear.

Now, you could make the argument that once the market gets better they will remember what the company did and bail on them, but then again they may remain loyal because the company kept them on despite the recession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2008, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
17,029 posts, read 30,935,082 times
Reputation: 16265
I would take the pay cut then start looking for a new job. I think having some money coming in is better than nothing, plus there are health benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2008, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,805,597 times
Reputation: 24863
Take the cut in pay and hours. Keeping the health care and pension qualifications is more important than the loss of immediate income.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2008, 10:04 AM
Rei
 
Location: Los Angeles
494 posts, read 1,761,572 times
Reputation: 240
Definitely pay cut. This economy is too uncertain...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2008, 10:49 AM
 
4,183 posts, read 6,526,043 times
Reputation: 1734
During the 2000 to 2001 recession, we have not had to lay off anyone. In fact, we were scrambling to hire more people to man our practice. Same thing happening this time around. The caveat is I'm in the health care industry. We've interviewed several candidates for internal medicine, general surgery, orthopedics, ophthalmology, and ENT and we can't find anyone to fill these positions. This is getting absurd. We offered one internist $170K base salary with $30K signing bonus, paid relocation, and other perks, and this person is still hemming and hawing with indecision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top