Let's suppose your boss called you into his/her office and explained the company's situation. He/she then gives you the option of getting laid off or taking a 50% pay cut. If you were to choose one of these options, what would it be and why?
The answer is quite easy. It depends on the situation, if I am confident that I can get another job asap or there is a job waiting for me else where, I will choose lay-off. It is better to terminate the employment contract and get the benefits while moving to another job that will pay me in full. But if there is no job to transfer to, then a pay-cut is the wise decision. I will accept the payment cut while looking for a new job that will give me a better wage.
If you have other options then why not, but most of the time people will choose to take the otherside knowing that opportunities are not wuit that much for them.
They will accept the pay-cut off to continue leaving with food in their plates, while others will
explore and see if how they can land a new job that will suits to thier skills or some are exploring
to a new one just to fill the needs of the family.
True, the decision of an employee depends on what is an available option for him. As I stated, if there is a job waiting then pay-cut is not an option, plus lay-off means the company will pay the necessary bonuses and separation fee. This is very good if an employee had found a new job and is already accepted in the new company.
I don't think that laying people off is contributing factor to being a heartless CEO. You gotta do what you need to do in order to cut losses for your company if it is needed and this is why it is not always a good mindset to be just loyal to your CEO or your boss. You could endanger your other employees just because you tried to save one employee and worse is risking your company into bankruptcy. If your boss would lay you off, s/he would at least give you a notice either a week or two before you leaving the company and that is the cue to put your job hunting into top priority.
Regardless you are still someone who can be replaced by another candidate if they found better and lesser cost. This is one of the reasons why many people are dreaming to be a business owners. Many but not all.
I agree, it is the task of the CEO to ensure the stability of the company, so his job is not to maintain his employees but to maitain that the company is not at a negative. Besides, if the company gone bankrupt because the CEO failed to implement the reducing of employee, then it is more devastating because not only a certain percentage of employee will be removed but all of them. And the option of pay-cut won't be implemented because the company is already bankrupt and has no fund to continue its operation.
So just like a gardener weeding out "harmful grass" in order for the plant blossom, the CEO will do the same thing by laying off percentage of employees in order for the company to survive.