6 ms·

The company I work at is trying to avoid laying off people by asking everyone across the board to take a pay cut. I had recently received a raise, so they paid

The company I work at is trying to avoid laying off people by asking everyone across the board to take a pay cut. I had recently received a raise, so they paid me at my raised rate up until the end of the month, but they let me know they would need to revert me to my un-raised salary moving forward. All in all, a reduction of about $7,000 to my salary. Some of the other devs (the most expensive ones) took a 30% pay cut. They are hoping they can qualify for some of the $2 trillion stimulus and can recoup some of the losses (and if the economy recovers, they might be able to give us some of our reduced salaries back as bonuses at the end of the year), but we will just have to see. Ultimately, I'm grateful that we aren't all getting laid off right now. I think more companies should offer salary cuts as an option instead of just blindly laying off people.

ryandrake 7y ago
I've been in this situation. First it was 1/2 paychecks. Then, a few months into the recession it was 1/4 paychecks. Finally, it was 1/4 paychecks and no health insurance. That was when I buggered out. It might have been more humane to just lay off people.
- dguaraglia 7y ago
  As someone running a company that is trying to keep people employed by cutting salaries: we don't want our employees to be scared about not having healthcare the moment they might need it the most. We talked it with everyone, we are all taking a pay cut (us, founders, were the ones making the least already so I think our employees understand) and we are doing everything possible to extend our runway until at least next year. We also setup a scheme where we compensate our employees with stock options equivalent to the salary lost, until things get better. This situation sucks, but there's no way losing healthcare now would be 'more humane' than taking a pay cut.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    us, founders, were the ones making the least already I don't think people realise how common this is.
    - nojvek 7y ago
      > us, founders, were the ones making the least already. Sure, but founders also have magnitudes more equity than any employees. It sucks for a founder of a company that isn’t profitable or has great growth but for a decent run company the equity is far more valuable than the salary. Like Steve Jobs taking a $1/year salary and still being one of the richest folks on the planet. As a founder you can still up your salary to a sustainable level and let your employees go. Employees don’t have that option.
      - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
        People like Jobs are outliers, for every one of them there are thousands where the reality is quite different.
        dguaraglia 7y ago
        This. Of course it's very different to take a $1 salary when you are already wealthy, the company you are a CEO of is already worth billions and you are getting paid in financial instruments that are worth actual money. For most startup founders, including myself, that's not the case. I'm not complaining, I'm sure we are ourselves in a much better position that the average American who is getting squeezed by this crisis, but there's definitely a huge gap between my company and Apple, LOL.
      - dguaraglia 7y ago
        Of course in usual times, taking the lower salary in exchange for the increase in stock is perfectly acceptable bet. Stock is only an advantage if your company survives. In times like this, it could be a strain on your bottom line (depending on how much your day-to-day living costs are), as well as a higher risk because chances of your company going under are much higher. > As a founder you can still up your salary to a sustainable level and let your employees go. Employees don’t have that option. Hm... yeah, one could play that game for a couple months, but eventually you'll run out of money no matter what.

ryandrake 7y ago

I've been in this situation. First it was 1/2 paychecks. Then, a few months into the recession it was 1/4 paychecks. Finally, it was 1/4 paychecks and no health insurance. That was when I buggered out. It might have been more humane to just lay off people.

dguaraglia 7y ago
As someone running a company that is trying to keep people employed by cutting salaries: we don't want our employees to be scared about not having healthcare the moment they might need it the most. We talked it with everyone, we are all taking a pay cut (us, founders, were the ones making the least already so I think our employees understand) and we are doing everything possible to extend our runway until at least next year. We also setup a scheme where we compensate our employees with stock options equivalent to the salary lost, until things get better. This situation sucks, but there's no way losing healthcare now would be 'more humane' than taking a pay cut.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  us, founders, were the ones making the least already I don't think people realise how common this is.
  - nojvek 7y ago
    > us, founders, were the ones making the least already. Sure, but founders also have magnitudes more equity than any employees. It sucks for a founder of a company that isn’t profitable or has great growth but for a decent run company the equity is far more valuable than the salary. Like Steve Jobs taking a $1/year salary and still being one of the richest folks on the planet. As a founder you can still up your salary to a sustainable level and let your employees go. Employees don’t have that option.
    - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
      People like Jobs are outliers, for every one of them there are thousands where the reality is quite different.
      - dguaraglia 7y ago
        This. Of course it's very different to take a $1 salary when you are already wealthy, the company you are a CEO of is already worth billions and you are getting paid in financial instruments that are worth actual money. For most startup founders, including myself, that's not the case. I'm not complaining, I'm sure we are ourselves in a much better position that the average American who is getting squeezed by this crisis, but there's definitely a huge gap between my company and Apple, LOL.
    - dguaraglia 7y ago
      Of course in usual times, taking the lower salary in exchange for the increase in stock is perfectly acceptable bet. Stock is only an advantage if your company survives. In times like this, it could be a strain on your bottom line (depending on how much your day-to-day living costs are), as well as a higher risk because chances of your company going under are much higher. > As a founder you can still up your salary to a sustainable level and let your employees go. Employees don’t have that option. Hm... yeah, one could play that game for a couple months, but eventually you'll run out of money no matter what.