Hypothetical Job question

[GHoward]

Suppose (for simplicity) there were you and 9 others at your job, that are all at the same salary level, and do, more or less, the same job. (though, not necessarily the same quality) So then one day the boss calls a meeting, and says the company needs to make a 10% cut in salary. So the choices are 1) every employee takes a 10% pay-cut, or one person gets fired. He allows the employees to vote their choice. What would be your choice?

 

[OldHippie]

Every one should take a 10% cut and then everyone should start a job search until somebody finds a better job. At that point, all salaries are restored.

 

[Bluepies]

I'd vote for 10% cut. If the company's hurting for money, then losing an employee means losing production and it may find itself hurting for money even more. If everyone takes a cut, the company gets the same production for less money, so money isn't as much of a problem.

In other words, taking a 10% cut helps the company more and is more likely to prevent further firings and pay cuts. I also like the idea that people start looking for other/better jobs. If someone finds something else and moves on, everybody wins.

 

[Longhorny630]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Ramathorn]

I'm a softie. I'd likely take a pay cut. Unless, I don't like the guy getting cut.

 

[Bob in Houston]

There was a Dilbert strip about this exact situation years ago. Wally voted for the 10 percent cut, and everyone else was pointing at him.

 

[overmaars]

At least 1 person in this group will under perform, comparatively. The easy solution is to eliminate that person's position. It's fair and diplomatic.

 

[Bernard]

I'd call the boss a ***** for not manning up and making the call. The decision needs to be made on the basis of good business, not an employee vote. If there's dead wood, cut it. If everyone's busy, but the revenue just isn't there, but may be there around the corner, pay cuts across the board.

Employee vote is BS move. Maybe the boss should be fired.

Bernard.

 

[Hornin Hong Kong]

cut the low performer

 

[OldHippie]

Cut the boss' pay by .005%. I make this snide comment because it seems that the cost of cutting an employee's job altogether without giving people sufficient time to find another job is more detrimental to the society and the economy as a whole. But then I'm a socialist.

 

[Fievel121]

Depends on the level of employees. At my job now, all my coworkers are hard workers who produce, so 10% makes sense. At previous jobs, we could have laid off 2 or 3 workers and not had much of a productivity loss.

 

[HornBud]

There's always that one person who loafs too much or fucks **** up and let's everyone else take up their slack and fix their mistakes. That person should be cut.

If everyone is within statistical error equal, then the 10% across the board would be fine. But I couldn't imagine being more pissed off then after years of subsidizing some **********'s work, I'm then asked to subsidize his/her employment.

 

[MaduroUTMB]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[UTChE96]

Depends. If one of my colleagues were lazy, then I would want him out. I can empathize with lack of talent, but I have no time for laziness.

 

[Dionysus]

Why the empathy for lack of talent? If someone lacks the skill to hold a position they shouldn't have it.

 

[notreally]

depends on the job. if letting the employee go only increases my workload by 10%-15% (9 employees), then i say cut the low performer. and it would certainly depend on what my salary is to being with.

i have a feeling i would vote for cutting the low performer. but that should be a managment decision. any boss that puts that decision up to the employees is not a very good one...IMHO.

 

[Fievel121]

In reply to:

---

---