If they didn't adjust your salary for inflation, this is already a pay cut.
They may pay you the same amount of money, but it's worth less to them and to you, so it's effectively a pay cut.
13 replies (most recent on top)
Ten percent pay cut, four day work weeks, temporarily, of course.
Wait for the layoff or the merger or the bankruptcy, or the closure of this company. Our company is on a very bad trajectory. Remember, no bonus, no 401K match, forced week off.. oh yeah and the hack attack.
@2dss+1mhZohut useless employees with key skills get to stay
The problem is that if you ask for a 10% layoff, none of the useless employees get laid off. And the problem if you ask for a 10% pay cut, the useless employees still keep their jobs while everybody suffers. The key is to let go of the useless employees, which will never happen until you get rid of useless employee #1. So it's a pointless question.
@1ntx+1mhZohut lol yes... or at the very least the CEO of WD should not be earning more than the entire companies profit quarter... >.<
Toyota is a much larger and more successful company compared to WD. I propose that the CEO of WD does not earn more compared to the CEO of Toyota. And better a lot less:
Toyota "The salary of the CEO of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, is 685,000,000 Japanese yen, which is equal to 4.5 million US dollars"
WDC "His total yearly compensation is US$32.1m, comprised of 3.9% salary and 96.1% bonuses, including company stock and options."
Why DG earns 6x more while doing nothing?
Thank you for the ChatGPT response...
In response to the need to reduce operating expenses, a fictional company is considering two cost-cutting measures: implementing a 10% pay cut for salaried employees or a 10% layoff for affected employees. While both measures would reduce the company's expenses, they have differing impacts on the workforce and the company's long-term success.
Proponents of the pay cut argue that it can help the company avoid more drastic measures such as layoffs or furloughs, which can harm morale and productivity. They also argue that a pay cut may incentivize employees to work harder and become more efficient, as they understand the importance of their contributions to the company's success. Additionally, a pay cut can be temporary and can be reversed once the company has stabilized its finances.
However, critics of the pay cut argue that it may cause significant financial hardship for affected employees and lead to decreased morale and productivity. They also worry that reducing salaries can create resentment among employees, who may feel undervalued and unappreciated, especially if top-level executives continue to earn high salaries and bonuses. Such resentment can create a negative work environment, reduce employee loyalty, and ultimately harm the company's long-term growth and success.
On the other hand, proponents of the layoff argue that it can help the company eliminate the entire cost of affected employees and streamline operations, making the company more efficient. Additionally, a layoff can provide affected employees with the opportunity to seek new job opportunities that better fit their skills and career goals, potentially benefiting both the employee and the company. Finally, a layoff can demonstrate to investors and stakeholders that the company is committed to taking decisive action to ensure its long-term financial stability and success.
However, critics of the layoff worry about its impact on the morale and productivity of the remaining employees, as well as the potential loss of talent and experience within the company. A layoff can also create negative perceptions of the company among the public, which could ultimately impact the company's reputation and long-term growth.
If I were the decision maker, I'd install a temporary salary cut plan instead of layoff. For those who not willing to participate they can choose to quit voluntarily. The loyalty to a company would be destroyed if keep doing the layoff one after the other.
Lay-off all of the diversity and inclusion staff. They produce nothing and are parasites. Fire anyone that ever worked at CSCO,
it will be both in WD. this is not single selection question.
Humble suggestions: clawback bonuses from under performing ELT, end anual international offsites, dont think about another rebranding cycle, and cut DI parties and ai/ml hackathons. None of these generate revinue.