My friend Eric wrote the following:
As more and more companies are being “forced” to layoff or reduce staff the decision comes into play regarding letting people go vs. reducing hours of everyone in the group to accommodate the cost reduction. I bring this topic up as my future brother-in-law falls into the f--- them category, “I will go find a new job”. Last night in the news they reported about a company that instead of laying off half the staff they reduced the hours to 32 per week to keep everyone working. The few that were interviewed were happy with the extra time off and said that they were more productive in the 32 hours than they were in 40 hours previously. Of course it had me laughing…they partially just indicated to their employer that they were goofing off at least 8 hours a week…..
Would you accept reduced hours if it saved some coworkers’ jobs?
If it didn't mean loss of any benefits, but a cut in pay - I think we would definitely consider it. It would be better than losing one of our jobs totally!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it's not just saving your co-workers - loss of jobs affect everyone in this economy. If people aren't working, they will probably lose their houses, won't be able to pay their bills, won't buy things - it is a vicious spiral (downward, of course).
Of course, I am a flaming liberal and former social worker - so I feel like I have to walk the walk about sharing the wealth!
I'm with Smburke.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, unless, of course, they saved someone I didn't like!!! J/K I realize 8 hours is a lot to some earning lower incomes, but even they should be able to see it is better than losing their job along with the others.
ReplyDeleteYes - I'm salaried! I'd be willing to take a large paycut to keep an employee aboard too.
ReplyDelete