Would you rather be laid off or take a 40 percent pay cut?

Let's say you were working for a company and you pretty much hated your current position, but you were trying to advance because there was a position that you really would love. Your wages are only enough to make ends meet. The company is in dire straights and is offering a number of employess the option of being laid off with a 3000 dollar severance package, or they can keep you on with a 40 percent paycut. Do you take the severance and hope that you find another job, or do you stay on earning much less, having to tighten your belt even further, but hoping that you'll one day land your dream job within the company?

I don't know... I would probably take the package. I don't think I could feel secure with that company anymore if I stayed on, hope of moving up be damned.

It would depend on the company and how likely my promotion to said dream position would be.
In my current situation I'd take the redundancy package.

People work for the money, if you need the money you can't afford (literally) to leave and find another job. You'd have to keep working until you had another job lined up, i.e. you actually got a position. Some people will work for less in the hopes of a pay rise and promotion in the future, but the reality is a pay rise and promotion in 6 months isn't going to pay last weeks bills.

It would depend on the company and how likely my promotion to said dream position would be.
In my current situation I'd take the redundancy package.

MissLibrarian

Severance, if they're cutting jobs and pay then you're not likely to get a promotion any time soon. Better off leaving and finding a company which isn't tanking.markop2003

[QUOTE="markop2003"]Severance, if they're cutting jobs and pay then you're not likely to get a promotion any time soon. Better off leaving and finding a company which isn't tanking.gameguy6700

[QUOTE="markop2003"]Severance, if they're cutting jobs and pay then you're not likely to get a promotion any time soon. Better off leaving and finding a company which isn't tanking.gameguy6700

That makes a lot of sense, but you would be missing out on that $3000 severance.

Pay cut. I am very fortunate to have my job. In today's market, I think the odds of finding another job that pays more than 60% of what I make now, with as good as benefits, and in my field, are not in my favor.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="markop2003"]Severance, if they're cutting jobs and pay then you're not likely to get a promotion any time soon. Better off leaving and finding a company which isn't tanking.markop2003

Yeah for frictional unemployment.

I don't think there is enough info about the current position to make a decision. Do I have any control in the direction of the company? Do I have any job satisfaction, or am I entirely banking on getting a promotion in the future? How certain is the promotion in the future? Do I have any loyalty to this company? Why am I loyal if this is the case?

Better . . . finding a company which isn't tanking.markop2003

[QUOTE="MissLibrarian"]

It would depend on the company and how likely my promotion to said dream position would be.
In my current situation I'd take the redundancy package.

JustPlainLucas

Well it's never the top tiers who trim themselves is it? Typical :roll: Would there hypothetically be any chance of the positions coming up within the next year or two (due to retirement/maternity whatever) and if so would I be likely to get it. Because they'd both have to be fairly firm 'yes's for me to stick around personally.

But I don't know how it works in the US, here in the UK redundancy has several advantages, such as making one eligible for Income Support and a Jobseeker's Allowance immediately (rather than being fired/leaving of your own accord wherein you have to wait up to 6 months to sign on to the dole) and usually sterling references/having a strong excuse for seeking employment and being re-hired by another employer etc.

[QUOTE="markop2003"] Better . . . finding a company which isn't tanking.Qixote

Meh, it's not such a problem if you're in the right field.Dark__Link

[QUOTE="markop2003"] Better . . . finding a company which isn't tanking.Qixote

[QUOTE="Dark__Link"] Meh, it's not such a problem if you're in the right field.Qixote

*wikis*

2010 Profits: Intel 11billion, ExxonMobil 30billion (BP is making a loss but that's unrelated to the crisis), Shell 20billion, Oracle 8.5billion, Accenture 1.7billion, AirFrance-KLM 874million, Samsung 17.7billion, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 795million, LG 5.8billion, Maersk 5billion, Boeing 3.3billion, Coca-Cola 11billion, 3M 5.9billion, EADS 788million, GE 12.1billion

[QUOTE="Qixote"]

[QUOTE="Dark__Link"] Meh, it's not such a problem if you're in the right field.markop2003

*wikis*

2010 Profits: Intel 11billion, ExxonMobil 30billion (BP is making a loss but that's unrelated to the crisis), Shell 20billion, Oracle 8.5billion, Accenture 1.7billion, AirFrance-KLM 874million, Samsung 17.7billion, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 795million, LG 5.8billion, Maersk 5billion, Boeing 3.3billion, Coca-Cola 11billion, 3M 5.9billion, EADS 788million, GE 12.1billion

For me I would take the 40% pay cut because I was taught to live within my means. If you are spending over half of your earnings on the basics to survive... you should rethink your strategy! :)

Since I get paid minimum wage, getting 40% pay cut would be awful. However, little money is better than no money so I'd take the pay cut. (While looking for another job.)

Depends on many things. For instance if I could see the principals of the organisation taking drastic cuts to their own salary then I'd be more inclined to stay. If the company was merely going through a rough patch and once sailed through I knew I'd revert back to my original salary again I'd more than likely stay. Also if the job market was in dire straits then it's better to earn 40% than no salary at all for 6 months.

If however the company had sever operational problems and unable to adapt to changing market conditions, and it looked recovery was unlikely at this point, then I'd be more inclined to take my measly $3K and wave goodbye.

Lots of other variables.

A) Do I like this job?

B) Do I like the people I work with?

C) Am I valued at this job?

Too many considerations...

For me I would take the 40% pay cut because I was taught to live within my means. If you are spending over half of your earnings on the basics to survive... you should rethink your strategy! :)

Sandpiper121PP

Pfft. You've never worked at 150% of minimum wage (~$11/hr=$1760 gross/mo) renting your own apartment ($450+), maintaining a vehicle ($400; gas+insurance+etc), buying food ($200), communications ($150; cellphone+internet+cable). And that's just for a single guy (girl?) striking out on his own.

And what about the student who just graduated and can only find this crappy ~$11/hr job? Add in any credit card payments that were necessary to get through school($35+/mo)and don't forget about the all important STUDENT LOANS you have to repay ($250+/mo on average).

Honestly your method isn't feasible for the real world where people work and can't/don't live off of mom and dad's inheritance.

already making ends meet before the cut? get fired and go get food stamps/ unemployed checks...k2theswiss

considering unemployment would pay more, I'd rather be laid off.

now, if I worked 40% less in addition to getting paid 40% less, then sure, I'd keep that job.

considering unemployment would pay more, I'd rather be laid off.

now, if I worked 40% less in addition to getting paid 40% less, then sure, I'd keep that job.

A 40% pay cut is unacceptable to the company that is myself. My company will not accept those terms from a company that I work for.

id rather take a paycut, because at least your getting income in a country were its hard enough to get a job

Find another job, obviously