5 ms·
> do you cut everyone's hours in half or let two people go? I think the argument here is to take a third option - offer to double the 4's salaries and simultan
by mattlutze 13y ago
> do you cut everyone's hours in half or let two people go?
I think the argument here is to take a third option - offer to double the 4's salaries and simultaneously cut their hours in half. You maintain the same workforce and productivity but, non-traditionally, allow your employees and not just your profit numbers to benefit from good business decisions.
- mhurron 13y agoAnd that has no tangible benefit to the company so it will never happen. Just look up thread, the solution was shorter hours and less pay. Put everyone in the McDonalds position, full time job doesn't cover living expenses but damn if those corporate profits don't look good.
- mattlutze 13y agoThe benefit to the company is not immediately monetary, no. However, you're going to be buying this new machine from long-term improvement profits (and not leveraging it against future profit from staff reductions), so keeping the current payroll won't hurt your bottom line, either. But you can be damn skippy that you'll retain those employees longer, reducing turn-over costs. You'll maintain redundant, deep institutional knowledge. You'll have the flexibility (unless they're unionized, and even then sometimes) that when there's a down period and you need to temporarily drop or freeze wages, you can often negotiate it. But, I don't approach work from the pure-profit perspective and I treat my reports like valuable people instead of commodities. I fully plan to continue doing so when I eventually start businesses of my own.
- streptomycin 13y agoWhat happens when your competitors buy the same machine, are not so generous with their workers, and undercut your prices so that you're no longer profitable?