Preference: Layoff risk or Certain Paycut?

[Phenomenal Woman]

I vote pay cut! I love my job and where I work. The flexibility and the perks along with working with terrific role models are hard to come by when I look up other jobs outside of the company I work at. I want to stay and would do what I can to provide the company the best interest.

If I was not totally 100% happy with my job or the company I work for, I might have voted the risk of lay-off. Probably would have used the severance pay for pursuing a passion or the like.

[Snowgirl]

Been there 7 years ago: I'm in a techno field (Electrical Engineer), and when the big crash occurred in 2001, our company opted for a 10% pay cut across the board, with work hours cut accordingly (I worked every other Friday, so I actually enjoyed the free time, as did many other co-workers... Sadly, they wouldn't let us keep this!). After a few months, didn't seem enough, so they did some layoffs, and got us back our full salary. A month later, another round of layoff, and back to the pay cut till the end of the year!

Since it was meant as a "temporary measure", our annual salaries on file remained the same, so it didn't affect our future earning potential. However, the fact that we didn't get a raise for 3 years afterwards (market still weak, no jobs opening anywhere) did create problems for non-technical employees. For my part, since I'm in a hard to fill position, I got a "market salary adjustment" which got me back at going rate.

With that experience, I'd still take the bet on a pay cut if it was on a temporary basis (eg. for 1 year). If middle class, many can cut a bit out of the budget to accommodate.

[Cylenchar]

Part of the problem with the pay cut (assuming pay cut, not hours being cut) is do you have any guarentee that your employer will raise your pay back up to the level it was at after they make it through the rough patch?

[DC Metro Crab]

I agree with Sweeps that the poll is getting a lot of "my job would never be superfluous" answers and you would get more paycut votes if it were worded as "10% chance YOU would be laid off." True, it fostered interesting responses and I'm sure it's implied that the poll taker is included in the 10%, but the wording definitely triggers a biased response.

I voted for layoffs. My bias was that the 20% number seemed big, especially knowing the avg raise hovers at 3%. However if it was worded as cut hours or a mandatory furlong, I would've voted for that instead. In my case, polls inspire gut reaction voting.

Too many variables involved really. What also drove my answer was due to lack of layoff stigma in the high tech industry and the fact that I'm single with no kids, no mortgage, have a decent EF, and was unhappy with my job. Yup, it was all about me me me.

[Scanner]

Yes, actually I wanted the bias in there. You don't know whether your job is superfluous or not, so it's interesting to see people assume that their job is not when they vote for layoff.

It would be kinda silly if a company just put up a dartboard of 100 jobs at a company let's say and threw 10 darts at people. Most companies I would assume put some thought into it, whether it's political or business thought.

And it's no crime that it's all about you - it's the magic of the poll - to me it shows a higher risk tolerance than I thought and that people have exit contingency scenarios.

[disneysteve]

You don't know whether your job is superfluous or not, so it's interesting to see people assume that their job is not when they vote for layoff.

I think if they are being honest, a lot of people do know if their job is superfluous. My wife will tell you that what she does is not necessary. It helps the office run much more efficiently, but they could do without her. I, on the other hand, treated 144 patients in the office last week and handled probably close to 200 phone messages, lab and test reports, forms, etc. If they get rid of me, they'd need to immediately replace me with someone else to do that work. There is nobody else here who can absorb that workload. Of course, that doesn't mean they couldn't find someone willing to do it for less money, but the job itself is not superfluous.

[Caoineag]

...

And it's no crime that it's all about you - it's the magic of the poll - to me it shows a higher risk tolerance than I thought and that people have exit contingency scenarios.

Actually its funny you mention this. I was reading an article the other day that had done a poll and I think it was like employers thought only 44% of their employees were looking for other jobs but the employees voted that 68% of them were looking. It seems employers aren't really aware that a lot of people have exit plans or are developing them very quickly. I know the head honcho at my work has been blindsided by every employee who has left in the past year because he didn't realize they were looking. Not so surprising to hear other employers are the same way.

[Scanner]

DisneySteve,

I am not sure why everyone seems to be defensive and/or hung-up on the superflous thing. Just because your job may be deemed "superfluous", doesn't diminish your worth as a human being or member of society of course.

You never know what employers are thinking. For instance, yes, you are right. . .you see patients and there aren't too many replacements for a fully licensed healthcare professional. Not at all.

But in business, it's not always about that. Your boss may just decide, "I want to be smaller" because he sees that huge payroll every month and gets scared. Or he may feel, "Gee, a PA or a nurse practicioner could do this for less." Or I am going to stop accepting new patients because of capitated contracts.

You just don't know what they are thinking.

Again, the magic of the poll - I don't think there's really ever a "wrong poll", just wrong conclusions from them.

My wife (and I = 1 vote) voted paycut.

[Scanner]

Again, to repeat, the only reason I put "aimed at superfluous jobs" was to reinterate that management would making a decision rather than just randomly picking jobs to layoff, whatever that decision would be based on.

[maat55]

IMO, it is the duty of the management/owner to streamline its business in anyway it has to. The whole point to capitalism is to produce the best product for the lowest price, which is for the good of all.

In doing this, it may mean not observing pay scales or tenures. Todays none union businesses operate this way. It is not uncommon for an individual to work at 6 to 10 different companies during his/her lifetime.

Workers should compete just as companies have to compete. IMO.

[Angio333]

If you take the paycut, what are the chances of getting laid off a a month or two later no matter what?

[project15]

Looks like this just happened to a local Chicago company - Acco. The employees voted on the paycut rather than a reduction in force. They are taking a temporary (one month) paycut of 50% and then it will go up to only a 20% paycut after that.

[Scanner]

If you take the paycut, what are the chances of getting laid off a a month or two later no matter what?

In life there are no guarantees but in this fictional scenario, you would think the "finance" dept would be crunching numbers to see what would possibily avoid layoffs.

If wages move downward, the chances of further layoffs would be reduced. That is the whole point of the choice - either cut back the workforce or cut wages.

[anonymous_saver]

I definitely chose the possibility of layoff.

On a personal level, I have enough in savings that would last me quite awhile, and I have temp and restaurant experience so I would be willing to work those jobs if necessary, and I live close to family. I am lucky, I could make it for awhile without a job. I would rather me have a chance at a layoff, rather than someone else get a 20% paycut who can't afford it.

[carlsguide]

Times are tough right now. If you need the money then take a pay cut and be thankful for a job.