[Go BLUE!]

Real life sceniro. My good friend was called into a meeting at work along with ever body in the company that was a manager or above. They were told due to a host of reasons one of two things was going to have to happen. The 300 or so of them were going to take a 10% cut, or 40 of them were going to lose their jobs....and then the CEO took a vote. SOOOO....how would you vote (I'll post the actual results later)

This post has been edited by Go BLUE!: 19 May 2012 - 08:39 AM

[All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah]

I would vote pay cut. The possibility of taking a cut like that or being unemployed, a cut wins. Then if I wasn't happy with my salary I would seek another company to work for....

[Mr.Dis]

But I thought the economy was getting better. Unemployment was going down and consumer confidence was going up. BTW GB those comments were not aimed at you. Sorry to hear that this is happening.

[hotwheels]

I would vote for the cut in pay, jobs are too hard to come by right now. A no brainer for me.

[mojo413]

Mr.Dis, on 19 May 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

But I thought the economy was getting better. Unemployment was going down and consumer confidence was going up. BTW GB those comments were not aimed at you. Sorry to hear that this is happening.

Unemployment is going down. These numbers do not include those who have used up all benefits and now given up or those who have taken a job at much less pay and with less or no benefits. I personally know people who were employed 3 to 4 years ago, now are employed at 30 to 40 % of what they were making and now have no benefits.

On Consumer Confidence... Look at the market this market this month... It's spiraling downward.

[lowrider]

Take the pay cut and keep everyone in a job.

[Lucky64]

Pay cut!

[The Postman]

I think the people who vote for 40 to lose their jobs should be one of the 40!

It's like the story of the King trying to decide which woman gets the baby. When the King said the baby would be cut in half one of the women said give the whole baby to the other woman. The King than gave the baby to the woman whop didn't want the baby cut in half.

[Mr. October]

This exact scenario played out at the company I work for. We took the 10% cut. 3 weeks later 10 people lost their jobs. We got played.

[gog8tors]

The Postman, on 19 May 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

I think the people who vote for 40 to lose their jobs should be one of the 40!

It's like the story of the King trying to decide which woman gets the baby. When the King said the baby would be cut in half one of the women said give the whole baby to the other woman. The King than gave the baby to the woman whop didn't want the baby cut in half.

King Salomon was deciding a case of kidnapping.

The one woman had a child that was still born, while the other had a baby that was born alive. The woman with the still born child stole the other woman's child.

The case was brought before Salomon, Who decided that the true mother would do anything to save her child. Thus the decision to cut the child in half. The true mother told the king "don't harm the child, give him to her." There by proving that she was the true mother, the love a mother has for her child.


To the OP: Many very large companies have already been to this point. I am truly sorry that your friend is having to do this.

This post has been edited by gog8tors: 19 May 2012 - 10:05 AM

[The Postman]

gog8tors, on 19 May 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

King Salomon was deciding a case of kidnapping.

The one woman had a child that was still born, while the other had a baby that was born alive. The woman with the still born child stole the other woman's child.

The case was brought before Salomon, Who decided that the true mother would do anything to save her child. Thus the decision to cut the child in half. The true mother told the king "don't harm the child, give him to her." There by proving that she was the true mother, the love a mother has for her child.


To the OP: Many very large companies have already been to this point. I am truly sorry that your friend is having to do this.

Thanks gog!

I remembered the story, but the details were vague to me. I appreciate your help.

This post has been edited by The Postman: 19 May 2012 - 10:12 AM

[dallasbrowneyes]

I voted for pay cut... A pay cut is bad but It would be really bad for someone to lose their job

[justme2]

i would need a lot more info before i could answer this honestly.

is a ten percent pay cut enough to keep the company afloat?
if they cut the workforce by 13%, therefor also cutting productivity, can the company stay afloat?......is this going to be due to less production(resulting in less revenue creating this same scenario all over again down the road), or increased workload on the remaining employees?
what is the market like in my profession? can i change my source of income easily, either by going to work for someone else or becoming self employed?
can the others laid off change their source of income?


i think i would get the resume ready, and start seeing what other opportunities are out there, regardless of what the vote was

[Go BLUE!]

justme2, on 19 May 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

i would need a lot more info before i could answer this honestly.

is a ten percent pay cut enough to keep the company afloat?
if they cut the workforce by 13%, therefor also cutting productivity, can the company stay afloat?......is this going to be due to less production(resulting in less revenue creating this same scenario all over again down the road), or increased workload on the remaining employees?
what is the market like in my profession? can i change my source of income easily, either by going to work for someone else or becoming self employed?
can the others laid off change their source of income?


i think i would get the resume ready, and start seeing what other opportunities are out there, regardless of what the vote was

My understanding was they presented the facts in about 5 minutes and then took the vote. No time to even call the wife.
They voted for the pay cut, this was about 6 months ago and as of now no one has lost there job but obviously folks are on edge. Personally I found it to be a chicken sheeze move by managers. They didn't have the balls to make the call so they handed the employees the razor and said you can either cut your wrist or your throat...but don't blame us because we didn't cut you ourselves.

[ree]

Start looking for another job now before everyone is let go. The company must be in trouble, so no one is safe.

This post has been edited by ree: 19 May 2012 - 11:05 AM

[The Postman]

Go BLUE!, on 19 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

My understanding was they presented the facts in about 5 minutes and then took the vote. No time to even call the wife.
They voted for the pay cut, this was about 6 months ago and as of now no one has lost there job but obviously folks are on edge. Personally I found it to be a chicken sheeze move by managers. They didn't have the balls to make the call so they handed the employees the razor and said you can either cut your wrist or your throat...but don't blame us because we didn't cut you ourselves.

I think the employees voted right, but they should also be looking for another job if the 10% cut is causing them difficulty they can't handle. Also, cutting their cost at home will help. I like the idea of biking to work when it's possible, a mo-pad for longer distances, or a small car that gets about 35 MPG. Go back to what people did in the great depression, turn off the air-conditioner, the gas, and catch rain water to water the garden. Walk around in dim light at night, and certainly watch less TV.

[SusieQ404]

Been there done that a few years back with an IT company. We all took a pay cut as well as two days per month leave without pay. They still had a massive layoff. Actually, if I remember correctly there were two layoffs about a year apart.

[dana]

paycut, no hesitation or need to think about it. no brainer for me.

[Mr.Dis]

mojo413, on 19 May 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

Unemployment is going down. These numbers do not include those who have used up all benefits and now given up or those who have taken a job at much less pay and with less or no benefits. I personally know people who were employed 3 to 4 years ago, now are employed at 30 to 40 % of what they were making and now have no benefits.

On Consumer Confidence... Look at the market this market this month... It's spiraling downward.

sorry... you missed the sarcasm emoticon.

[mrnn]

I guess I'm the lone guy to choose layoffs.

I work in telecomm and the last decade has been littered with cuts and more cuts followed by more cuts. Layoffs really don't phase me too much anymore. The main reason they don't phase me is because I've found that after watching probably 2 dozen rounds of layoffs take place, management typically does a pretty damn good job of using the opportunity to get rid of the weakest performers and dead weight. It is unfair to expect your best employees to sustain a 10% pay cut so that the folks whose slack they're picking up on a daily basis can keep their job. Not to mention, if you're looking at this from a management perspective, by cutting pay and creating an unstable work environment, your strongest performers are also the most likely to take their skills elsewhere.

Can the 40 people and give them a fair severance...allow the business to operate more efficiently and create a sort of "survivors' camaraderie" with the remaining employees which creates a stronger team.


mrnn

[Georgia Dawg]

Obama would rather have everyone take the paycut. That way it doesn't show up in the unemployment numbers and they can continue the lies that everyone who has a job is getting paid what they're worth.

[The Postman]

A member of the local Rotary Club stood yesterday to ask former Mass Gov. Mitt Rommey ® a question weighing on the minds of millions of jobless Americans: At a time when corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, why are Americans who can least afford it being asked to shoulder the burden of trillions of dollars in potential budget cuts?

Hate Your Boss?: Romney: Jobless Americans Have To Bear ...


But Romney dodged the question, ignoring the plight of the poor and unemployed, and instead launched into a speech about how American jobs were being outsourced to developing countries with cheap miniscule tax rates because the U.S. had made itself unattractive to major corporations. Instead of sticking up for Americans who are facing cuts to the safety net programs they desperately need, Romney took the opportunity to proclaim that America's problems could be fixed if it gave corporations yet another tax cut:

Questioner: We obviously need cuts to the budget... but many of the recipients of those programs are Americans whose jobs have gone places where labor is cheap. For corporate profits remain high and in some cases higher than ever. Is it fair to ask those Americans to shoulder reductions in favor of Businesses and corporations who have sent those jobs overseas?

ROMNEY: We need to make ourselves the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs and poineers and businesses, jult like it was when the Founders created the country. How do you do that? One, you make sure our employer tax rates aren't the highest in the world. Right now they're tied with Japan as the highest in the world, They're about 10 points higher than the corporate tax rates in many of the countries in Europe.

Not only did Romney seemingly ignore the concerns raised by the question, his answer perpetuated the false idea that American corporations are subject to the highest tax rate in the world. In reality, those corporations pay an effective rate that is among the LOWEST in the industrialized world. Some of the nation's largest businesses, in fact, had effective tax rates that were actually NEGATIVE.

Meanwhile, the GOP continues to support cutting funding from programs that help the jobless and the poor. But for Romney, that's easily justifiable: corporations, already earning record profits, need a tax break to go along.

This post has been edited by The Postman: 19 May 2012 - 04:07 PM

[Go BLUE!]

Georgia Dawg, on 19 May 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Obama would rather have everyone take the paycut. That way it doesn't show up in the unemployment numbers and they can continue the lies that everyone who has a job is getting paid what they're worth.

We almost got through a topic without some of the same old same old anti-Obama bullcheeze. Congrats for not allowing that to happen.

mrnn, on 19 May 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I guess I'm the lone guy to choose layoffs.

I work in telecomm and the last decade has been littered with cuts and more cuts followed by more cuts. Layoffs really don't phase me too much anymore. The main reason they don't phase me is because I've found that after watching probably 2 dozen rounds of layoffs take place, management typically does a pretty damn good job of using the opportunity to get rid of the weakest performers and dead weight. It is unfair to expect your best employees to sustain a 10% pay cut so that the folks whose slack they're picking up on a daily basis can keep their job. Not to mention, if you're looking at this from a management perspective, by cutting pay and creating an unstable work environment, your strongest performers are also the most likely to take their skills elsewhere.

Can the 40 people and give them a fair severance...allow the business to operate more efficiently and create a sort of "survivors' camaraderie" with the remaining employees which creates a stronger team.


mrnn

I can see that side of it. I think part of the fear is while jobs are improving elsewhere in the US Detroit is still seeing mass lay offs through out most job fields.

[CarolineElizabeth]

Go BLUE!, on 21 May 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

We almost got through a topic without some of the same old same old anti-Obama bullcheeze. Congrats for not allowing that to happen.



I can see that side of it. I think part of the fear is while jobs are improving elsewhere in the US Detroit is still seeing mass lay offs through out most job fields.

I am so dreading elections and having fb.

[CarolineElizabeth]

mrnn, on 19 May 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I guess I'm the lone guy to choose layoffs.

I work in telecomm and the last decade has been littered with cuts and more cuts followed by more cuts. Layoffs really don't phase me too much anymore. The main reason they don't phase me is because I've found that after watching probably 2 dozen rounds of layoffs take place, management typically does a pretty damn good job of using the opportunity to get rid of the weakest performers and dead weight. It is unfair to expect your best employees to sustain a 10% pay cut so that the folks whose slack they're picking up on a daily basis can keep their job. Not to mention, if you're looking at this from a management perspective, by cutting pay and creating an unstable work environment, your strongest performers are also the most likely to take their skills elsewhere.

Can the 40 people and give them a fair severance...allow the business to operate more efficiently and create a sort of "survivors' camaraderie" with the remaining employees which creates a stronger team.


mrnn

I must say I agree with you. 10% is a lot to give up if you have adjusted your life around it. Not that I do not care about the 40 people, but you make what you have earned.

I am not sure everyone here could really even afford to give that up. I am sure most would say give up the 10%, but with so many people who I am sure live paycheck to paycheck. Could you really give that up?

This post has been edited by CarolineElizabeth: 21 May 2012 - 11:28 AM

[All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah]

CarolineElizabeth, on 21 May 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

I must say I agree with you. 10% is a lot to give up if you have adjusted your life around it. Not that I do not care about the 40 people, but you make what you have earned.

I am not sure everyone here could really even afford to give that up. I am sure most would say give up the 10%, but with so many people who I am sure live paycheck to paycheck. Could you really give that up?

Could you afford to take the risk of a 100% pay cut? Some people may feel very confident they are safe because they are valuable but what if the 40 i the cut was your entire department that has been outsourced? Cuts don't necessarily mean the weaker performing folks are leaving.

I prefer to take the cut and make due until I can find something else, my family rely's on me not to take that big of a chance when a less potentially catastrophic option is available.

[CarolineElizabeth]

All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah, on 21 May 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Could you afford to take the risk of a 100% pay cut? Some people may feel very confident they are safe because they are valuable but what if the 40 i the cut was your entire department that has been outsourced? Cuts don't necessarily mean the weaker performing folks are leaving.

I prefer to take the cut and make due until I can find something else, my family rely's on me not to take that big of a chance when a less potentially catastrophic option is available.

Yeah, It is a tough one. I am not just saying for me. I was just curious if everyone who says yes on cut could they really afford it. IDK if everyone could.

[All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah]

CarolineElizabeth, on 21 May 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Yeah, It is a tough one. I am not just saying for me. I was just curious if everyone who says yes on cut could they really afford it. IDK if everyone could.

I agree... Some people are already one income familys not by choice, another 10% off would push them over the edge. A good bit of our county employees are experiencing that push with all these furloughs.

[mei lan]

Go BLUE!, on 19 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

My understanding was they presented the facts in about 5 minutes and then took the vote. No time to even call the wife.
They voted for the pay cut, this was about 6 months ago and as of now no one has lost there job but obviously folks are on edge. Personally I found it to be a chicken sheeze move by managers. They didn't have the balls to make the call so they handed the employees the razor and said you can either cut your wrist or your throat...but don't blame us because we didn't cut you ourselves.

My thoughts EXACTLY. What a chicken-you-know-what thing to do. And they dare call themselves business leaders? I'd have voted for the pay cut, because it's just not in me to help lay off 40 people, but I'd have my resume going out the door six ways to Sunday and be out of there ASAP. What a bunch of losers.

[gog8tors]

CarolineElizabeth, on 21 May 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

I am so dreading elections and having fb.

I just use the hide option. You can hide whatever post there might be.
Thank goodness most of my friends like to keep their FB a political free zone.

All I Hear is Blah Blah Blah, on 21 May 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Could you afford to take the risk of a 100% pay cut? Some people may feel very confident they are safe because they are valuable but what if the 40 i the cut was your entire department that has been outsourced? Cuts don't necessarily mean the weaker performing folks are leaving.

I prefer to take the cut and make due until I can find something else, my family rely's on me not to take that big of a chance when a less potentially catastrophic option is available.

I agree. But, it could be a little less money is better then no money.

[Jet_man1969]

Delta Management told their pilots the same things a few years ago only to find out that Management was taking multi million dollar bonuses at the exact same time. Never give back wages because you will never get them back!

[sugail]

CarolineElizabeth, on 21 May 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

I am so dreading elections and having fb.

Yes, I have already had to hide a lot of comments that I think are very distasteful.

[mrnn]

sugail, on 21 May 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Yes, I have already had to hide a lot of comments that I think are very distasteful.

I have several people I want to block entirely because of their insane political FB posts. Oddly enough, 95% of all political posts on my FB, and 100% of the false/derogative/annoying type, are from Obama-haters. I really don't want to block them because they're, for the most part, people I consider friends but enough is enough.


mrnn

[CreativeOne]

CarolineElizabeth, on 21 May 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

I am so dreading elections and having fb.

^ just one more reason why I do.not.do.facebook

[mei lan]

CreativeOne, on 21 May 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

^ just one more reason why I do.not.do.facebook

TWINS (as we know). I'm trying to simplify my life, and that just does not fit. Also - y'all know that I'm ultra psycho pretty darn conservative, but ridiculous provocative crap (esp. unsubstantiated) just gets on my last nerve no matter which side it's coming from.

[sugail]

mrnn, on 21 May 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

I have several people I want to block entirely because of their insane political FB posts. Oddly enough, 95% of all political posts on my FB, and 100% of the false/derogative/annoying type, are from Obama-haters. I really don't want to block them because they're, for the most part, people I consider friends but enough is enough.


mrnn

Same here.

[Nitro]

CarolineElizabeth, on 21 May 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

I am not sure everyone here could really even afford to give that up. I am sure most would say give up the 10%, but with so many people who I am sure live paycheck to paycheck. Could you really give that up?

The thing that I see a LOT more often than not is...

People will say they can't afford to take the pay cut.
BUT, in reality, they aren't willing to sacrifice and do what's necessary to continue surviving.

I hear people all the time say that they have no money.
Yet, every other night they go out to eat.
On Friday nights, they are going to see a movie.
They are posting pictures on Facebook of the party they are having with friends.
They are driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage.
They have $100+ a month cable/satellite/internet bills.
They have smart phones with large data and voice plans.

Granted, there are *some* people who truly couldn't afford any more deductions.
However, I believe a large majority of the people who say that really mean, "I can't take that pay cut and maintain my comfort level."
One problem with a large majority of people in this country is they really don't know what it's like to have to bust their ass to survive.
They aren't willing to give up the luxuries for necessities.
People inherently think they are worth more than they are (job wise).
Until people get back to the ideology that we had in the 40's and 50's, where people would do
whatever it takes (legally) to ensure their family's survival, and to do without for things that aren't necessities,
nothing is going to change, during times like these.

This post has been edited by Nitro: 21 May 2012 - 10:53 PM

[gog8tors]

Nitro, on 21 May 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

The thing that I see a LOT more often than not is...

People will say they can't afford to take the pay cut.
BUT, in reality, they aren't willing to sacrifice and do what's necessary to continue surviving.

I hear people all the time say that they have no money.
Yet, every other night they go out to eat.
On Friday nights, they are going to see a movie.
They are posting pictures on Facebook of the party they are having with friends.
They are driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage.
They have $100+ a month cable/satellite/internet bills.
They have smart phones with large data and voice plans.

Granted, there are *some* people who truly couldn't afford any more deductions.
However, I believe a large majority of the people who say that really mean, "I can't take that pay cut and maintain my comfort level."
One problem with a large majority of people in this country is they really don't know what it's like to have to bust their ass to survive.
They aren't willing to give up the luxuries for necessities.
People inherently think they are worth more than they are (job wise).
Until people get back to the ideology that we had in the 40's and 50's, where people would do
whatever it takes (legally) to ensure their family's survival, and to do without for things that aren't necessities,
nothing is going to change, during times like these.

You are exactly right.

[Go BLUE!]

Nitro, on 21 May 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

The thing that I see a LOT more often than not is...

People will say they can't afford to take the pay cut.
BUT, in reality, they aren't willing to sacrifice and do what's necessary to continue surviving.

I hear people all the time say that they have no money.
Yet, every other night they go out to eat.
On Friday nights, they are going to see a movie.
They are posting pictures on Facebook of the party they are having with friends.
They are driving a vehicle that gets poor gas mileage.
They have $100+ a month cable/satellite/internet bills.
They have smart phones with large data and voice plans.

Granted, there are *some* people who truly couldn't afford any more deductions.
However, I believe a large majority of the people who say that really mean, "I can't take that pay cut and maintain my comfort level."
One problem with a large majority of people in this country is they really don't know what it's like to have to bust their ass to survive.
They aren't willing to give up the luxuries for necessities.
People inherently think they are worth more than they are (job wise).
Until people get back to the ideology that we had in the 40's and 50's, where people would do
whatever it takes (legally) to ensure their family's survival, and to do without for things that aren't necessities,
nothing is going to change, during times like these.

Unfortunatlly some of what you mentioned was most likely purchased when they COULD afford it and now they are under contract for years.

[Nitro]

Go BLUE!, on 22 May 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Unfortunatlly some of what you mentioned was most likely purchased when they COULD afford it and now they are under contract for years.

Ok, first, what I am about to say will piss off a lot of people, but the fact is, it's the truth.

I realize that sometimes circumstances present themselves and it makes it REAL hard for people.

However, if you (not meaning you specifically) enter in to a contract, you should have the means to support
that contract through-out its life. It all boils down to personal responsibility.

If you sign a contract for 2 years for a cell phone, you should have the early termination fee,
sitting in the bank, if you need it. If you can afford $60 a month for a cell phone,
you will not convince me that you can't find away to put $200 away for an emergency that might arise.

Some people will say that I'm wrong and that they are living right at their means and there is no way
they could put that $200 away... My answer to that is... you don't NEED a cell phone that bad, then.
We did without cell phones for hundreds of years. It's NOT a necessity.

If you get a satellite dish for TV and can't afford to pay for an early disconnect,
then you shouldn't have that satellite.

Like I said, it's all about personal responsibility. Many people don't budget their money and don't
manage it well... You HAVE to plan for things that you aren't expecting.
You buy home owners insurance for unexpected things. It's the same principle.
You set that $200 disconnect fee aside and that is your 'insurance.'
But you have to have the discipline to do it AND you have to have your priorities straight
with your lifestyle to be able to survive when it gets rough. More people than not simply do not
plan for the 'rainy day' anymore.