Welcome to www.nakedleader.com. Please login or register to create groups, post questions, recommendations, articles and comments that you wish to share with other members. This website is best viewed in 1280 X 800
Should an employee agree to a reduction in hours?
Submitted by Mary Hull on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 19:11.
Question Category:
Career Advice
A friend of mine works for a kitchen and bathrooms wholesaler who are managing to get by, just. They have asked the 20 staff to change hours or take pay cuts to help reduce expenditure and possibly give the company a better chance of survival. I guess she has no option?
There's always options: She could leave and get another job for one. The positive is that they are keen to try and keep operating and keep the team employed. Another option may be to discuss the company situation openly with the management team and staff and identify the problems and try to work together to resolve the financial issues without pay cuts - some times the management team can't see the wood for the trees! Presumably they have cut back to core staff only?
An employer obviously wanting to keep people on rather than making them redundant is reasonable. My concern would be that this practice could be abused to make people work for less and it would only be acceptable with as much transparency as possible. If your friend isn't getting that or the owners of the company don't appear to be making sacrifices themselves then they should find a new job quick.
The company should discuss more than the pay cuts and hours issues I agree with Peter and Simon .. such as is anyone willing to move onto do a bit of sales fo the short term as presumably this is what they are short of or should they take the opportunity of having time on their hands to revamp the showroom? or should they look into cheaper kitchens for a while.I think a very open approach with the staff as suggested by Simon is the only way to make this work.
All of these suggestions are good and reasonable ones. However, I sometimes get frustrated at people's view of private corporations as social support agencies. Before I get lept on and shouted down, I'm not suggesting that private companies have no obligation towards their employees and I'm certainly an advocate for fair treatment, minimum wage, and ethical business behaviour. But a private company is exactly that. It's primary obligation, by law, is to its shareholders - the people taking the financial risk - and it must always behave in a way that improves its position with respect to the goals (usually financial) set down by the shareholders. This can and often does result in employees getting laid off when it makes financial sense to do so (such as in a recession). The fact that many businesses are taking different approaches is a testament to how far corporate ethics has come in the last 20 years, but it is by no means necessary or required of them.
Personally, I've never like this aspect of private enterprise which is one of the reasons I chose to work for government agencies for many years. As the owner of a private company now, however, if I had to choose between keeping my business running (and putting food on my own table) and retaining my employees it would definitely be a no-brainer.
I agree with all that's been said and would argue that the business owner is doing the responsible thing, agreeing to let the people know what sort of position the company is in while trying to find a solution. The bottom line is that he or she needs to address a worsening situation and is prepared to do so. An owner can only be expected to do what is right to save their business. In this instance they are taking the correct action.