Lay off vs Pay cut

[Furious 7]

Just like @Dave said it is easy for Tech guys to get new jobs once laid off but those on management, its hard for them to get another so interms of management I would just accept a pay cut but that can also be with some hours shorten, with that I could run an extra work to add to it. But the paycut most be something I have looked into and could well be able to take of the major necessities.

True, in this case it is not too difficult because indeed they have the advantage in technology which is currently busy and much needed but on the other hand it depends on those who do have the skills and competence within them.
But of course guarantees still exist, especially when they have been empowered within a company, it is certain that their competencies can be calculated.
As for cutting wages, look back at the job and whether or not the deductions are appropriate, if possible, and you can understand the reason for the deductions, why not.

[1714559951]

1714559951

[1714559951]

1714559951

[justdimin]

If I were an employee I would of course choose to take a pay cut rather than quit but for the company a layoff is so much better than a pay cut. If you take a pay cut, you won't be able to save by layoffs because there are so many other day-to-day expenses that the company has to pay, not just the employee's wages, like energy costs, meals, insurance... a lot of things.

Sure, layoffs are undesirable in any company, but given the current situation, it's a must. Instead of firing a few people, continuing to hold out can lead to the bankruptcy of the entire company and have more serious consequences.

Salaries would be a huge enough cost that you might end up keeping the company safe if you could just let the people take a pay cut. However, during this period there is a huge inflation which means if you offer people a pay cut, even if they accept it then there is a big chance they would all be actively looking for other jobs that would pay better.

Lay off is also not a solution because it means you would become a lot smaller and the result would not be that easy at all. I would highly suggest if people could just focus on making a lot less profit with just what they have, small profit or even taking a debt as a business could help you out in the long run.

[Mahanton]

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

For sure as an employee then you would definitely be going for 50% cut of your salary but there are people whom do really find out on other jobs which do offers more.
It is really depending or basing on someones needs because not all would really be that accepting such pay for the job that they are doing but for those who are really
that desperate on doesnt really like to find a job on another or doesnt really like to waste up opportunity then they would really be dealing up with the current pay
but honestly speaking if things get cut huge one of 50% then it would be a total disaster.

[Woodie]

Companies may choose to layoff its employees for several reasons which include but not limited to cost-cutting, staff reduction, relocation, buyouts, and mergers.

while this true, you do agree that as long as this is done within the confines of the labour laws and guidance of the employment contract this is okay, because laying off an employee doesn't come cheap to a company as they need to compensate these guys financially or with a job elsewhere and the effects of this don't end here as production is negatively affected too.

A pay cut is a decrease in an employee’s compensation. It could be a reduction in salary, benefits, hours and more — it’s not limited to monetary compensation. It can happen for a variety of reasons. For example, a company might be trying to avoid layoffs and/or save money during a tumultuous period, with the intention of returning salaries to normal once the threat is over.

As long as a company is in it for the profits, and if the numbers dont add up it has to do whatever it takes to survive and this isn't limited to paycuts, downsizing of the work force etc in trying to get back on its feet.

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

As long as these options are within the contract a 50% cut wouldn't be a bad idea if they were paying me right, but if work conditions and salary was so bad I would  chose to leave and wait for my compensation, or sue them for wrongful dismissal...its a tough world out there we all need to survive!

[milewilda]

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

For sure as an employee then you would definitely be going for 50% cut of your salary but there are people whom do really find out on other jobs which do offers more.
It is really depending or basing on someones needs because not all would really be that accepting such pay for the job that they are doing but for those who are really
that desperate on doesnt really like to find a job on another or doesnt really like to waste up opportunity then they would really be dealing up with the current pay
but honestly speaking if things get cut huge one of 50% then it would be a total disaster.

I would still consider on getting the deal but my employer wont know that i had already had plans on applying on other companies which do pays more better rather than on making yourself staying up on a job which does
pay below the average pay for a certain job.You arent that dumb on staying with that case specially if there were no hints or words that things would come back to normal if the company had stabilized itself or making
already some revenue which it would be back on the 100% rate that you had before.It would really be that good if you do still have the job but you would be surely be looking for other options because you cant indeed
stay up something like this for too long.Its never been worth for the time and effort that you are giving into your job.

[passwordnow]

With all of these laying offs, I remember one company that instead of laying off its employees. He then cut off his salary from his own company as the CEO and that made noise and praised him left and right.

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

If I love the job and I know how hard it is to find a job, I'll take the 50% pay cut. I'd still be grateful that in these trying times, I've got a job to work for. Although it's disappointing that there's half cut to what I used to receive. It's actually a good thing if ever this situation comes to anybody, the boss is still giving you options and not only a force resignation or lay off.

[len01]

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

I prefer to be honorably discharged from the company and open my own business.
there is no point in us wasting time working hard in a company that is only paid a small amount. as we are required with difficulty to create the ideals of others. we as humans have the right to choose and don't need to be too submissive to the boss just for the sake of money.
it's useless if you work hard for the company and only get paid 50% of the usual salary, it's very sad.

[kro55]

If I were an employee I would of course choose to take a pay cut rather than quit but for the company a layoff is so much better than a pay cut. If you take a pay cut, you won't be able to save by layoffs because there are so many other day-to-day expenses that the company has to pay, not just the employee's wages, like energy costs, meals, insurance... a lot of things.

Sure, layoffs are undesirable in any company, but given the current situation, it's a must. Instead of firing a few people, continuing to hold out can lead to the bankruptcy of the entire company and have more serious consequences.

Salaries would be a huge enough cost that you might end up keeping the company safe if you could just let the people take a pay cut. However, during this period there is a huge inflation which means if you offer people a pay cut, even if they accept it then there is a big chance they would all be actively looking for other jobs that would pay better.

The only problem now is that all companies are going through the same crisis, I don't believe that people can find a job that pays better than the company they are working for. If possible, they wouldn't wait until they were laid off or had their pay cut to start looking for a new job.
We are in inflation and everyone wants to get a better job with higher salary but things will not be that simple.

Lay off is also not a solution because it means you would become a lot smaller and the result would not be that easy at all. I would highly suggest if people could just focus on making a lot less profit with just what they have, small profit or even taking a debt as a business could help you out in the long run.

As I said, businesses will choose to become smaller than the risk of bankruptcy if they don't cut staff. In this difficult situation, as the CEO of a business, they will prioritize finding ways to maintain the company before thinking of other benefits. Because when there is no company, there is no business, there is no benefit.

[Kakmakr]

A 50% pay cut will sink 99% of salary workers, because most people live above their income at the moment.... they are basically neck deep into debt. If you want to destroy the global economy, then that will be the best method to do it.

A pay cut sounds like the better option, but it will do more harm than good. Any economy needs consumers to spend money on goods and service..and if you take 50% of their salaries, you will destroy most of the retailers out there.

A better option will be to "audit" executive managers and CEO salaries and start cutting their salaries, because most of their salaries are inflated.... and then start offering early retirement package for older people with higher salaries. (Some older people get much higher salaries, than people that are doing the job as their younger co-workers.... get rid of them ....and you will get the 50% cut in salaries, if you employ younger workers for 50% of the older employees salary)

[Gozie51]

A better option will be to "audit" executive managers and CEO salaries and start cutting their salaries, because most of their salaries are inflated.... and then start offering early retirement package for older people with higher salaries. (Some older people get much higher salaries, than people that are doing the job as their younger co-workers.... get rid of them ....and you will get the 50% cut in salaries, if you employ younger workers for 50% of the older employees salary)

This is a reasonable thing to do even though the CEOS will argue that they have given more of work time and gathered experience to get there but they are really taking a whole lot of salary and leave just meagre to junior workers. Apart from the huge salaries they also have the opportunity for bigger bonuses that they award to themselves and bribes collected before contracts are awarded by them. They are the old people that have not given the younger ones the opportunity to get promoted just because they don't want to vacate their offices.

[Fortify]

Companies may choose to layoff its employees for several reasons which include but not limited to cost-cutting, staff reduction, relocation, buyouts, and mergers. When you go the Google and search for layoffs you would find out it almost seems like a conspiracy among big companies to layoff its staff almost simultaneously.

• Meta, laid off 11,000 people
• Twitter, laid off about 3,700 people
• Stripe,  laid off about 1,000 people
• Salesforce, laid off hundreds of its employees last week
• Microsoft, laid off fewer than 1,000 jobs
• Zillow, Snap and Robinhood, laid off 300 of its employees late last month.

A pay cut is a decrease in an employee’s compensation. It could be a reduction in salary, benefits, hours and more — it’s not limited to monetary compensation. It can happen for a variety of reasons. For example, a company might be trying to avoid layoffs and/or save money during a tumultuous period, with the intention of returning salaries to normal once the threat is over.

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

If my boss called me in and offered such a deal, the first question to ask would be - are you and all senior executives taking the same pay cut? Because if they're not then it is pure hypocrisy for them to ask for their workers to do it to. Some people might accept such a pay cut, highly dependent on their salary and living costs, because sometimes salaries can get well ahead of the amount of work required. However it is definitely a privileged few who would be able to absorb such a loss and the immediate thing that many would do is to start searching for a new job. Going into a recession is also another thing to think about, as the job hunt can get much more competitive as more candidates compete for fewer jobs.

[stomachgrowls]

A 50% pay cut will sink 99% of salary workers, because most people live above their income at the moment.... they are basically neck deep into debt. If you want to destroy the global economy, then that will be the best method to do it.

A pay cut sounds like the better option, but it will do more harm than good. Any economy needs consumers to spend money on goods and service..and if you take 50% of their salaries, you will destroy most of the retailers out there.

A better option will be to "audit" executive managers and CEO salaries and start cutting their salaries, because most of their salaries are inflated.... and then start offering early retirement package for older people with higher salaries. (Some older people get much higher salaries, than people that are doing the job as their younger co-workers.... get rid of them ....and you will get the 50% cut in salaries, if you employ younger workers for 50% of the older employees salary)

Sounds a good option or good move to me rather than on having that 50% cut on salary overall.It would really be good on emphasizing into those positions which arent really that working hard for the benefit of the company but on other hand we do know that these top positions arent been acquired without having those contribution back on the past considering that they've climb up the ladder for the said spot
which it would really be just worth on what you are paying into them basing on how far your company had able to sustain and succeed out.
Cutting 50% would really make things even more worst. Laying off is something a hard decision but its better rather than keeping them and paying on 50% cut
which is a total disaster.

[Queentoshi]

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

50% pay cut? in this economy where everything is adding up its price? If it is a very well-paying job, and the salary is an amount that if is cut in half, it can still meet some needs, I can consider, otherwise, if it is a job that I am already managing, it will be better to just endure a bit while you increase your search for a better paying job, so I can make a smooth switch. The danger with being laid off is the suddenness with which it happens, it can make a person become unstable since they didn't expect it and maybe have not planned for such a circumstance.

[AmoreJaz]

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

50% pay cut? in this economy where everything is adding up its price? If it is a very well-paying job, and the salary is an amount that if is cut in half, it can still meet some needs, I can consider, otherwise, if it is a job that I am already managing, it will be better to just endure a bit while you increase your search for a better paying job, so I can make a smooth switch. The danger with being laid off is the suddenness with which it happens, it can make a person become unstable since they didn't expect it and maybe have not planned for such a circumstance.

i may choose of getting laid off, but of course with certain compensation. and then, just find another job that i think would be best for me. it may not be lucrative as previous job, but so long i am happy with the conditions of the new company. you can also take a bit of break and find where do you think will give you better satisfaction in life.
i can understand some will agree with 50% cut, but for sure, they are already looking for other jobs while enduring such heavy cut.

[Ultegra134]

It depends on the person and someone's personal needs. Both are frustrating for an employee, but it could also be an opportunity to seek something better. Supposing I had to choose one of the two, I'd take a pay cut and "silence-quit," and in the meantime, try to find a better-paying job. Silence quitting is when you put the least amount of effort into your work, doing the minimum to get the job done. Unless being laid off came with a reimbursement, I'd choose a pay cut over being fired.

[sana54210]

A 50% pay cut will sink 99% of salary workers, because most people live above their income at the moment.... they are basically neck deep into debt. If you want to destroy the global economy, then that will be the best method to do it.

A pay cut sounds like the better option, but it will do more harm than good. Any economy needs consumers to spend money on goods and service..and if you take 50% of their salaries, you will destroy most of the retailers out there.

A better option will be to "audit" executive managers and CEO salaries and start cutting their salaries, because most of their salaries are inflated.... and then start offering early retirement package for older people with higher salaries. (Some older people get much higher salaries, than people that are doing the job as their younger co-workers.... get rid of them ....and you will get the 50% cut in salaries, if you employ younger workers for 50% of the older employees salary)

The reality is that we cannot really live with the salary that we earn, I mean I can, but like you said 99% of the people can't. And if I take a 50% pay cut, then I would ply just go broke as well, it includes me too. I have to say it’s clear that people do not realize how poor we are to think pay cut is acceptable.

I would rather lose my job than get 50% cut and 99% of the world too. That way the ones that stay will make their usual income, and the ones that leave could find a proper paid job, otherwise 50% cut would not be acceptable for a long time, people will just leave their jobs. That’s as simple as that, no pay cuts, because that can't be afforded these days.

[isaac_clarke22]

~

This is true for some cases though right now freelancing is a little bit of a hell for people with even 10 years of experience. Not sure what happened, but in freelancing platforms like Upwork, there has been cheap clients lately even in software development field. It kinda sucks for some starters looking to get their first gig, but earn less than on what they are supposed to earn normally in their full time.

Freelancing is a little bit of a risky stuff to jump into because you might end up looking for job endlessly due to short-term contracts. I encountered clients before that promised a long-term work, but then suddenly changed their minds that they are going hire people in their vicinity instead.

[DrBeer]

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

From the point of view of an employee, there are several options:
If a specialist knows his own worth, understands the situation, objectively evaluates the market, and accordingly understands his price in the market and the level of demand, he will do:
1.1. He will say, "Chief, I understand everything. I am also very sorry. I make a decision - to leave the company and change employers." This is the answer of a confident person.
1.2. If a hired specialist is confident in himself, and loves and respects the company, and wants to help her, he will say “OK, Chief, I understand everything, times are difficult.
Let's try to pull the company, I'm ready, 3 months to work for 50%. But then we return to 100% and additional motivation, as compensation for my support of the company with my pocket. "This is the answer of a confident person who is related and loves the company.
1.3. If a hired employee is not confident in his abilities, he will most likely say "Chief, ok, I understand, I'm fine, I'll work for 50%". This is the answer of a weak man. Then he will "bite his elbows", get angry at the boss, at the company, look for a job for half a day, go to interviews, ... And nothing good will happen. As the saying goes "The boss will pretend that he pays the salary, the hired employee will pretend that he is working
1.4 Other options are also possible - tantrums “how will I live on 50% of my salary”, “I will complain about you to the tax police”, “if you don’t pay 100%, I will go to competitors and sell all the information” and so on

[Swordsoffreedom]

Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?

I prefer to be honorably discharged from the company and open my own business.
there is no point in us wasting time working hard in a company that is only paid a small amount. as we are required with difficulty to create the ideals of others. we as humans have the right to choose and don't need to be too submissive to the boss just for the sake of money.
it's useless if you work hard for the company and only get paid 50% of the usual salary, it's very sad.

What you said is true but at least you should consider the situation of the company and others, if the company is in trouble and they need our help then I think there is no reason to quit at that time. And if they're just doing it to each of you while you're doing great, then we should quit immediately.

Although the economy is struggling and finding a new job is not easy, if you are really a capable and responsible person at work, finding a new job is not a big problem or you can also open your own shop to do business without having to depend on anyone.

[2stout]

The 50% cut would likely be the worst.  As these layoff seem to follow industry trend and even crosses over to dissimilar industries (an excuse to jump on the train), I could see a minimum of 70% of companies asking this of their employees.  Sure you could jump ship but if you don't believe these companies would collude in the even of a 50% salary cut, I got tropical land in Iceland to sell to you.