wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

A PAY CUT MEANS LESS MONEY FOR ME, ON THE OTHER HAND YOU COULD SAVE A JOB FOR SOMEONE.

THE WAY I SEE IT. HELPING SOMEONE NEVER GOT YOU ANYTHING IN LIFE. SO REFUSE A PAYCUT.

I work in Manhattan. And yes, I'd certainly be willing to take a salary cut to preserve jobs for others. Remember, it's not only salary, but also health insurance if offered from an employer.

I am a city worker, as of 1981.
I am still working, as I cannot live
on the $25,000.00 dollar a year pension,
that I would get and I need to have
my social security check to go alont with
my pension check.
Since I am 58, I have to wait another 4 years,
till I am 62 and eligible for social security.

In my job, as a City Worker, I get a lot of
mandatory overtime.
I usually work a 6 day week and have 1 day off.
Last Friday, I got off work at l am and
had to report to work at 9 am and work until
1 am till Saturday morning.

I am required to work many 16 hour days,
double tours or work a 6 day week, come in
on my day off and work a tour.

I would gladly give some one else all the
overtime I am forced to work.

As a result of all the overtime I am forced to
work, my rent went up $150.00 dollars a month,
because I live in Nathan Straus housing project
and the rent is based on your annual income.

I never ask for overtime, never want overtime,
and it's become like a game.

Let's see how much overtime we can force
her to do, because we know she hates it.

This is a great way for management to pit employees against each other. Beware.

Good, Patrick. I am happy to hear you are happy.

For some of us, like me, money makes the world go around and the Secret brings more money. Money doesn't buy love but it pays the bills and the Secret gives me all I need and want. it protects me and sustains me in this tough time and in the good times.

Happy Holidays to you and your wife.

Enjoy!

To Voter (51)
Yes-- At will Employment. . . A concept most of us know in a vague way-- or we just live it and call it "Free Market Employment".
But what some of us are facing now is "At Will Wage". In this case "salaried Exempt" employees (Simplified as Non-Union workers-- but NOT necessarily Executive Level Employees) can have their wage unilaterally cut at Corp Need or Whim. There seems to be no Law against it-- because until this point, the company that exercised this power would risk losing good employees to other companies.
But in exceptionally bad times. . . with unemployed workers washing up on every corner-- this power becomes a sizable temptation. Even better if you get tacit agreement from the employee to accede to the pay reduction. It's like a verbal contract-- except it's not a contract the employee can take to court. By accepting the paycut-- you agree to the unshackle the employer's ability to exercise this power. . .now and possibly again later.
And there are some posted examples of people who gave up part of their pay during lean times. . .but never got it back later.
A wholesale application of this power isn't an experience the Body Politic has seen before in the recent generation.
Imagine-- you open your pay envelope next week and find 15% less. No warning. No explanation. But are told-- "Don't like it-- Go find another job."
And your boss is saying that, knowing full well that another job just isn't in the cards right now. And if you quit-- No Unemployment.
Usually you work for the Company because your Paycheck pays the Bills-- whether or not your boss is trustworthy is not really part of the question-- He Had To Pay You.
Now. . . he is seeing the power such that he doesn't have to pay you as much as he did last week.
That's NOT something Americans expect.

Second, I don't understand "merit" vs. "minimum." If a person works an 8-hour day, and does the work required of the job description, at a good quality--not the "110%" referred to elsewhere--is that considered meritorius or the minimum? And this question does not deny the occasional need to put in overtime--but that should be compensated for as well, perhaps in extra time off another day.

If a person does not do their job, or does not do it well enough, with good enough quality, there are means to fire them within union contracts. Yes, grievance procedures can be lengthy (I hear that objection coming), but if you check the history of arbitrary firings--because people tried to form a union, because someone wanted to hire a less experienced and cheaper worker (which burdens coworkers), among other unfair reasons--you'd find that there is some legitimacy to the process. If you--as either management or a union member (feeling burdened by inept cowoerkers)--feel a grievance procedure is too burdensome, well, that's negotiable--on both sides.

And "at will" sounds great--but the "protections" you refer to were won by unions and other people fighting collectively. Laws against sexual harassment, discrimination based on age, race, disability--all happened because of collective action. You can starve "at will" too, while your ex-employer forces your ex-coworkers to take on overtime to cover the work you used to do.

O, you are right it is my choice to live in Manhattan and while I may have to make lifestyle sacrifices to live here, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else (for now). Sorry if I gave the impression that I was unhappy in my life or in need of spiritual guidance. This is not the case. My wife and I are very happy and money is not the determining factor of this.

Voter,
First, when I say "worker" I do not refer to only blue-collar ones; anyone working, of any kind--I work in publishing--is covered under the term. And working conditions in white- and pink-collar industries can be as onerous as blue-collar ones (carpal tunnel syndrome, back pain, the 10 to 15 hour days you refer to, etc.).

I do not suggest that "any kind of white=collar work is a laid-back no-brainer kind of endeavor." I see incredibly hard, non-9 to 5 work done at all levels of workers and mid-level management. And yes, I've been in high-stress, nonmanagement positions in which quick decisions have major consequences. We--you too--deserve union protections. We deserve time with our families and to take care of our elderly family members without worrying about losing our jobs.

I do not argue that there should not be people at the "top." What I do argue is that the work I--and, clearly, you--do, are what make the companies succeed, and we deserve good pay and good working conditions in return. The discrepancies between what we and those at the "top" are paid, and the perks received, is obscene, and *they* often seem to be guaranteed their perks (golden parachutes have been common long before the recent crises), while those "below" them are not--unless there's a union contract.

And a union contract is just that--it's a negotiation. There needs to be a good profit, and a good revenue, that should be shared throughout the company--in a societally friendly way (upper management deserves time with their families too).

I was searching the internet for some information and stumbled upon a site that lists the NY State Payroll(http://timesunion.com/data/payroll/2008/). According to this site there are 297 people making $200,000 to $723,000 annually. That adds up to 73 million dollars a year in State (TAX PAYER) employed salaries. The bulk of these people are employed in the SUNY system. How many of us know 300 people making a combined 73 million dollars a year. How many tutitions pay for this? 88 new taxes state wide and cuts across the board have been announced, have the top paid New York State employees been asked if they would take a pay cut to save a co-worker or maybe to save the state from going bankrupt? This is just one little search, it might be time for we the people to reign the government in and hold those that make decisions accountable.

Patrick, I make a comfortable NYC salary.

You can move to Queens or Brooklyn for a cheaper rent. You don't HAVE to live in Manhattan, you will have a longer commute, but where you pay $3000 rent in Manhattan, you can pay $1500 in Astoria or in Brooklyn.

Basic budgeting is if things are tight, cut back on something, move, adjust your lifestyle. Scale back.

Be grateful for what you have and watch "The Secret." It will protect you in times like these to still have what you need.

There is always another choice, you can change your circumstances, you are not "stuck" you can change it and create your destiny. Rent a copy of the "Secret" from the library.

Thanks O,
You made an assumption that I earn a lot of money because I work for a bank. Now here is the reality, we don't own a car and we live in a 650 sq/ft one bedroom apartment in Manhattan (which we rent). We also eat in a lot more these days. Trust me I'm very frugal with my money. I'm not pretending we are poor but we are far from rich by Manhattan standards. I don't know what you consider 'plenty of money', but I can only hope you are earning what you presume I do.
Patrick

And #47… Fair or not, it’s called at will employment. You can be fired on a whim, and you can quit on one as well. There are built in protections for the worker, perhaps they need to be strengthened, but the system affords you a fair amount of freedom to do as you please.

RJ, it’s not that people are trying to bring down the unions, it’s that many of us have had experiences with union employees who clearly don’t deserve their jobs, but are wrapped in the warm smug blanket of job security and benefits which means they need not do more than the minimum. This isn’t all union employees, but many. I briefly worked in a non-union electricians shop, our team was sent to work on a job that was partially union. You do see employees who are not even trying, but come collective bargaining time, they will definitely have a hand out. Guess some of us value merit over from each his ability to each his need. Eh.
As for work conditions… That argument that the workers do all of the hard work and sacrifice their families and personal sanity to enrich the top is falling on deaf ears. You make it seem like managing and building a company or any kind of white-collar work is a laid back 9-5 no-brainer kind of endeavor. Have you ever been in a position where a decision you make could adversely affect a relationship with a client (income for the company) or mean saving or losing several thousand dollars? I’m not even at management level and I’ve had to make those kinds of on the spot decisions during a 10-15 hour day in the office. I believe in worker protection, but without the people at the top, what would these workers you speak of do?

I'm getting annoyed with people criticizing banks bonuses. My wife and I both work for large banks. We are not corporate executives with multi-million dollar bonuses. In fact she got no bonus (and may be losing her job). This accounts for about 1/3 less salary this year. Bonuses are usually discussed and negotiated when you take a job. It is always a risk of the job that you may not receive one, but most people count on their bonus. In the banking industry the base pay is kept very low with the expectation that the bonuses will make up for the low pay. We are all being told we should be lucky to have a job, but if I don't get a bonus this year we will be in financial trouble. My point is, much of the bonuses you are seeing are going to normal people. To all those people out there I ask you, how would you do with 30-40% less salary?

My problem is that the Fed-Ex type pay roll-back is a break-in-the-dam. The Salary or Wage becomes 'Variable-at-Need'. And to me if the TOP Execs take no cut-- or management is very vague to to WHAT type of cut Upper Mgnt is taking-- I don't trust 'em.
Plus, the next time they just want to improve the books for the Investors-- Across the Board paycuts again!
In short-- unless you are a TIME CARD punching wage earner or a Union Employee-- all the rest of us become no better than the illegal immigrant. Our weekly paycheck can change upon Managerial Whim or need to please the Investors. And as for Upper Management foregoing Bonuses. . . that's a red herring-- if you're smart- you live and plan your finances on your SALARY, not your Bonus.
Worse-- there is NO LAW against it. All the affected employee can do is Accept it. . .or quit.

In response to Richie ("why do people in unions think they should be treated any differently than regular employees? what right do they have to be shielded behind the 'contract'?"):

I don't understand why so many people seem focused, seem to prefer bringing *down* other people's standards of living, rather than bringing their own **up**!

People in unions don't believe they *alone* should have a contract to help them negotiate against the massive salaries/options of the CEOs we're now hearing about every day--they believe *every* working person should have such a contract.

They decided that employers--who create working conditions that make it hard to spend time with their families, who create unsafe conditions, who make massive salaries based on the services/products the members actually produce--should pay more, and should create good/healthy working environments, and they fought hard to balance out workplace power by organizing in unions.

The City of Yonkers is actually laying off 151 people. 76 full-time employees and 75 part-time employees. Those notices went out Friday. There may be deals made amongst the unions to reduce the number of actual jobs lost, but as of now the number of layoffs is 151.

I'm for the pay cuts, but how are these handled going forward? My company initiated cuts back in 2002 or so, claiming they were related to the slowing economy, but never reversed them. Now, they are cutting further. Shouldn't employers offer some sort of pledge that these are non-permanent as long as things eventually get better out there?

I work for a computer software company. Our company started difficult times back in 2001. We all took pay cuts to keep the company alive, and about a year later, took another pay cut. I haven't had a raise in 8 years. I think everyone taking pay cuts is better for team morale instead of layoffs, however, in our case, business has not improved and multiple lay offs happened anyway in the subsequent years. We're still hanging on by our fingernails, in chapter 11 bankruptcy, with a skeleton staff who still hasn't seen a pay increase.

Some people have a knee jerk response to anything that benefits a group v. individuals. Isn't our national motto "E Pluribus Unum"? All societies are based on cooperation.

I would accept the cut or a limited furlough, but also the layoff of unproductive employees. How about larger reductions in the upper eschelons and smaller or none for those at the lower end of the scale? Staff reductions of unproductive employees should be a regular function though

Roulette depends on the co-workers. I’ve been through layoffs at several design firms and it all depends on the team. Usually the first people to lose their jobs were the dead weight. Though we were sad to see (most of) them go, we all knew why they HAD to go. No one working hard should have their pay cut to secure the job of someone not pulling their weight. It only really hurt when we saw hard-working, dedicated, and talented professionals get cut. Roulette is a last resort to preserve well-working teams (which are hard to build). It’s hard to have sympathy for workers who owed their jobs solely to a strong economy or labor laws.

Excellent point, Victor. Boycott the lousy employers. I stopped drinking Starbucks about 6 or more years ago. I'm sure they didn't miss my 5 bucks but I feel better and that's 5 bucks they didn't get! So there!!

I work for a greeting card company in Hoboken, NJ. We're closing shop starting on Wednesday, Dec. 24th, and we won't reopen until January 5th, 2009. We're getting part of that time covered under holiday pay and the remaining time (excluding weekends) we're required to use vacation time.

For those of us who already used our vacation time we can borrow against our 2009 days. Needless to say many of us were/are not happy with the decision. I have read, though, that our employer is not required at all to pay us for any day that we don't work - including federal holidays.

I think the decision was made in an effort to save money when it comes to energy. It's rather pricey to heat a warehouse and offices.

It might be worth getting an economist, or the guys from Planter Money, on your program to discuss deflation and whether it is good for the economy in theory to have people taking pay cuts rather than lay-offs.

Seems to me as though this might be called a choice of social Darwinism rather than Russian roulette.

Terms like "most motivated," "underperforming," "willing to give 110%" beg other questions: Why are people motivated/not motivated? What does performance require? What is lost/gained by giving 110%?

Giving up home life (all that necessary/required attention to kids' schools and health, aging parents etc.), workplace safety (all those construction accidents), delivery workers paid under the minimum wage for 70-hour weeks ... Let's be careful about overgeneralizing.

If they're going to be done, across-the-board cuts of any kind should be proportional: a percent of salary/profit/options etc.

2008: GOLDMAN --$10 BILLION IN GOVT HANDOUT
DEC 19: GOLDMAN --$16 BILLION IN BONUSES ANNOUNCED (ABC.COM NEWS)

why do people in unions think they should be treated any differently than regular employees? what right do they have to be shielded behind the "contract"?

My pay has already been cut. My annual raise was about .5x the inflation rate. Do you trust your employer, that there wont be layoffs ontop of the givebacks?

I manage a small division at a company and when given the choice, all the workers took less hours instead of laying off anyone.

Even those who knew their jobs were secure decided to have their hours cut instead of seeing coworkers go.

I was laid off 2 1/2 years ago and I feel that if sacrifice is necessary to keep your job, then I'd be willing to accept a pay cut over being laid off. In the end, it may or may not benefit me should start working again.

real wages have been falling for years. so i've already had my pay cuts.

Some time ago, all of us at a not-for-profit educational organization took a pay cut to avoid positions being cut. We have now been told that we will not be receiving the Foundation's contribution to our 403 (b)s. While we are all still fully employed and have reasonable health care coverage, I believe this is the right thing to do in the current economy.

"Spreading the pain" is a bad idea. Most companies have some fat and hard times are a good opportunity to shed some of the less productive employees through layoff. If I were a good employee forced to take lower pay in the same workplace as less productive employees I would resent it.

I am a temp (they call it consulting after you've been here a while) at Citi Group. They cut the wages of temps across the board last week. It was quite a blow, especially after being here for over a year. It just means that I have to work a few more hours a week to make what I used to, which is a pain but still much better than having to go out and look for a job in these economic conditions.

Anyone voting for "roulette" obviously feels very secure in their own jobs. Here's another question: if your company announced an across the board cut, would you threaten to quit unless you were excluded from the cut?

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but anyone who thinks the car companies should be cut loose should feel the same way about underperforming employees.

I feel this is a false choice. However if you're going to discuss it then for me it all depends on how much of a cut the executives would take. It seems that pay cuts at the top would be all that would be needed to save some jobs. Japanese auto CEO's make less than a million dollars a year. U.S. auto execs prior to their $1 annual income pledge make close to $100 million a year. The pay scale in this country is seriously messed up.

I have to wonder: what sort of profit margin is being buoyed (an exec compensation of course) by layoffs or pay-cuts? I know profits are down for plenty of companies, but not raw numbers, are companies still trying keep the profit percentages up?

Lay off somebody, no pay cuts! Recession Roulette here we come.

If it is across the board, including the execs pay packages it is only fair.

For workers in this boat I assert they MUST negotiate -- THIS IS THE TIME TO MOVE FOR A 4 DAY WORKWEEK -- OR 2 DAYS OFF A MONTH -- OR A LONGER VACATION -- OR OR WORK AT HOME 1 OR 2 DAYS PER WEEK.

BOSSES ARE USING THIS TO NEGOTIATE -- WORKERS NEED TO AS WELL!!! THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY, BUT ONLY IF WORKERS, WELL, UNITE.

Self-interest, loyalty, distrust and resentment seem to the the dominant issues at play here.

What happened to compassion for you peers, for your coworkers or just the people around you?

My company had across the board pay cuts AND layoffs in 2001 after September 11. The one thing that really bothered me is that when times got better, there was no across the board pay increase.

PS. Some writers here are assuming that layoffs will be done sensibly, based on people's talents and efforts. But sometimes the decisions are made wholesale. For example, a friend who freelanced longterm for a particular company was laid off when all freelancers were laid off--even though there was general agreement that she was needed desperately and that her loss would leave a large hole.

I support a cut in management salaries!

I am a social worker and I can barely afford to live on what I earn now! However, I think that an effective leader - a trustworthy and charasmatic one - could inspire workers to make a TEMPORARY compromise with respect to their salaries. New perks would help, for example getting out early on fridays or an extra days off.

You mean there are still employers?

Every single person I talked w yesterday at 2 xmas parties fall into 2 categories:

1. entrepreneurs and self employed, ie writing their own paychecks;

2. Enriched so well by their employers (like Lehman -- yes, great 6&7 figure bonuses this year via the new employer, Barklays) that saying no to the paycheck life still is not an option. Too much to buy next yr and 2010!

Working for a paycheck might be becoming a zero sum game, especially as health care and 401Ks turn out to be Ponzi schemes.

But Capitalism seems to be alive and well for some, with the end game being either a race to the bottom -- or aiming to write your own paychecks, which tend to be even bigger.

I am below poverty, I am the poorest person I know. I'd rather lose my job and be free than take a pay cut, be even poorer and still have to go to work.

I would accept paycuts in my particular department to retain everyone, because everyone pulls her weight.

I would hate to take a paycut to retain the jobs of some of my other coworkers, who are lazy and/or nasty.

But the idea of shared paycuts rather than layoffs is okay with me, albeit painful.

I vote "roulette," even though it seems harsh.

As a manager, I now have an opportunity to think about who's not the best fit, who's underperforming, who would legitimately be happier working part time, etc. In this environment, the last thing I want to do is penalize my most motivated people with a pay cut. And every time I have lost a job, it has been painful, but it's also been an opportunity to do something that's better for me.

Pay cuts across the board seem more fair, but they demoralize the best people on your staff and reward mediocrity.

Some of our anchormen and anchorwomen of the TV station, I work, make from 8 to 25 MILLION dollars a year salary. Why can we just take 10% percent of their salaries and save the job of thousands of employees? The amount of money these so called TV talents make is a crying shame.

This question must be from one of those Obama/socialists! The only thing more ludicrous is suggesting that the government should decide who is laid off and who gets to keep their job. I've work for a large Fortune 100 company, my husband for a small 35 person electronics firm. In both situations, there are always people who work smarter, are more reliable, are more effective in dealing with co-workers and customers, are willing to give 110%, etc. while others are simply just not as motivated. A company must ALWAYS take layoffs seriously, because the ramifications are long lasting, but I would never want to work for a company who encourages the kind of mediocrity implied by this question.

can't take a pay cut am already at the poverty line

My co-workers and I were not given a choice in the matter. It is some consolation that we're all in it together, but I wonder how I will pay my student loans, heating bills, etc. during this period. We can only hope this salary cut will end when they say it will and not extend due to the economic crisis. In addition, I find it admirable that our institution would make cuts (not just in salaries) to avoid a deficit rather than do into debt to continue as normal. Perhaps all Americans should practice this method and we might all be in better shape.

We are all temps here. I will play Recession Roulette and some make it and some don't. I can't take anymore pay cut. I don't make it on this. We are paid scatta.

I would accept overall pay cuts in my particular department because everyone is a talented hard worker and everyone is needed. However, I would hate to take a paycut to retain the jobs of certain other people in my company who are nasty and/or who don't do their jobs!

Also, it feels dangerous to tell the owner of my company that he can cut pay, because he's not trustworthy, and it's not like we'd ever get to check the books.

Perhaps if he stopped talking about his Porsche and his investments and his gorgeous second home . . .

Our company was not given a choice. That all of us are in it together is somewhat easier to take, but I wonder how I will pay my bills, student loans, and heating bills making less money than I did nearly 10 years ago when I first moved to New York City. We can only hope our salaries return to their previous levels when our boss says they will and not extend due to the economic crisis.

I must say that it is commendable that our institution would make cuts to avoid a deficit rather than go into debt to continue as usual. Perhaps all Americans should take on this concept as an everyday practice.

I wouldn't trust my company to pay cut and then not have lay-offs, too eventually.

The fact that americans would rather play recession roulette shows people lack of loyalty to their co-workers. Foreign companies such as Toyota have always instituted paycuts and have never had to make layoffs. That breeds job loyalty and less agression amongst coworkers.

Regardless of a businesses survival strategy, it is important that upper management is open about the state of their company.

While I think a certain amount of belt tightening might serve as a catalyst for office's to trim under-performing staff, our office recently froze wages for all staff in order to preserve the current workforce required to get our projects done. I, as well as many staff, appreciated the gesture... especially in a design industry where we are watching many of our hard-working friends lose their jobs.

That happened at my company at the end of November, but we weren't given a choice. The fact that it's saving other people's jobs is some consolation, but it was still very hard to swallow. Nonetheless, I am still happy to have a job although the fact that our company is struggling makes me question my overall job security moving forward.