4 ms·

3) Lay off 0%, everyone agrees on decreesed salary temporary. Or that's not an option?

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
There's only so far you can go down - plus, modern day companies like Amazon and McD's are already competing to pay as little as possible to their employees.
vortico 8y ago
Most people in this industry are contractual employees so that's usually not a legal option. If their pay was any less, it'd be approaching minimum wage laws. But if not, it's a bad option because instead of the algorithm "filter out the least passionate ones so we can increase expectations of the remaining" as in (2), it's "filter out the employees who can't take the financial hit so... we can keep the wealthier ones who don't need their pay as much?" Doesn't make sense in this industry.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >it's "filter out the employees who can't take the financial hit so... we can keep the wealthier ones who don't need their pay as much?" Doesn't make sense in this industry. Actually, wouldn't it be the inverse? Those who have other options would go, and the less cushioned / wealthy ones would agree to stay and take the hit...
  - vortico 8y ago
    No, I think I stated it correctly. Those with more savings/assets would stay and be able to withdraw from their savings while their pay isn't enough. Those who need every penny for the next utility bill would be forced to leave.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Well, how about considering the inverse: Those with more savings/assets would be able to live off of them while looking for another job if the pay isn't enough. Those who need every penny for the next utility bill (but still make it, even if barely, with the reduced pay) will stay with the company, as they can't risk getting off employment for any length of time. All 4 options could be at play. Which is why people barely making, still keeping at jobs despite horrible pay cuts. It's because they don't have any safety net to go look elsewhere.
jdietrich 8y ago
It's an option that is very common in Germany. Factory workers will often agree to short-time working or temporary pay cuts in preference to layoffs.
__s 8y ago
Where my father works (furniture warehouse) they did this somewhat, albeit in a more fair fashion (no salary decrease). Employees were asked to volunteer taking off a couple days a week rather than laying off staff
- SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
  My father also works in a furniture warehouse and it was the same, especially during the recession. Factory was basically shut down on fridays and everyone worked 4 hour weeks
halfdan 8y ago
There's also 4) Use company savings to survive an economical "draught" and build up saving once you're making a profit again.
- vortico 8y ago
  That's what davegardner above mentioned as well, but something like the 2010-11 recession was too much for many companies to "coast" over, so they ultimately had to choose 1, 2, or 3. And sometimes this conservative method doesn't work for risky businesses. Sometimes if you don't pour everything into investments to stay on top of close competition, you might be destroying your company (in which case everybody gets laid off).

There's only so far you can go down - plus, modern day companies like Amazon and McD's are already competing to pay as little as possible to their employees.

vortico 8y ago

Most people in this industry are contractual employees so that's usually not a legal option. If their pay was any less, it'd be approaching minimum wage laws. But if not, it's a bad option because instead of the algorithm "filter out the least passionate ones so we can increase expectations of the remaining" as in (2), it's "filter out the employees who can't take the financial hit so... we can keep the wealthier ones who don't need their pay as much?" Doesn't make sense in this industry.

coldtea 8y ago
>it's "filter out the employees who can't take the financial hit so... we can keep the wealthier ones who don't need their pay as much?" Doesn't make sense in this industry. Actually, wouldn't it be the inverse? Those who have other options would go, and the less cushioned / wealthy ones would agree to stay and take the hit...
- vortico 8y ago
  No, I think I stated it correctly. Those with more savings/assets would stay and be able to withdraw from their savings while their pay isn't enough. Those who need every penny for the next utility bill would be forced to leave.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Well, how about considering the inverse: Those with more savings/assets would be able to live off of them while looking for another job if the pay isn't enough. Those who need every penny for the next utility bill (but still make it, even if barely, with the reduced pay) will stay with the company, as they can't risk getting off employment for any length of time. All 4 options could be at play. Which is why people barely making, still keeping at jobs despite horrible pay cuts. It's because they don't have any safety net to go look elsewhere.

jdietrich 8y ago

It's an option that is very common in Germany. Factory workers will often agree to short-time working or temporary pay cuts in preference to layoffs.

__s 8y ago

Where my father works (furniture warehouse) they did this somewhat, albeit in a more fair fashion (no salary decrease). Employees were asked to volunteer taking off a couple days a week rather than laying off staff

SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
My father also works in a furniture warehouse and it was the same, especially during the recession. Factory was basically shut down on fridays and everyone worked 4 hour weeks

halfdan 8y ago

There's also 4) Use company savings to survive an economical "draught" and build up saving once you're making a profit again.

vortico 8y ago
That's what davegardner above mentioned as well, but something like the 2010-11 recession was too much for many companies to "coast" over, so they ultimately had to choose 1, 2, or 3. And sometimes this conservative method doesn't work for risky businesses. Sometimes if you don't pour everything into investments to stay on top of close competition, you might be destroying your company (in which case everybody gets laid off).