It's a no for me. The first part is that a 10% paycut could be a couple years of raises to get back to. Even if previous wages are restored a year later, that

It's a no for me. The first part is that a 10% paycut could be a couple years of raises to get back to. Even if previous wages are restored a year later, that's a year of raises missed out on and pay is still lower due to inflation. The second is that I don't think it's a good idea to signal that they can keep 100% of the labor for 90% of the pay. Firstly, it signals that this is something workers will accept, which is a dangerous line. Secondly, it means workers are assuming some of the risk the business is exposed to without a commensurate benefit. The company needs to have a tangible and commensurate pain as well. A 10% decrease in pay for a 10% decrease in working hours is a maybe. Changing 10% of my salary over to company stock at a preferential rate (to compensate for risk) is a maybe. Some kind of contract stipulating that employees will be paid back double what they lost in pay is a maybe. I'd rather roll the dice on layoffs than send the message that risks in the market can be offloaded onto employees.