Poll: 10% Salary Cut OR 10% Workforce Cut

flash harry

okay just a thought as I hear everybody clambering to say they dont want a pay cut - would you prefer a 10% pay cut and EVERYBODY keeps their job in your company OR the company lay off 10% of the workforce, where for argument sake it would be totally random selection (i.e. you have a 1 in 10 chance of being jobless)???

DanGlee

10% pay cut any day.

Unfortunately the companies want to reap the benefits ASAP hence they cut 10% and see the rewards quicker!

Its strange how you don't hear of any companies offering pay cuts, its all redundancies!

piby

I would like to think I believe everybody take a 10% pay cut but I'm not in the workforce yet (still in college) so in all honestly I don't know how'd I react. If a 10% pay cut was going to significantly hinder my ability to pay a mortgage, pay for a child's education etc. then maybe I'd take my chances.

mikemac

We had this in our job, well similar anyway.
A set number of people out of 30 were being let go. But if everyone agreed to take a paycut, two of the jobs would be saved.
So it was kinda take a 5% cut to save 2 people out of 30

Everyone voted against a pay cut and the two people were let go. Hey, that’s my story anyway but I liked my odds of staying so I voted not to take a cut.
If I was a new hire it'd be different

flash harry

sorry people I thought you'd be able to see the results after you vote as dont want that to influence decisions - I'll update people from time to time BUT maybe dont post what you'd do so we get a TRUE reflection of peoples thoughts........

Tar.Aldarion

At least with a 10% paycut you could look for another job on the lower wage instead of having no job, if you were unhappy on that wage.

AARRRGH

10% of the workforce - it's an opportunity to get rid of the lazy incompetents.

I know that's harsh, but if you're not willing to work hard or can't do your job, you should do the suffering rather than force everyone to take a pay cut.

Btw, I would take a pay cut to keep my job.

EDIT: Apologies, I missed the bit about it being totally random.

Tar.Aldarion

I doubt the 10% would be the worst workers.

AARRRGH

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I doubt the 10% would be the worst workers.

That's possible alright.

Does anyone know if they have to legally do some sort of last in/first out policy, or can they pick and choose who gets made redundant?

If it was to be totally random, I'd take the pay cut.

flash harry

thats my point, if it was random (unfair) what would people do.

And by the way I doubt many people would think "I'm in the lowest producing 10% in my company"

AARRRGH

flash harry wrote: »

And by the way I doubt many people would think "I'm in the lowest producing 10% in my company"

Oh I agree, they probably think they're great (or, at least, appear great), but everyone else can see they're useless.

PeakOutput

unions tend to fight the stupid battles in my experience

someone said they dont know why companies dont offer pay cuts

mine did about a year and a half 2 years ago the unions said they would bring the company to its knees if the company did this the company warned that not doing it would result in more job loss's. the unions wouldnt back down.

people lost their jobs :rolleyes: it wasnt a huge number of jobs and some were voluntary but it goes a long way to demonstrate the idiocy of some unions

also as far as i know the companies can make redundant who they want if they are mandatory redundancies so it woul be an opportunity to trim the fat. if its voluntary redundancy then they can only choose formthe people who volunteer obviously

samhail

you work hard and well for your self, not so everyone can have jobs. if everyone worked hard then there might not be a need to pose that kind of question.

the_syco

10% reduction of workforce.

10% reduction of pay means lots of people leaving, and the company possibly going under due to the people leaving being those that work the hardest, feel they're undervalued, and go to somewhere they are valued.

Also, 10% off €20,000 equals €18,000 a year, or €166 less per week (before tax). That will have a knock on effect on savings. To stop this from happening, people would cut back elsewhere, stop going to certain places of entertainment, which in turn ensures that the other jobs are effected, and goes free-fall.

You don't have that extra €8.30 a day, you don't buy a newspaper (€1), coffee (€0.80), and a muffin (€1.50).

300 people don't buy a newspaper, and a coffee when they get off the train. If the newspaper got (pulling these figures out of my hat) 5 cents from a paper, and 50 cents per cup of coffee. That's €45 loss per day profit. Add the loss of the fags, a muffin and maybe a packet of crisps, and the newsagents.

So the employer cuts hours on people. And they get less money. They're already getting f**k all money due to the 10% cut, so they decide to go somewhere else. Newsagent closes.

flash harry

I'm implying the 10% redundancy achieves a similar spending power and same net effect on economy

Xiney

I'd take the 10% workforce cut if they were going to cut the lazy slackers.

Most managers don't know who the lazy slackers are, though, and think everyone's great. Or else they think if the slackers have more work to do they'll just do it, which might be the case I suppose.

Serafijn

There's no legal requirement about who to make redundant, but the criteria must not in any way discriminate on any of the 9 grounds.

Some comapnies are making their staff re-interview for their jobs and using this as a factor, others might use performance. The last-in-first-out approach is just the traditional way to do it, and is also 'safer' as there's no denying what date someone started with the company.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Why are the results hidden??? What is the point in that?

Anyway, pay cut. It's only fair. You wouldn't hear that in the Dail, greedy bastards.

flash harry

originally didnt want votes visible until people had cast their vote so as not to sway opinion - how do i change anyone?

what2do

If you take the 10% pay cut, then they discover more cuts have to be made (as frequently happens) staff are then made redundant. Then the employees still there work harder for less money Its one of those no win situations!

Firetrap

Xiney wrote: »

I'd take the 10% workforce cut if they were going to cut the lazy slackers.

Most managers don't know who the lazy slackers are, though, and think everyone's great. Or else they think if the slackers have more work to do they'll just do it, which might be the case I suppose.

Unfortunately, it's not too easy to get rid of slackers.

Back on topic - I think salary cut is the best option. With the jobs market the way it is out there, it's not as easy to get a job as it once was. It's better to stay working, albeit at a reduced wage. You can always look for another job with more money if you can't/won't work for 10% less. It's also better for the country to have people working, not having to go on the dole and getting medical cards/different benefits/spending less money in shops and on services.

the_syco

Most slackers know how to keep their job. They also know how they can not be sacked. "I'm a traveller" is hard to disprove.

flash harry

FYI its exactly 65% WOULD TAKE PAY CUT, 35% STAFF CUTS AS IT STANDS

Serafijn

What about reduced hours? Then at least you'd have say 1 day a week to do something else to make up for the drop in salary (or have a day off )

doolox

Pay cut if the job was enjoyable and there was an aggressive improvement plan in place over 5-10 years to recover the company with a no-bull**** managment team not looking out for themselves with fancy company cars etc.
I won't subsidise someone elses Jag or Beamer while my kids go hungry.

Redundancy if it was a purgatorial job with no prospects, combative management/fellow workers and give me the redundancy package.

It has been my experience that a company offers better packages at the start of a downturn than at the end. If you have accrued a big package by years of service and are looking for a change of direction anyway take the money and run.

Everyone should be reviewing their progress, control and happiness in their work situation at all times but unfortunately most drift through the process and have to be pushed..........