'Would you take a pay cut?' Poll results/discussion

Incredible-plod

oh! - Fewer staff, same workload could more overtime for those that stay behind.

A simplistic and selfish view I know but I'm on the bread line as it is!

Jacks_xxx

I used to work in a pub restaurant with about 70 employees where most people were paid hourly, and it was just taken as read that busier times meant working longer hours, and when trade slowed down people worked fewer hours or took some holiday to take the pressure off the labour budget.

If you were full-time and lost the shift a week which was typical in leaner times then that amounted to 10% of your pay, and we all just did it because we understood how the business worked.

I'm pretty sure most successful customer facing businesses are run in a similar fashion.

It's either that or one long continuous round of hiring and firing to keep pace with the ever changing level of trade.

So I stand by my vote, I'd do it, I've done it before - and for lots of people it's just the way it is in their line of work.

The higher ups didn't join in of course.

In fact they got paid bonuses if we cut hours and kept the ratios under control - but there's nothing I can do about that.

"It was ever thus" as my nan used to say!

Love Jacks xxx

Eowyn3066

My husband has been made redundant 3 times in 4 years, to get back in the job market he has taken a salary hit each time, his last job was 50% less that the one 4 years ago, and he has now been made redundant from that too! We are living pretty much hand to mouth, all our savings have gone, we are just about keeping up with our mortgage thanks to our insurance, but that runs out in 3 months time, then I don't know what we will do!

In a world where everything is getting more and more expensive, taking a pay cut has to be the last resort, otherwise you just can't keep up with your bills.

saliss

I would take a cut, in the present climate isn't it better to have a job than not, who knows how long it could be before you get another one that you actually enjoy doing.

ryandj

nykmedia wrote: »

it is automatically assuming that every single person employed by the 'company' earns more than the national minimum wage, not many of them about as far as I know.

Average wage in the UK in 2007 £457/ week. The minimum wage working 39 hours give you about £220 / week. So I think you may be wrong!

Natalie6999

How do you know if you accept a pay cut that the company won't ask you to accept a further one or get rid of people anyway?

I would fight to avoid this happening. If you once lay down they will expect you to every time.

stevered1

I'm only guessing here but if my boss can cut my wage by 20% and save 20 jobs I rekon if he cut his own wage by 10% he would save the 20 jobs anyway. So if we arent getting work ultimately its his problem so he shud sacrifice.

blue_haddock

paycut? would i boot!

Frugaldom

ryandj wrote: »

Average wage in the UK in 2007 £457/ week. The minimum wage working 39 hours give you about £220 / week. So I think you may be wrong!

No, I'm not wrong, I am talking about national minimum wage of £5.73 an hour (if you're over 22 years of age), which is just under £215 for a 37.5 hour week, less tax & National Insurance. Nobody can cut that rate except the Government, so the question assumes that every member of staff is in receipt of more than the minimum wage. I can't think of any industry, company or service provider who doesn't take advantage of that. And let's not forget that there are young people out there working 40 hours a week for £55 on Government schemes, some 'employers' contribute nothing towards that. The hypothetical company could consider recruiting 'trainees' to help increase production and lower overall production costs.

(I still think it's a crazy poll, sorry MSE. )

stevemcol

As a few other posters have suggested, in voting 'no' the assumption is you'd accept that you or your mate could be made redundant / layed off.

On the manager's bonus.. a manager may well still be entitled to a bonus if his/her objective is to mantain losses below a certain level during a slow down / recession.