Would you accept a 30% income reduction to help your employer be more profitable?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Doug

It is a good move and will increase employment rates for teens. I was actually hoping for something more substantial from Kenney, but the 5% reduction for all provincial employees likely won't come until after the federal election.

Do you have evidence of this? Past statistics perhaps? Other jurisdictions that have done the same?

What about employment for 18-20 year olds. Will it drop? Will teenagers get laid off on their 18th birthday?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I strongly disagree that it's the exact same. In one case you're talking about the survival of a company and in the other case you're talking about a profit maximizing strategy that sees staff - the people who partner with and contribute to the company - as a way to harvest revenue. If the company is profitable then its survival isn't imminently at risk (one of the pre-requisites in your first reply) so in the latter situation there's a breakdown of respect and that isn't simply a cold dollars and cents calculation. If I could afford it, I'd go to another company and make even less than stay in a situation where i was disrespected.

Well, my point was that there exists a poll question for which it's the exact same (worded as "do you like your current job and conditions enough that they would still be your top pick right now among all your realistic options, even at 30% less pay?") and as Acajack pointed out, it's an interesting question as there will be some people answering either way in today's Canada for sure.

However, you're right that it's not necessarily the exact question that is being asked here, and that depending on the question, the financial situation of the employer may make a difference in the answer.

My interpretation is that vid meant it as a reference to Alberta overtime mandatory pay getting eliminated, so I'd assume that it would typically mean a high school dropout from Cape Breton NS getting a 30% cut going from a brainless $150,000 AB oilpatch job to the same job but for $105,000 this time, with the goal in the grand scheme of things being to ensure the longer term sustainability of that industry (Alberta's expensive oil).

(Basically, "more profitable" is something I'd interpret in this context as "going from barely profitable to sustainably profitable".)

And for the record, it's a type of situation where I would see myself accepting, if I were the aforementioned high school dropout oilpatch worker.

[Chadillaccc]

Not a chance in hell. I'd rather be unemployed and looking for a new job than to feed further into the capitalist system than I have to. The thought of it even is slightly infuriating.

[CityTech]

Ontario also has a lower wage for people under 18, although the difference is a lot smaller: $0.85 instead of $2. It's been debated many times if it's a good thing or not.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Doug

It is a good move and will increase employment rates for teens.

And increase unemployment rates for adults.

Why hire a grownup for $15/hour when you can hire a teenager for $13 and just fire them when they turn 18?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

And increase unemployment rates for adults.

Why hire a grownup for $15/hour when you can hire a teenager for $13 and just fire them when they turn 18?

Because there are many cases where the grownup is actually worth the ~15% premium...?

As CityTech just pointed out, it's debatable whether having a different level of minimum wage for teens is good or not. There are obviously pros and cons.

[CityTech]

I imagine hiring a teenager is kind of a pain. You have to schedule them around school hours, they're inexperienced, etc.

[Vertigo3000]

To give the CEO and shareholders more money? Never, this kind of a question is really painful to see being asked. Welfare state is being eroded and we are heading back into the economic realities of capitalism prior to the great depression where there was a lot of unrest in industrial cities due to terrible conditions and wages. Neoliberalism is going to eventually cause some serious uprisings, especially as younger generations grow conscious of the society we live in. We have high education rates with stagnant wages and diminishing social benefits, ask any young person and nearly half if not more than half are openly criticizing capitalism. All it will take is a popular movement to sweep through these people to massively destabilize society. Young people are screwed and the only way to solve things while remaining in the same political order we are in is to trample over the old people as many people's retirements are sitting in the value of their homes. Neoliberalism has screwed us.

[Spocket]

This really depends on the specifics.

When you say "more profitable" then I'm assuming the company is already making money. In that case, no, of course not.

If I'm told that it's a matter of having a job or not, well, that's a lot different and in that case I have to know what my status is on the open market. Can I find a job that will pay an equivalent within a reasonable amount of time? Will I be able to expect raises in the future at my current job? What's the industry standard?

Too many factors to answer this one easily. I'd really like to hear the exact situation presented here to understand why the employer is asking employees to do this. As presented, hell no, they don't get "more" profit simply because they want it. If it's to keep my company from going under in a place where there aren't any other job opportunities, then yes.

[rbt]

Originally Posted by vid

Asking for a friend.

The answer for about 80% of Canadians is a resounding "Yes" BUT only if you don't tell them.

Based on 1970's/1980's wages, adjusted to today, most Canadians (USA and much of Europe too) are underpaid by at least 30%. A much smaller %age is heavily overpaid compared to their 1970's peers.

[misher]

Every employee should want to keep their employer profitable as your job environment will suck if it’s not. There are examples of lower level employees agreeing to cuts to keep their employer afloat albeit rare. I believe the union discussions when American automakers were going bankrupt are a good example of this.

A 30% cut is huge. But if the job market’s bad and it’s that or unemployment most would take the cut. However if it’s easy to find a new job at your current salary most would say hell no.

[SHOFEAR]

employee owned company with a couple hundred employees....

Shareholders wage reduction would be offset by increased dividends.
Non Shareholders wage reduction would be offset by much larger bonus pool.

It would probably work out as a wash for most employees.

[lubicon]

I guess I need to answer yes because it already happened. And actually it's happened several times over my career. Times are bad right now I my line of work and those of us who were fortunate to keep our jobs have all taken pay cuts of this magnitude over the past few years. That goes for our competitors and other businesses in our line of work, not just at my company.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by rbt

Based on 1970's/1980's wages, adjusted to today, most Canadians (USA and much of Europe too) are underpaid by at least 30%. A much smaller %age is heavily overpaid compared to their 1970's peers.

Unpopular opinion time....

The work force has essentially doubled due to most households now being two income. If 50% of the working population was to quit to become stay at home parents, wages would skyrocket overnight.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Unpopular opinion time....

The work force has essentially doubled due to most households now being two income. If 50% of the working population was to quit to become stay at home parents, wages would skyrocket overnight.

Not necessarily, because losing half the workforce would probably inflict a crippling shock on the economy. It would take decades for the dust to settle.

[CityTech]

The rise of the two working spouses model has made it a lot harder for single people to get ahead financially (in areas like housing prices). I'm starting to think we need a lower tax rate for unmarried people to offset this.

[nname]

Really need more context to answer this question.

If the company gives a percentage of the share to each employee, then I would say yes IF I feel that can indeed save the company... as I can cash out the shares later on, which would be worth nothing if the company failed. This actually happen a lot in the tech sector especially for startups.

Otherwise, why would I care if the company goes bankrupt or not? I would just leave and find a new job if they want to cut my pay that much...

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by CityTech

The rise of the two working spouses model has made it a lot harder for single people to get ahead financially (in areas like housing prices). I'm starting to think we need a lower tax rate for unmarried people to offset this.

Couples have kids to spend money on, too, so their tax rate shouldn't be high either. By that logic, everybody should get a lower tax rate.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I imagine hiring a teenager is kind of a pain. You have to schedule them around school hours, they're inexperienced, etc.

They are also notoriously unreliable. Was at a Save-On Foods about 6 months ago at auto check-out and several people were having problems and yet there was no one to help us. Complained to the manager as they should have at least 1 person looking after 6 check-outs and he completely agreed but he said it will continue and there is nothing they can do about it.

He said they are constantly hiring but said most of the younger people are completely unreliable not showing up for work, hired one day and quit a 3 weeks later, are lazy as hell, always late, or just couldn't care less because they know they can get another one tomorrow. He said it's a revolving door. I was quite surprised by his frankness but he very much gave me the impression that he was sick and tired of it and the pay wasn't really the issue.

I think this is why many stores hire more elderly workers now as they are far more reliable, responsible, and committed. Seeing much older workers like at food stores, restaurants, and places like Home Depot was unheard of when I was young but back then unemployment was higher so the kids were very thankful to even land a job.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

They are also notoriously unreliable. Was at a Save-On Foods about 6 months ago at auto check-out and several people were having problems and yet there was no one to help us. Complained to the manager as they should have at least 1 person looking after 6 check-outs and he completely agreed but he said it will continue and there is nothing they can do about it.

He said they are constantly hiring but said most of the kids and are completely unreliable not showing up for work, hired one day and quit a 3 weeks later, are lazy as hell, or just couldn't care less because they know they can get another one tomorrow. He said it's a revolving door.

Yet they could also pay $60,000 a year and offer 6 weeks of holidays and have an extremely reliable employee who would hang on to that job for dear life.