Solution for Unemployment mess - would it work? (collect, average, profit)

[knt1229]

I don't see this working because most folks would not want to take a cut in pay. A day off is not incentive enough for folks to agree to a pay cut. Most full time employees already receive paid days off, so, why give up a part of your salary to take a day off when you can already take days off and get paid for a full day.

I just can't see anyone agreeing to this not even to help the economy.

Also, I don't see how this would help the economy overall. It doesn't create jobs. It only allows for more people to work the same jobs we already have. Not a good idea and definitely not something that would help the current economic situation.

[mitsguy2001]

Maybe instead of cutting hours, reduce overtime. In order to offset increased health insurance costs, there should be an incentive for employers to hire more employees. I am sure that 3 employees working 40 hour weeks get more work done than 2 employees working 60 hour weeks. Also, maybe give a disincentive for employers who have employees regularly working more than 40 hours per week.

[AJBarney]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

That kind of drastic move is not going to happen when unemployment is only at 8.3%, there are still 91.7% of people
working, and they are not going to take such a financial hit when the cost of everything continues to go up.

"Only" 8.3%. Hmmm.


Guess every one of the 8.3% is posting here, then. Since it's such a small problem, and all.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Odyssey13

A maybe far-fetched conversation took place between my manager and I, and we were wondering whether this concept was too complicated to achieve, or a case of overlooking the simple/obvious.

Most full time employees work 40 hours a week.

Hypothetically, there are 100 full time employees at the company that I work for.

Each of us get cut back to (4) 8 hour days, but are still considered full time. We have now each taken a 20% decrease in pay, and have an extra day off during the week. (similar to a government furlough)

There are now openings for 20 4-day-a-week jobs in my company, to fill in the days we have given up.

Now that those 20 people are not receiving unemployment/welfare/other assistance because they are working, we should be able to get some sort of incentive from the government that would help offset the cost of giving up a day, though obviously not a full day's compensation. (After all, we are saving the government money but still getting an extra day off)

Now suppose all large companies did this. That would be enough to solve the unemployment rate.

Even if it weren't a requirement for employers to enforce, I think employers should be required to comply with employees who volunteer to give up a day so that someone else can share their hours. I know I would do it.

Wouldn't work. That 20% decrease in pay can mean the difference between paying rent, electric and eating and paying rent, electric and no money for food.

Most people want a full time job, they want those hours. Many are scrambling for any extra time they can get. Many take on second or third jobs. Some cross work in the same establishment, just to get a few extra hours.

And big companies all doing this? Sorry, it's a pipe dream.

[Odyssey13]

Originally Posted by MatildaLoo

It's still a crappy thing to do to workers: ask them to take a 20 percent pay cut when the economy is awful?

I guess what we were getting at, is that we already are, just in a different form. When it comes down to it, we are supporting the unemployed now, but we are still doing all the work to earn the money that the govt takes to support them.

I don't know what is being taken from us for this purpose vs giving them an opportunity to earn it themselves by giving up a day. The reduction in income taxes theoretically should offset a good chunk of that lost days pay.

(Please note that anything of a critical nature in this post is directed at the system, not at the unemployed.)

[Tober138]

Originally Posted by Odyssey13

Each of us get cut back to (4) 8 hour days, but are still considered full time. We have now each taken a 20% decrease in pay, and have an extra day off during the week. (similar to a government furlough)...That would be enough to solve the unemployment rate.

So more people would have a job, but everyone would be making less? Not sure how that would help the economy.

Added to that, I know I am not the only one for whom a 20% pay cut would have a substantial impact on my overall, financial health. For some people, especially those already below the median US pay level, such a cut could be fairly devastating.

Originally Posted by Odyssey13

Even if it weren't a requirement for employers to enforce, I think employers should be required to comply with employees who volunteer to give up a day so that someone else can share their hours.

Why should an employer be forced to do that? If they want full-time employees, they certainly have a right to that expectation from their employees. Hiring more people means higher costs for HR, training, overhead, health insurance and many other things involved with employing people. Even if every employee was paid the exact same wage, it would cost the company more overall to have 125 people putting in a company-wide total of 4000 hours of work per week (125 people @ 32 hours per week) as compared to 100 people putting in that many hours (100 people @ 40 hours per week).

[Tober138]

Originally Posted by AJBarney

"Only" 8.3%. Hmmm.

Guess every one of the 8.3% is posting here, then. Since it's such a small problem, and all.

I do not think that the poster you were responding to was making light of unemployment, or trivializing the current rate of it, as opposed to stating a simple truth (as much as some people may not want to hear it), which is that: an overwhelming majority of people in this country who are employable are actually employed.

That does not mean that our current unemployment rate is insignificant; it is a serious problem which needs to be addressed (and hopefully it can be, the sooner the better). But it is the truth that way more people are employed than not, and many people are doing just fine in the current economy.

[Sunnydee]

I see where you are coming from and it has some interesting points. Perhaps less drastic would be a 35 hour work week instead of 40, five days of seven hours. It would get more people to work, but less pay is the down side. I'm not sure what the answer is, but we better do something soon because people are in dire need of work and benefits.

[manderly6]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

Maybe instead of cutting hours, reduce overtime.

That would cut out most white collar jobs. Companies aren't paying extra for OT.

[MatildaLoo]

Originally Posted by miu

Not really, if you think about it. If the economy is bad and a company is doing poorly, why not ask the employees to help by taking a pay cut?

And would it be better to ask workers to take a pay cut when the economy is strong? That would be crazy talk.

Crazy talk is asking people to take a pay cut at a time when they can barely afford rent or mortgages, etc. It's pretty awful to expect people to fall on their swords for their company.