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

[vid]

Asking for a friend.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Hell no.

[lio45]

Impossible to answer without more information/context.

If I have my dream job, and it's a super rare job, and I'm incredibly overpaid already, and it's guaranteed my employer will cease to exist unless I take a 30% pay cut, and doing that would stabilize the company's situation ensuring the perennity of my job, the answer is "yes, in a heartbeat".

If I have a very expendable job, where my conditions are already so mediocre that I was already considering quitting anyway to find something better, the answer is "absolutely no way".

For a situation somewhere in the middle of those extremes, I'd have to weight the pros and cons more specifically.

[lio45]

For a real-life example, there's a big aluminum plant in "my other hometown" that's been closed for a while due to negotiations between the union and management.

The guys who work there were earning in the six figures with no education. The kind of job that's much rarer nowadays than a generation ago. Management demands significant concessions or the plant might just close.

If you are 45 years old with no education, and you've enjoyed a $100,000 a year easy job so far, would you accept to do the same easy job for $70,000, or risk losing it completely and have to start over (likely at minimum wage at Home Depot or something like that) ?

[lio45]

Basically, the question boils down to "are the conditions of your current job good enough that a 30% pay cut, all else staying the same, would still be preferable to having to find a new job?"

If we polled Canadians at large, we'd find both answers. Some people are overpaid / were lucky to get the jobs they have, and I imagine most of them know it. (Though in the general population, you'd get more "no" answers than "yes" answers, I would think.)

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Basically, the question boils down to "are the conditions of your current job good enough that a 30% pay cut, all else staying the same, would still be preferable to having to find a new job?"

It's roughly equivalent to negotiating a new wage at a new job. It might be your best alternative or it might not be.

You could write textbooks on the complexities of how wages can be sticky, labour laws, etc. and I am sure they exist. But to a first-order approximation, wages depend on supply and demand (which depends on productivity), not employer profits. There are industries where people get paid tons of money and the employers have small profit margins, and industries with huge margins that pay peanuts to wage slaves.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

Impossible to answer without more information/context.

If I have my dream job, and it's a super rare job, and I'm incredibly overpaid already, and it's guaranteed my employer will cease to exist unless I take a 30% pay cut, and doing that would stabilize the company's situation ensuring the perennity of my job, the answer is "yes, in a heartbeat".

If I have a very expendable job, where my conditions are already so mediocre that I was already considering quitting anyway to find something better, the answer is "absolutely no way".

For a situation somewhere in the middle of those extremes, I'd have to weight the pros and cons more specifically.

I could be mis-readingn it, but when he says "more" profitable. to me that says the employer is profitable already. Sounds like a case where the employer is attempting threatening layoffs in order to increase profitability if there aren't concessions on behalf of labour.

[WarrenC12]

Would you be willing to give the boss blowjobs on Fridays to keep your job?

I worked for a small company that cut everyones wages by 20% in order to avoid layoffs. I was young and it was a good job. A few people quit. They brought salaries back up about 5-6 months later as I recall.

[ssiguy]

Sure I would...............when they ask my bank to lower my mortgage payments, car payments, Telus my internet/phone/cable, my hydro, Safeway my food, and government my taxes by a third.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I could be mis-readingn it, but when he says "more" profitable. to me that says the employer is profitable already. Sounds like a case where the employer is attempting threatening layoffs in order to increase profitability if there aren't concessions on behalf of labour.

Doesn't matter though, it's still the exact same poll question: whether or not the conditions of your current job are so good (relative to your qualifications) that you'd rather accept a 30% pay cut instead of quitting and having to start to look for a new job.

(I know several different people who I'm almost sure would say yes. They'd all be very pissed, no doubt, but I'm sure they'd take 70% of what they're making over having to try to find a new job that would, given their qualifications, almost certainly pay them even less than 70% of their current salary)

[jlousa]

At my current job I make well over 50% above my base salary with on call time and OT. If my company decided that there would be no more on call pay and OT would end I would probably look for another job. But I wouldn't blame them. Some people might be okay that as they'd prefer the time off more.

[SignalHillHiker]

I chose yes because there are, of course, circumstances where I would accept the proposal.

When I was a journalist, for example, salaries were so low a 30% pay cut wouldn't have been that dramatic. It's probably the lowest-paid field that requests post-secondary education.

In marketing/communications/public relations, the pay is at least double, usually triple or more. Depending on the employer, it could be wise to take a pay cut. Say... Target Marketing, which does the province's tourism ads. If they had a bad year and made such a request of staff, I'd certainly accept and wait it out.

Also, location matters, public versus private sector, etc. I took a pay cut to move home. If I lost my current position, there isn't much comparable here. Even if I could get the same work, it'd probably be a significant pay cut. Not quite 30% but probably close. So given the option beforehand, I'd probably accept.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

Doesn't matter though, it's still the exact same poll question: whether or not the conditions of your current job are so good (relative to your qualifications) that you'd rather accept a 30% pay cut instead of quitting and having to start to look for a new job.

(I know several different people who I'm almost sure would say yes. They'd all be very pissed, no doubt, but I'm sure they'd take 70% of what they're making over having to try to find a new job that would, given their qualifications, almost certainly pay them even less than 70% of their current salary)

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.

[Doug]

No because that employer is likely in a death spiral. I’ve always kept my options open and would never take any shit from an employers or client.

[Marty_Mcfly]

You don't move backwards on the salary scale, especially to better the profit margin of the company. Any company expecting that from their employees isn't worth your time, and you should be looking to exit at any opportunity.

I'm already vastly underpaid for my qualifications/education at my place of employment which has millions of dollars to play with.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

For a real-life example, there's a big aluminum plant in "my other hometown" that's been closed for a while due to negotiations between the union and management.

The guys who work there were earning in the six figures with no education. The kind of job that's much rarer nowadays than a generation ago. Management demands significant concessions or the plant might just close.

If you are 45 years old with no education, and you've enjoyed a $100,000 a year easy job so far, would you accept to do the same easy job for $70,000, or risk losing it completely and have to start over (likely at minimum wage at Home Depot or something like that) ?

I am generally pro-worker but every time I hear about the strike at ABI in Bécancour on the news it just blows my mind.

[Martin Mtl]

Why would I ?

If a company is only profitable by underpaying its employee, then it's not profitable, period.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

Why would I ?

If a company is only profitable by underpaying its employee, then it's not profitable, period.

I am not sure the question was properly formulated. The link between the reduction in pay and corporate profits (not necessarily, or perhaps not likely, to accrue to employees) is not something that most people would accept.

I think whether or not you'd accept a pay cut to prevent the company from going under (and save your job) offers a more interesting dilemma and debate.

[WarrenC12]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...teen-students/

I'm not sure if this was related, but Alberta just dropped the minimum wage for under 18s to $13 from $15.

“This is still a very generous wage – $13 an hour is a lot more than $0,” Mr. Kenney told a news conference on Monday.

Pretty rich coming from the guy who's been on the taxpayer dollar for 20+ years and has a platinum-plated pension.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...teen-students/

I'm not sure if this was related, but Alberta just dropped the minimum wage for under 18s to $13 from $15.



Pretty rich coming from the guy who's been on the taxpayer dollar for 20+ years and has a platinum-plated pension.

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.