Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
7k isn't worth it. Stay where you're at. Company #1 screwed you over once - they're trying to skrew u over again (excuse spelling, trying to avoid the AutoCensor). If you let them, that's signaling that you LIKE it, and they'll just do it again and again and again.
He worked for a company that had to make a number of changes, or go broke.
They had to costs, doing things like laying a good number of employees and cut operating choice to state in existence.
They laid off a lot of people even those they would like to keep. Now they are in a position of not playing favorites, and leaving some potential for being sued, or having labor complaints to government agencies. By doing it this way, they eliminate a lot of potential problems, with labor laws, etc., that effect companies.
Next move, is to decide which employees they wanted to keep. They offer the ones they wanted, jobs at a lower wage that the company can afford to pay and stay in existence.
They followed the way things have to be done, with labor laws both federal and state looking over their shoulders. It they had negotiated with OP to keep him and not with some others, it could leave them having to explain their actions to government agencies and to courts. Due to potential liability problems they are almost forced to do things the way they did.
Now, if the above scenario is true, and I were the laid-off employee in question, I could go along with that. I would not like having to essentially take a pay cut but I understand that staying in business is not easy and it is expensive as well.
Of course, the problem is: how do we know that is the truth? For if it were me in this situation, and I knew or had reason to believe that my employer were doing this in order to be able to afford two new Lamborghinis this year instead of having to make do with only one, I would feel like going into my boss' office or the next board meeting and screaming Marx to them.
Now some have said in response that all companies are not to be trusted. I do not think that is always true. There are some employers out there who do try to practice loyalty to their employees and protect their jobs, pay a living wage, etc. It's just that such employers are few and far between, and that includes small business owners as well as the heads of multinational corporate conglomerates. And when a company changes ownership or management for whatever reason, the company's treatment of its employees comes into question until the new boss proves otherwise (or confirms everyone's worst fears).
Thank goodness there are laws and regulations that control how and under what circumstances a company can get rid of its employees. There must be some protections for ordinary people (i.e. employees), otherwise companies could run even more amuck than they already have been allowed to.
He didn't say they had to lay people off to stay in existence. He said they lost money one year and because of that decided to lay people off. Big difference!
When a company is losing money, it is a strong indication that they need to make changes or they will be going out of business. They have to do something, or they will be out of business. No company unless a huge one can stay in business if they are losing money. Companies need lines of credit to operate. Lines of credit go poof and are gone, if a company is losing money. Lose all their credit lines, and they go broke. Lenders do not make loans to companies that cannot pay them back, and companies losing money cannot pay them back. This drives them into bankruptcy.
Yes companies in the situation this one was in, losing money, are in danger of going under. The first thing they have to do is lay people off, plus cut expenses.
This I'm sure happens all the time! Not every employee gets hired back, but the older, higher paid ones are usually the first to be laid off.
And what that tells us is that that company cares more about how much money they make than they do about the quality of their products or services, as well as expressing their true feelings about loyalty to their workers.
There are some cases in which taking a pay cut may make sense, but it's very rare for good employees. And by good I mean productive. You were probably worth more to the company than your original salary, and they mismanaged the situation badly enough to lay you off. If there's a market for your services, you can connect with a better managed company that understands its employees are the life blood of the business and won't play these kind of games. Going back to work for a toxic company is a bad move, even if there may be short-term monetary reward.
Go with the new offer even though it is still less pay than the re-hiring offer carries - though not by much?
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa
Why should the employee trust this company again?
Why didn't the company accept his pay-cut offer in the first place?
He shouldn't.
Their budget changed, probably temporarily. They realized, like many companies, that their layoffs caused more heartburn than the company could handle, so they want the employee back temporarily until the problem (whatever it is) is resolved. Then he's out.
When a company is losing money, it is a strong indication that they need to make changes or they will be going out of business. They have to do something, or they will be out of business. No company unless a huge one can stay in business if they are losing money. Companies need lines of credit to operate. Lines of credit go poof and are gone, if a company is losing money. Lose all their credit lines, and they go broke. Lenders do not make loans to companies that cannot pay them back, and companies losing money cannot pay them back. This drives them into bankruptcy.
Yes companies in the situation this one was in, losing money, are in danger of going under. The first thing they have to do is lay people off, plus cut expenses.
Regardless of you standing up for the righteousness of this decision. In terms of the question asked, there is little justification for quiting a job given by a company that is hiring under the normal circumstances of growing and needing to hire versus, a company that is fighting for it's life as you say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
