Preference: Layoff risk or Certain Paycut?

[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.

[maat55]

I think it makes a difference whether you are in a union shop or not. In some union shops, the layoff is welcome, in others, the paycuts would be appropriate.

I would rather be in a non-union shop and take my chances as a more desirable worker.

[Scanner]

Okay, for purposes of this poll, we assume you don't have a UAW "job bank" job where you get to sit around and collect pay while your company goes begging for taxpayor money.

A layoff means a layoff and heading to the unemployment line.

[maat55]

Okay, for purposes of this poll, we assume you don't have a UAW "job bank" job where you get to sit around and collect pay while your company goes begging for taxpayor money.

A layoff means a layoff and heading to the unemployment line.

Union layoff money aside, the decision is different for a union worker and non-union worker. In a non-union shop, your performance is a factor, not so in a union shop, so my decision would be different depending on the two.

As a union member, you share the burden, which beggs that S-word nobody wants to hear.

In a non-union shop, you compete for your job and higher pay, which beggs that C-word I like.

I didn't mean to throw a wrench in your poll, but it is an important destinction.

[Scanner]

Okay, for clarification:

Layoff = get out by the end of the month and head to the unemployment line.

Paycut = 20% reduction from everyone, from janitor to CEO.

I know union have contracts and stuff and you can even have an employer contract with severence pay.

[sweeps]

I think it also makes a difference how long you think you'd be unemployed. If you think you'd be unemployed for just a month or two, it's probably better to just take your small chance at a layoff, rather than get a certain (and probably permanent) paycut.

[Scanner]

I am actually surprised by the results thusfar and it actually probably means that employers are doing the right thing by all the layoffs/job losses we are seeing since the public at large may want to "roll the layoff" dice. It probably signifies confidence in obtaining other work in the market.

I am amazed actually.

If I had a prediction, I would have thought 80-90% would have taken the "safer" route and opted for a paycut.

I am probably cutting back my staff hours a bit in my small business but that's more a personal decision (want to get home earlier) vs. an economic necessity.

[Scanner]

Sweeps,

Yes, you can factor that in when you answer. . .if you answer "layoff chance" that means you feel confident that you can work elsewhere easier.

Maybe things aren't as glum as they seem.

[aurielle]

Okay, for purposes of this poll, we assume you don't have a UAW "job bank" job where you get to sit around and collect pay while your company goes begging for taxpayor money.

A layoff means a layoff and heading to the unemployment line.

Let me clarify that even though my job is union, we are not a 'shop', and there is no union job bank whatever that is and if we are laid off, we are laid off and heading for the unemployment line just like anyone else with a non-union job. Not all unions are the same. Our union is trying to negotiate that anyone laid off gets first chance at getting their old job back when things get better but that very well may not happen.

[disneysteve]

Paycut = 20% reduction from everyone, from janitor to CEO.

This is also a big deciding factor. The CEO can absorb a 20% paycut a whole lot easier than the janitor can. The janitor is likely living paycheck to paycheck, possibly working a 2nd job with a spouse also working 2 jobs. A 20% paycut could be devastating. For the CEO, a 20% paycut may be barely noticeable, maybe a few less rounds of golf or ordering cheaper wine at the restaurant. So where you are on the income totem pole would weigh into your decision.

[maat55]

I am actually surprised by the results thusfar and it actually probably means that employers are doing the right thing by all the layoffs/job losses we are seeing since the public at large may want to "roll the layoff" dice. It probably signifies confidence in obtaining other work in the market.

I am amazed actually.

If I had a prediction, I would have thought 80-90% would have taken the "safer" route and opted for a paycut.

I am probably cutting back my staff hours a bit in my small business but that's more a personal decision (want to get home earlier) vs. an economic necessity.

My shop is too small to layoff, I have had to cut hours for my workers. We are having trouble getting fabrics, wednesday some came in, so we are snowed for the next 3 weeks.