Preference: Layoff risk or Certain Paycut?

[Scanner]

They are running a bunch of contigency scenarios where my wife works and she already expressed her opinion on which she would vote for - I am wondering what the majority think.

[sweeps]

I voted for chance of a layoff, but I think this is a loaded question. When you say "aimed at superfluous jobs" I think people will assume other people's jobs. ("Well, my job isn't superfluous so I'll be safe.")

I think it would be more fair to say "A 10% chance of you getting laid off".

[disneysteve]

Interesting question, but I don't think there is nearly enough info to pick an answer. What qualifies as a superfluous job is going to vary from place to place. At my office, there are 2 physicians. I work full time. The other works part time. If they get rid of me, there wouldn't be enough income to keep the place open, so I don't consider myself to be superfluous. On the other hand, my wife works in an office with multiple employees whose duties overlap. My wife doesn't do anything that is unique to her. Everyone else there is able to perform the job duties that she currently performs. They could cut her job and not really miss her.

Since I am the primary income earner in the house, I would probably be willing to take a pay cut, at least temporarily, in order to keep my job, but I'd probably start looking for another job at the same time. As for my wife, she'd probably take the layoff risk. We don't depend on her income. If she got laid off, it wouldn't be a big deal. If I got laid off, it would be a huge deal.

[Hot dog]

I vote for a pay decrease. We had to take two furlough days and I'd rather do that than people lose their jobs. I wouldn't want it to happen to me so the same goes for someone else. I would like to see them offer early retirement to get people to leave on their own accord.

[Caoineag]

My husband's work has done both. Dozens of layoffs and a couple of bonus "restructures" and now additional mandatory cuts to their hours.

[tripods68]

We received mandatory furlough (from the Governator) equivalent to a 10% pay reduction pay OVER pink slip.

[boosami]

Sorry, but doesn't someone doing "superfluous" work deserve to be cut? By definition that person's job is excessive. I think it's just bad wording, though

I think the 10% chance of layoffs is throwing this thing off. Choose a definite paycut versus a 1 in 10 chance of employee loss? At those odds, it's plain silly not to take that chance.

I think this poll should be putting 20% pay cut against 100% chance for layoffs (or a 10% chance you get laid off, as someone else suggested). That's a more realistic situation, and mirrors what's going on in numerous industries during this recession.

All you folks who got cut down from 40 hours a week to 32... That's a 20% pay cut across the board for you and your coworkers. The company probably had to decide if they wanted to do that or fire X number of employees. It's better for the company and the economy to keep as many folks employed as possible.

[simpletron]

10% chance of layoff is the better longer term move, but you need to be prepare for short term complete lost of income by have an EF.

20% pay cut is going to hurt your long term income potential because more than likely when things return to normal, pay raises will be based off of the lower income. thus on a yearly basis your income will always be less than if you were lay off and rehire somewhere else for your original salary.

so I voted for the 10% chance of layoff because I have an EF and tend to think long term.

[Goldy1]

There are too many variables, but I suppose one could take the paycut, and look for new work if not satisfied. If the layoff implied collecting only unemployment benefits(which are very low) I would have to weigh the option based on what percent of my income they were and what the job prospects are and from what I can see they get dimmer each week.
At least she has the option

[jIM_Ohio]

Keep the job (guarantee the income) and start looking for another job.

Avoid jop loss- it looks bad on a resume.

[MonkeyMama]

So are you saying the 20% pay cut comes with no risk of layoff?

I assume you mean in this economy?

20% is the no brainer. But I was never much of a gambler.

I say that as a sole breadwinner, BUT my husband was able to extend his last job (pure gravy second income) for 18 months with a 20% pay cut. I am thankful to this day that his company did not sacrifice any jobs.

That's $60k in our pocket we wouldn't have today. But that was 2001 when jobs were very scarce in California.

So as a sole breadwinner or a pure gravy breadwinner, my answer is pretty much the same.

[Goldy1]

Of course, gaps in employment look bad on a resume, but I sure hope they look down apon it less now in this economy.

[fruitbowlk]

I'll take the paycut. I can always get overtime.

[Cylenchar]

Let's see, I've taken a ~66% bonus reduction, 12.5% pay reduction(hours cut), and still think I have a 20% chance of being laid off at the end of March....

[Cylenchar]

okay, I should specify ~66% reduction in potential bonus aka, the most I am likely to earn is reduced by 2/3.

[TBH]

I would be more likely to take the pay cut if my hours were cut also. I don't mind working less for less pay cause then I could get other work (hopefully) to fill in the gaps. But I would be very sorry to get paid less for the same amount of work.

However, I wouldn't want to see my coworkers laid off, even if they were supposedly superfluous. So I voted for the pay cut.

[Cylenchar]

I wouldn't mind the hours cut if they let us arrange it in a useful way, ex: work 2 hours more over the first 4 days and take the 5th off, but they have given us specific hours, and have required that we take at least an hour lunch, so you can't even leave 30 minutes earlier.

[Snave]

I took the chance at a layoff. I feel confident with my employer that if there was any subjective measure at all that I would not lose my job. I was just asked to go through an upper management leadership course by our Area Dorector and VP. As well, the team I lead (sales) is currently the top producing team in the country (we were in the top 10% in 2007 as well). While I know there is always a possibility, I feel as good as I could now. They cut a lot a few years ago and are pretty lean now.

[aurielle]

Where I work our hours have already been cut by 2 days a month through March for sure, and most likely through the rest of the year. They said the more days off without pay that we agree to, the less number of layoffs will happen although they will not guarantee NO layoffs. (union job, everything is still being negotiated) This is a small town in a rural area and there are just no jobs anywhere around here right now. I don't see the people who get laid off as finding a new job easily or quickly at all so I would much rather take the cut in hours and have as few people laid off as possible. We are all in this together and a lot of co-workers feel the same way.

DH's job still seems to be safe for now (knock on wood) although that could change as we get further into the year. I just keep putting as much money as I can away into the EF.

[Scanner]

I guess I put the "superfluous" in there on purpose (and it worked). You see - when there is a layoff, from an employers standpoint, you have to cut out what you think is superfluous.

Of course, everyone would probably think, "They can't live without me." but really, is that true?

For instance, at my wife's work, a hospital system, you would think the practiticioners (nurses, techs) may be more immune than administration. But no, most of the time, they'll just double up work on the nurses and/or techs. Not that administration is immune either - no one is. If they trim back nurses and techs too far, then they risk accreditation sanctions.

So, from an employer standpoint, it's a balancing act.

I put superfluous in there to make you think before you vote.

It's interesting that it is about 50/50. . .I thought more would take the safe approach and just take the pay cut.