1 of 1

No

Write now Article Tools

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.

Add your voice

Know something about Would you take a pay cut to save a coworker's job??
We want to hear your view. Write now!