View Poll Results: Which would you choose?
Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll
Your job: which option would you choose?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Your job: which option would you choose?
I was just reading an article related to this and it made me think of a question I'd love to hear everyone chime in on:
The situation: You work at a job you love, you like everyone you work with, and everyone makes fair salaries (to take away the "I hate that person" or "he/she makes too much money" factors). The company is doing ok, but as with everyone else they are struggling with making it through this economy without cutting jobs.
The problem: Your CEO sends out an email explaining the situation to everyone and tells you that 3-5% of the payroll costs in the company have to be removed one way or another. Then he/she gives you 2 choices:
1. The CEO explains that NO ONE'S job is safe, and that 3-5% of the work force will be let go
2. EVERYONE in the company, including the CEO can take a 3-5% pay cut and no one loses their jobs. The CEO also lays out a very clear metric for restoring pay levels when certain goals are met after the market recovers.
The question: Which choice do you vote for?
The disclaimer: I know how workforce reduction costs work and I know that it's not a 1:1 swap between the 2 options. Just answer the darn question as if it were 1:1.
The situation: You work at a job you love, you like everyone you work with, and everyone makes fair salaries (to take away the "I hate that person" or "he/she makes too much money" factors). The company is doing ok, but as with everyone else they are struggling with making it through this economy without cutting jobs.
The problem: Your CEO sends out an email explaining the situation to everyone and tells you that 3-5% of the payroll costs in the company have to be removed one way or another. Then he/she gives you 2 choices:
1. The CEO explains that NO ONE'S job is safe, and that 3-5% of the work force will be let go
2. EVERYONE in the company, including the CEO can take a 3-5% pay cut and no one loses their jobs. The CEO also lays out a very clear metric for restoring pay levels when certain goals are met after the market recovers.
The question: Which choice do you vote for?
The disclaimer: I know how workforce reduction costs work and I know that it's not a 1:1 swap between the 2 options. Just answer the darn question as if it were 1:1.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 59,141
Likes: 1
From: Lost in the mountains
As the saying goes..."A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Id likely take the pay cut with the peace of mind that my job will still be there for me tomorrow. That may end up with me looking for a new job in the meantime, but as the other saying goes...."its best to look for a job when you have a job".
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,950
Likes: 474
From: MAHT-O-MEDI
We are going through a similar situation here at work. I am very sure my job is secure, but there is a possibility that they may force people to take a couple hours of unpaid leave per week for the next year or two. I would not like it but I suppose if I have to do something to save money, leaving early every friday is not the worst thing in the world.
In that case I answered pay cut but only of a temporary nature. If it were to be permanent I would look elsewhere. We had a couple years with no increases and just recieved an increase intended to make up for that. If it was rolled back again then I would find another gig.
In that case I answered pay cut but only of a temporary nature. If it were to be permanent I would look elsewhere. We had a couple years with no increases and just recieved an increase intended to make up for that. If it was rolled back again then I would find another gig.
