Get a Widget for this title
RSS Feed
Can children be taught the value of sportsmanship in an era of steroid abuse among professional athletes and ever more aggressive parents in the stands at little league games?
Can children be taught the value of sportsmanship in an era of steroid abuse among professional athletes and ever more aggressive parents in the stands at little league games?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 61% | 167 votes | Total: 272 votes | |
| No | 39% | 105 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesPlease Cut My Pay, Not My Coworkers' Job
Once I understood how taking a pay cut to save a coworker's job would benefit me in the long run, it was an easy decision to make. Now, I want to help others come to the same conclusion because our collective future depends on it. An overstatement, you may be saying? Not really. Just think about it.
The practical, tangible, everyday, worldly perspective
If there is any doubt that we live in a connected world where the health of one business, one industry, one country's economy and the economies of all nations, like the parts of a body are all linked, then our current global economic crisis has not taught us enough. Yes, most of the time businesses and governments do succeed and fail on their own, but wouldn't you agree that these are not normal times?
How else can we explain why businesses across the board have suddenly stopped performing well at the same time? There is no other explanation. How else can we account for staffing surpluses at hospitals now when just a few months ago they had shortages? We have just as many sick people, but fewer people who can afford medical care because they lost their jobs. The same scenario is being played out in virtually every other industry and even in many governments. Like a falling line of dominoes, workforces have gone down. Addressing this problem now is critical.
Thankfully, employers have finally begun to realize that if they and others continue to cut jobs, there will be fewer and fewer consumers who are able to purchase their products and services. And, this of course would lead to more layoffs. As a result, employers have adopted two primary strategies for saving jobs: asking their employees to take voluntary pay cuts [1] and/or to work fewer hours. Both are proving effective because for the first time this year the nation's unemployment rate went down in July. And, it is not surprising that also in July the average work week of non-farm workers dropped to an all-time low of just 33 hours. [2]
Imagine all the jobs that could be saved if everyone took a cut in pay or worked fewer hours until the economy is healthy again. Wouldn't we all benefit? Wouldn't it help end the downward spiral that we have experienced? Wouldn't it keep more homeowners in their homes and maintain property values for everybody else? Wouldn't more consumers have money to buy cars and other American products and services? Wouldn't more Americans be paying income taxes rather than collecting unemployment checks? Wouldn't it be the right thing to do?
The moral, ethical, long-term, spiritual perspective
Since workers often spend more time on the job then they do with their families, workplace relationships are special. As a result, friendships and loyalties often develop among coworkers and employers. In the process, a job can often define a worker as a person, ego and all, if one lets it. Unfortunately, many people do let it even though we are all much more than any job. So, losing a job can be devastating financially and spiritually.
Just as businesses are linked globally and their fates depend on each other in various ways, we are all linked in the workplace with each other. In the end, it is up to each of us to create a work environment which honors, values and respects each worker. And if we want to be part of such a place, each of us must envision it, nurture it, and develop it with our deeds. The only thing that would prevent me from taking a pay cut to save a coworker's job would be a salary that prevented me from meeting my financial obligations.
So by preserving our coworkers jobs now, we would be strong spiritually and could prevent an even worse global economic crisis. Who knows how bad it could get? After all, weren't our two world wars sparked by multinational economic catastrophes? Do we really want to go there? Do we want to risk Armageddon? You know, now that I think about it, I'd probably take a pay cut to save a coworker's job even if it meant I wouldn't be able to meet my financial obligations. I'd rather take that risk.
[1] http://online.wsj.co m/article/SB12445071 7216996329.html
[2] http://www.businessi nsider.com/chart-of- the-day-avg-work-wee k-decreases-2009-7
Learn more about this author, Ronald Peterson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Although sacrifice for our fellow women and men is a desirable attribute, the fallacy with this line of thinking is failure to take into account the basic problem with corporate America: greed.
While we see the well-heeled executives of major corporations like GM and AiG tap-dancing around our economic woes, the rank and file are asked to continuously give up pay and benefits. Even if the upper management does take a pay cut, I can't see where going from a million a year to five hundred thousand is much of a sacrifice when Jane Doe takes a cut that affects her ability to make a car payment or keep the lights on. The problem is capitalism, for all of its good, often protects the rich when they need it least and the common man needs it most.
The reason I would not give up pay to save a co-workers' job is not because I don't care about my colleague. It's not because I am a cold-hearted person. And of course, there are exceptions. A small mom-and-pop company that is truly struggling makes a much better case for justifying a sacrifice.
So the answer here pertains to larger companies of 50 or more people. Here's why I say no:
1) It sends the wrong message. A company that successfully sells such a request opens a Pandora's Box of future concessions. Example: many companies cut their 401 (k) matching funds in 2009. Hide and watch how many reinstate them any time soon.
2) The leadership is not willing to do the same. If an upper manager such as the CEO of company X is willing to put her money where her mouth is then I am much more willing to do this, but it's the exception and not the rule. Corporate America refuses to lead by example. Oh, how unlike our Founding Fathers are today's financial moguls!
3) It undermines the company's excellence. A given business's goal is to provide goods and services in exchange for a profit. Allowing workplace concessions will at least in a subtle way encourage the business to become less hungry for success. If the leadership knows they can cut costs at the employees' expense they may be less likely to take chances, invest in the business, or expand efforts to grow.
4) It destroys morale. A football team that's behind by two touchdowns doesn't benefit from the coach telling them they are losers with no chance (most of the time). A workforce will not desire to give their boss more after taking a pay cut. They will covertly or perhaps overtly dislike their job to a greater degree and wish they could find another one. It breeds contempt; the minute the economy improves there'll be a run for the door. This hurts the employee (having to start over) and the business in question which loses experienced workers.
5) Publicly traded: If a company is publicly traded then the management, in a very real sense, is slave to the stockholders. The more cuts they make, the better their bottom line will be and the less chance you have of seeing those benefits (like the 401(k)) ever return. Employers and employees both are just like weeds: give them an inch and they take a whole yard. So the best solution is to cut costs to require uniform sacrifices, without hurting the business' chances to function and grow.
Learn more about this author, Cameron Foster.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
