Topic: Lay off vs Pay cut (Read 1026 times)

When a Pay-Cut occurs in any working environment, it creates a demotivating attitude for the workers. There have been many studies conducted that have shown that when this occurs a worker's performance becomes less productive.
The workers begin to slack off by showing up late for work and become less responsible once wages have been cut. On the other hand, when word gets out to the workers the company will have some layoffs to creates a atmosphere and environment of fear. This as a result makes the worker more productive.
The workers fear that they may be in the line of potentially being one who who get a lay-off This a great example that many businesses around the world were faced with only two options. Either cut-off employee salaries or lay-off employees were the decision that had to be made by a boss due to the pandemic.

Personally, I think this is a difficult decision to make, and it really depends on my current financial situation and job prospects in the current job market. If I'm able to afford a pay cut and believe that my job is secure enough to weather the current period of difficulty, then I might consider taking the pay cut.

However, if I need to maintain my current salary to cover essential expenses or if I believe that there's a high chance of being laid off anyway, then I might choose to take the layoff and look for new job opportunities.

So, it really comes down to weighing the potential benefits and risks of each option and making the best decision for my own personal circumstances.

I couldn’t afford a pay cut so assuming this was a reality for me I’d accept to be laid off. I have been at my current company for a long time so legally they would owe me a redundancy package. I’d take that & then get another job. Providing it didn’t take me forever to find a new job I’d get about £10,000 and a nice little holiday from working. I think I could find new employment so I’d take my £10,000 redundancy pay & tell my boss to stick his pay cut.

if a boss calls and gives the option to be terminated from work or paid 50% it's like we as employees have no self-esteem and I think the company doesn't need us but squeezes our energy to realize the dream of its own company.
so even though the company's situation needed me, I was given the choice of being fired or a 50% salary, I would still quit the company.
if indeed the company's situation requires our staff, the salary should be increased, not lowered to 50%. it will only waste time.
Well, even though we need money when the economic situation is difficult, for me self-esteem cannot be bought with money

for me opening my own business would be better than working in a company only required to work to fulfill the boss's dream.
by opening our own business we indirectly become the boss of our own business owner

That's also my point. Staying in the same company with a pay cut-off in some people is not an option but a force obligation due to their needs. Like you, your family needs your salary for your expenses.

You can't gamble to move away as you don't have assurance that you can easily land a job,
it's your only option to continue surviving. Maybe if the growing economy start to show good
recovery and there are many available jobs that might be the time for you to start finding and
land the suit job for you.

Given the current economic situation, I guess we won't have a choice. In case if I don't have a family, without thinking, I will choose the second option and leave the company immediately. But if you are a married person, quitting your job and waiting to be accepted into a new job is really difficult to choose and there is no guarantee that the new job will bring a higher salary. Don't forget that a bad economy means all companies are in the same predicament. I want to say that the choice is up to each person's situation, no one is the same.

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.


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 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.

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.

From the company's perspective choosing paycut over laying-off will be advantageous to them if the workload is much than to be handled with lesser amount of employees.
If this is the scenario they will try their best to persuade the employee to take a pay cut.

But from the aspect of the employee, if the situation is that you either take a pay cut or you are laid off you have an option to choose lay off if there is job availability in your environment and if the skill you have is very high in demand.
A company can only threaten you with a layoff if what you do can easily be done by a random person without much training.
But if you are highly skilled and experienced no company will easily give you an option of lay off.

On a normal grounds, if I am faced with that challenge I will take a pay cut and within that period I am with the company I will be submitting my resume to other companies for a necessary exit.

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'll also have no choice but to take the pay cut since I've tried to applied in so many companies but even getting an interview is hard to get. That's why right now I'm trying to learn some new skills so that myself is more marketable to these companies.

But for those people living in a country that has a lot of opportunities, choose to be laid off and find a better job. That's the most ideal thing to do if you have a choice to make.

If you are living in a country with a stable economy and finding a new job will not be too difficult, of course we will choose the second option, which is to quit. But if you're living in a country with unemployment, and companies constantly laying off employees because they're struggling in times of crisis, then I don't think we have a choice here.
You are lucky to still have a stable job with a decent income, but in many other places unemployment is increasing, it is almost impossible to find a job, most people choose to move back to their hometown because they can't find a job.

At the end the decision will depend on the economic conditions of the country, if the country in which you live has a good economy then it is likely you will prefer to be fired and just get a new job somewhere else, however if you live in a country where the economy is not as strong and it could take you months or even more than a year before you get a new job then you may decide to get the pay cut for now while looking fro a job that at least pays close enough to what you used to get.

I do not agree with that, life is already quite hard, getting a pay cut is not acceptable and even if they accept it for a short period of time, unless they were paid a whole big amount, they will try to look for other jobs that will pay as much as they used to get paid, or maybe even more.

Inflation is a big problem and while everything is going up in price due to inflation, the salary can't be going down, that just doesn't make financial sense to anyone. I say either fire me, or keep my salary the same, there is no in between for me. I am thankfully working with a good salary, and there is no cut for me and I am making a good enough income that I don't have to worry about the inflation that much.

Tough call; it made me think. If I am the heartless kind of CEO, then yes, laying people off is the solution, as it really cuts off the expenses in terms of salary, but the problem is that I am taking care of my people. My idea is to ask my employees to choose what they want; it is like a survey to know the majority's suggestions. If they want me to lay off people or just cut their salary, I am sure that employees would say cut their pay because it is challenging to have no job and also tricky to find one. I will mostly choose what the majority says since both options can benefit the company.

Wow, what a dilemma, I think this is a difficult decision and this decision that must be taken by someone. Personally, I would probably take a pay cut and stay with the company I work for. However, many people may feel differently they might take layoffs just to avoid having to make that choice in the first place.

A company's PoV would be like: It is better to try to keep operating with extreme strategies than to force spending levels to continue to tend to be stable when the company is critical which will eventually all be over. Companies go bankrupt, all employees had to quit.

Wow this is a very tough call. Ideally you should get laid off and look for another job but since everybody is losing their jobs in a such environment, a 50% pay cut don't look really bad. This is how the beginning of a recession looks like. Either with no job or a 50% paying job, people will have to spend less and less. That's what the high interest rates do to the economy and you know what? It should have happened long time ago. The FED was too late to act and even believed their own "inflation is transitory" bullshit.

Man, 50% pay cut is like doing a charity works TBH. Well, that depends on your position and salary bracket, but most people who will be chosen for this kind of situation are those at the rank and file. So, that remaining salary you'll make is not gonna be enough to sustain your family needs.
I'd rather choose to be laid off, but will humbly ask my employer to keep me for at least a month while I am working to find another employer. My nephew once faced with this kind of situation and he did what I suggested above to negotiate to his boss. Fortunately, everything works perfectly well and the transition went smoothly.

yeah I think it's pretty wise. Still choose to work even though the salary is reduced. and while working we can first look for good opportunities to replace the current job. or you can also look for a side job to supplement your income from outside. because the salary cut of course also has a big impact on our economy. because even without deductions from salary, many people often have difficulty making ends meet until the next payday. because inflation makes the price of goods rise and so does our cost of living. then getting a salary cut when inflation takes place will definitely make things more difficult. so looking for a side income might be a solution.

Taking the pay cut is good considering the market. The corporate networks too shouldn't have made firing of staff. Saw a post in which an Indian have turned to be citizen of America, but he's been fired and now he doesn't know what to do as the job market doesn't have good set of jobs. He had two kids and all of the sudden a big income getting stopped could mostly affect the immigrant workers.

Take the pay cut and start looking for alternatives, your boss might be right and the labor market is dead so wait it out on pay is best.     I think the cut is most sensible but during inflation everyone is taking a cut whether they like it or not.  Its why large government with deficit spending and unserviceable debt loads are so dangerous to the entire country, it will undermine the economy and make the currency unstable.

It would be better to evaluate whether the amount of pay cut sill be rational to the work load being done on the company. If you will still retain the workload you've had and have a pay cut mainly because of how the company is going, then it would be better to apply elsewhere.

They should be reasonable for the amount they'll be cutting off their employees salary which isn't always the case, that's why laying off is done.

the is what is happening in twitter - people are resigning.
There are staff issues and there are management issues as well. So we cannot compare both. And the debate is long and strong

during that time people realized that job is temporary and they can be thrown out of the office in no time
the COVID did a hardore reset to the world

A 50% pay cut is too big to consider, but offset by reduced workload and hours it could still be considered. I can still work if this salary deduction agreement is temporary and will be evaluated within a year. But if there's no agreement, then I have no reason to stay.

But then again, 50% is too much to be accepted by any employee in a company. 20% - 30% will be reasonable once they give reasons why this is done to their employees.

During the period of covid-19 when the economic was at it's worst and majority of staffs in most organisations where working from home including the company where am currently working, the management made the decision of a paycut of all staffs salaries by 10% to 15% for mostly the high rank staffs.

According to them, it is a way of ensuring the continous operation of the company and at the same time maintain the ability to pay salaries to staffs. It wasn't pleasant but staffs understood it. Instead of being laid off, getting a payout is a better option. The paycut only lasted for few months before normal salary payments resumes.

If a company will decrease employee's salary or rate it just became an excuse for the employee to quit his job. Imagine the workload of these people, working in that  industry is very hard, expectations are higher than other companies since they are the top brands in the market, so expect that people in that company has a good credentials and background as well, if you know to yourself that you have the skill and experience will you still accept the half payment? or should you hop in another company for better rate? my opinion is, getting laid will be very painful add the fact that they are expecting to end this year with a job but they end up jobless now, but the thing is with these big names they can get a new one in just couple of days or weeks but it all depends in their experience.

before making a choice, of course we need to do a review of our economic conditions and those around us. like, if we have enough savings and it will be enough to support our daily life for a few months or even years while we are looking for a new job, then choosing to quit and be given severance pay will be an option for me. because if we keep working the same working hours but with a 50% pay cut. then it is not certain that our needs will be met with the reduced salary. but if we see that we will have quite a hard time finding a job after leaving a long job. then of course continuing to survive will make sense even if you are forced to give up being paid 50% less than usual. and be more frugal in extreme. because the cuts are bound to have a big impact on our economy. even we need to revise our financial planning.

That's the case we have a stable economy and finding a job won't become too difficult. But with the current economic crisis, companies constantly laying off or cutting staff is a different story. With the current situation I think people will choose to stay and accept the pay cut because finding a new job is now almost impossible. I don't know what your area is like? but in my area, it is almost impossible to find new jobs, if any are just very hard jobs and few people can do them.

Generally speaking this would be the case. Being made redundant in these times would
not be ideal as it would be hard to find a job, likewise taking a pay cut would not be ideal
either, that would render the person financially unstable.

In the case of being made redundant - there are some people who would be able to benefit
from a redundancy payoff, if the person could clear existing debts it might be beneficial,
or maybe the person took a complete change in their living and "downsized" their life, made
it simpler and minimise the exposure to this financial system of boom and bust.

I would opt for Redundancy over pay cut because I would try the above!

When the company gets into trouble, of course, it is a hard thing to give options that feel detrimental to employees, especially if the employee has worked for a long time and is loyal, but we as professionals must think positively and don't feel that this is the only company where we live, there are still many opportunities which is good and promising so that taking the second option in my opinion is more respectable.

I have experienced this, receiving a salary with a deduction or stopped and got severance pay of around 4x salaries, and I chose the second option that stop and get a 4x salary, and happy it turned out not long after stopping I got a new job that gave a higher salary. Maybe not much can be lucky like me, but with positive thinking then all problems can be solved.

Exactly, it's still good to have some than nothing at all while finding a new job. You need to continue exploring your opportunities and not to allow yourself being lock with companies who also struggle.

If you can switch career or if you can do an extra job while in the cut-off period, it's all
on you if how you take the challenges, always have a positive overview to continue moving forward.

If laying off doesn't kill the company, maybe this is the better option. It's not the employees' decision though but if I'm an employee and was asked the same question I guess sacrificing employees may just save the company and some employees than cutting off to 50%. They would however have to do some background checks on employees whether which has a high chance of finding jobs and are still fit to work hard labor.

I doubt there are employees who will keep the job when there are tons of jobs to fill.  Those employees have bills to pay.

It's still lose to lose situation.
- First option is you can't get money anymore until you get new job, seeking out new jobs would be really difficult during recession and without any prior experience in their jobs then it's thinned out the chance of getting a new jobs for some of the new or even experienced workers during that day.
- Pay cut is just depends where you live, if you can live with the pay cut then you can bear with it until the situation is normal or until you get a new job. But with same working conditions and same amount of tasks? Some people would be not interested with that.

Still would prefer to get pay cut instead of lay off especially during recession.

Before accepting the pay cut, I'll try to look for more better opportunities so that I wouldn't be stuck to the choices that's given to me by my company.
Having a lot of choices will help me decide to look at what's going to be the fitting position to me and opportunity to accept me. Having a pay cut of half from what you usually accept is disappointing and that for sure will affect the usual lively and productive days rendered on the company. But that's just what I think of but I'm sure that it happens in the real life when you're on that shoe to accept the 50% pay check reduction.

Its better to have no job rather than making yourself fit out on a job which does pay up 50% cut compared into your previous salary.Its true that goods or needs are appreciating its price as years passing by

which means that cutting your salary on half would really be worsen up the situation for you.Therefore, you would really be finding another job which even though pay isnt really that high but
at least it do compensate your everyday living expenses which is something that we do really look for.

Better to lay off those workers rather than on having or offering 50% pay which is really a nightmare for all.

The 50% cut would likely be the worst.  As these layoff seem to follow industry trend and even crosses over to dissimilar industries (an excuse to jump on the train), I could see a minimum of 70% of companies asking this of their employees.  Sure you could jump ship but if you don't believe these companies would collude in the even of a 50% salary cut, I got tropical land in Iceland to sell to you.

What you said is true but at least you should consider the situation of the company and others, if the company is in trouble and they need our help then I think there is no reason to quit at that time. And if they're just doing it to each of you while you're doing great, then we should quit immediately.

Although the economy is struggling and finding a new job is not easy, if you are really a capable and responsible person at work, finding a new job is not a big problem or you can also open your own shop to do business without having to depend on anyone.

From the point of view of an employee, there are several options:
If a specialist knows his own worth, understands the situation, objectively evaluates the market, and accordingly understands his price in the market and the level of demand, he will do:
1.1. He will say, "Chief, I understand everything. I am also very sorry. I make a decision - to leave the company and change employers." This is the answer of a confident person.
1.2. If a hired specialist is confident in himself, and loves and respects the company, and wants to help her, he will say “OK, Chief, I understand everything, times are difficult.
Let's try to pull the company, I'm ready, 3 months to work for 50%. But then we return to 100% and additional motivation, as compensation for my support of the company with my pocket. "This is the answer of a confident person who is related and loves the company.
1.3. If a hired employee is not confident in his abilities, he will most likely say "Chief, ok, I understand, I'm fine, I'll work for 50%". This is the answer of a weak man. Then he will "bite his elbows", get angry at the boss, at the company, look for a job for half a day, go to interviews, ... And nothing good will happen. As the saying goes "The boss will pretend that he pays the salary, the hired employee will pretend that he is working
1.4 Other options are also possible - tantrums “how will I live on 50% of my salary”, “I will complain about you to the tax police”, “if you don’t pay 100%, I will go to competitors and sell all the information” and so on

This is true for some cases though right now freelancing is a little bit of a hell for people with even 10 years of experience. Not sure what happened, but in freelancing platforms like Upwork, there has been cheap clients lately even in software development field. It kinda sucks for some starters looking to get their first gig, but earn less than on what they are supposed to earn normally in their full time.

Freelancing is a little bit of a risky stuff to jump into because you might end up looking for job endlessly due to short-term contracts. I encountered clients before that promised a long-term work, but then suddenly changed their minds that they are going hire people in their vicinity instead.

The reality is that we cannot really live with the salary that we earn, I mean I can, but like you said 99% of the people can't. And if I take a 50% pay cut, then I would ply just go broke as well, it includes me too. I have to say it’s clear that people do not realize how poor we are to think pay cut is acceptable.

I would rather lose my job than get 50% cut and 99% of the world too. That way the ones that stay will make their usual income, and the ones that leave could find a proper paid job, otherwise 50% cut would not be acceptable for a long time, people will just leave their jobs. That’s as simple as that, no pay cuts, because that can't be afforded these days.

It depends on the person and someone's personal needs. Both are frustrating for an employee, but it could also be an opportunity to seek something better. Supposing I had to choose one of the two, I'd take a pay cut and "silence-quit," and in the meantime, try to find a better-paying job. Silence quitting is when you put the least amount of effort into your work, doing the minimum to get the job done. Unless being laid off came with a reimbursement, I'd choose a pay cut over being fired.

i may choose of getting laid off, but of course with certain compensation. and then, just find another job that i think would be best for me. it may not be lucrative as previous job, but so long i am happy with the conditions of the new company. you can also take a bit of break and find where do you think will give you better satisfaction in life.
i can understand some will agree with 50% cut, but for sure, they are already looking for other jobs while enduring such heavy cut.

50% pay cut? in this economy where everything is adding up its price? If it is a very well-paying job, and the salary is an amount that if is cut in half, it can still meet some needs, I can consider, otherwise, if it is a job that I am already managing, it will be better to just endure a bit while you increase your search for a better paying job, so I can make a smooth switch. The danger with being laid off is the suddenness with which it happens, it can make a person become unstable since they didn't expect it and maybe have not planned for such a circumstance.

Sounds a good option or good move to me rather than on having that 50% cut on salary overall.It would really be good on emphasizing into those positions which arent really that working hard for the benefit of the company but on other hand we do know that these top positions arent been acquired without having those contribution back on the past considering that they've climb up the ladder for the said spot
which it would really be just worth on what you are paying into them basing on how far your company had able to sustain and succeed out.
Cutting 50% would really make things even more worst. Laying off is something a hard decision but its better rather than keeping them and paying on 50% cut
which is a total disaster.

If my boss called me in and offered such a deal, the first question to ask would be - are you and all senior executives taking the same pay cut? Because if they're not then it is pure hypocrisy for them to ask for their workers to do it to. Some people might accept such a pay cut, highly dependent on their salary and living costs, because sometimes salaries can get well ahead of the amount of work required. However it is definitely a privileged few who would be able to absorb such a loss and the immediate thing that many would do is to start searching for a new job. Going into a recession is also another thing to think about, as the job hunt can get much more competitive as more candidates compete for fewer jobs.

This is a reasonable thing to do even though the CEOS will argue that they have given more of work time and gathered experience to get there but they are really taking a whole lot of salary and leave just meagre to junior workers. Apart from the huge salaries they also have the opportunity for bigger bonuses that they award to themselves and bribes collected before contracts are awarded by them. They are the old people that have not given the younger ones the opportunity to get promoted just because they don't want to vacate their offices.

A 50% pay cut will sink 99% of salary workers, because most people live above their income at the moment.... they are basically neck deep into debt. If you want to destroy the global economy, then that will be the best method to do it.

A pay cut sounds like the better option, but it will do more harm than good. Any economy needs consumers to spend money on goods and service..and if you take 50% of their salaries, you will destroy most of the retailers out there.

A better option will be to "audit" executive managers and CEO salaries and start cutting their salaries, because most of their salaries are inflated.... and then start offering early retirement package for older people with higher salaries. (Some older people get much higher salaries, than people that are doing the job as their younger co-workers.... get rid of them ....and you will get the 50% cut in salaries, if you employ younger workers for 50% of the older employees salary)

The only problem now is that all companies are going through the same crisis, I don't believe that people can find a job that pays better than the company they are working for. If possible, they wouldn't wait until they were laid off or had their pay cut to start looking for a new job.
We are in inflation and everyone wants to get a better job with higher salary but things will not be that simple.

As I said, businesses will choose to become smaller than the risk of bankruptcy if they don't cut staff. In this difficult situation, as the CEO of a business, they will prioritize finding ways to maintain the company before thinking of other benefits. Because when there is no company, there is no business, there is no benefit.

I prefer to be honorably discharged from the company and open my own business.
there is no point in us wasting time working hard in a company that is only paid a small amount. as we are required with difficulty to create the ideals of others. we as humans have the right to choose and don't need to be too submissive to the boss just for the sake of money.
it's useless if you work hard for the company and only get paid 50% of the usual salary, it's very sad.

With all of these laying offs, I remember one company that instead of laying off its employees. He then cut off his salary from his own company as the CEO and that made noise and praised him left and right.

If I love the job and I know how hard it is to find a job, I'll take the 50% pay cut. I'd still be grateful that in these trying times, I've got a job to work for. Although it's disappointing that there's half cut to what I used to receive. It's actually a good thing if ever this situation comes to anybody, the boss is still giving you options and not only a force resignation or lay off.

I would still consider on getting the deal but my employer wont know that i had already had plans on applying on other companies which do pays more better rather than on making yourself staying up on a job which does
pay below the average pay for a certain job.You arent that dumb on staying with that case specially if there were no hints or words that things would come back to normal if the company had stabilized itself or making
already some revenue which it would be back on the 100% rate that you had before.It would really be that good if you do still have the job but you would be surely be looking for other options because you cant indeed
stay up something like this for too long.Its never been worth for the time and effort that you are giving into your job.

while this true, you do agree that as long as this is done within the confines of the labour laws and guidance of the employment contract this is okay, because laying off an employee doesn't come cheap to a company as they need to compensate these guys financially or with a job elsewhere and the effects of this don't end here as production is negatively affected too.

As long as a company is in it for the profits, and if the numbers dont add up it has to do whatever it takes to survive and this isn't limited to paycuts, downsizing of the work force etc in trying to get back on its feet.

As long as these options are within the contract a 50% cut wouldn't be a bad idea if they were paying me right, but if work conditions and salary was so bad I would  chose to leave and wait for my compensation, or sue them for wrongful dismissal...its a tough world out there we all need to survive!

For sure as an employee then you would definitely be going for 50% cut of your salary but there are people whom do really find out on other jobs which do offers more.
It is really depending or basing on someones needs because not all would really be that accepting such pay for the job that they are doing but for those who are really
that desperate on doesnt really like to find a job on another or doesnt really like to waste up opportunity then they would really be dealing up with the current pay
but honestly speaking if things get cut huge one of 50% then it would be a total disaster.

Salaries would be a huge enough cost that you might end up keeping the company safe if you could just let the people take a pay cut. However, during this period there is a huge inflation which means if you offer people a pay cut, even if they accept it then there is a big chance they would all be actively looking for other jobs that would pay better.

Lay off is also not a solution because it means you would become a lot smaller and the result would not be that easy at all. I would highly suggest if people could just focus on making a lot less profit with just what they have, small profit or even taking a debt as a business could help you out in the long run.

True, in this case it is not too difficult because indeed they have the advantage in technology which is currently busy and much needed but on the other hand it depends on those who do have the skills and competence within them.
But of course guarantees still exist, especially when they have been empowered within a company, it is certain that their competencies can be calculated.
As for cutting wages, look back at the job and whether or not the deductions are appropriate, if possible, and you can understand the reason for the deductions, why not.

If you work in tech or have a skill that is in high demand, the probability of accepting a 50% pay cut is slim. This is so because the individual would rather take on a remote/ freelancing gig and earn twice as much or even more in a couple of hours than to stay back. On the other hand, in most cases and in this context getting laid off may be a blessing in disguise because it may just be the wake up call the person needed to go after that dream, to start up the company etc.

There is not really a direct answer to this as there are simply too many factors that are unaccounted, it is very common that when a lot of employees will be fired the rumor starts to circulate way before this happens, in that case I would do everything that I can to try to find another job just in case, so if I was offered a lower salary but I had this other option waiting for me then it is obvious I will never accept it, besides if the company is having problems maybe it is the time to leave as you never know when they may ask you to take even less money again.

Maybe I'll take a 50% pay cut instead of choosing to be laid off because it's so hard to get a new job right now. Even if there is, this will not be what we imagine, so it's better to take advantage of what is available while looking for other jobs outside our regular jobs. That's better to do because at least we still have a salary every week or month so we can use it to survive while looking for another part-time job. But if you are really uncomfortable with the job, maybe the choice is to quit and look for another job, but you need to think about it before making a decision.

There would be many reasons to choose one of the two options you provided?

1. Receive a 50% salary cut.

• For people who don't dare to get out of their comfort zone, they will almost certainly choose a pay cut.

• The difficulty of work also influences people to choose a salary cut.

• There is no target to be achieved, so this zone is considered the most relevant as a life support.

2. Dismissed

• Have skills in self-development and are not limited to the company that pays them.

• Get used to living under pressure so you have a solution when this happens.

• have experience in developing a business or business, so it is not too burdensome when facing these problems.

Therefore, this cannot be concluded as just a few theses in sampling, because people will have their own answers when faced with this problem.

Decreasing the previously agreed level of income and bonuses is often perceived very negatively. First, there is a breach of contract. Secondly, this is a highly demotivating option, and a person remaining in the company will reduce his efficiency many times more than the reduction in income itself. Thirdly - a person begins to count - once they cut it once, and I accepted - they will cut it a second and third time!
Therefore, the most correct and honest way is to explain the reasons, pay severance pay, in the amount of 3-6 salaries. As a result, the employee understands that the situation is objectively difficult, that the company treated him with respect and care, plus he now has a reserve of time and money to rethink the situation, to find a job, or something no less useful.

I will receive the 50% pay cut but will resume searching for another job as soon as I reach home that day, I know that quitting the job is one of the best options because if one is to consider inflation, no worker can survive with his 50% of his salary right now, price of everything has increased and even the current jobs pay should be increased but is better you stay and have something coming to pocket while hunting for another job especially if there is no additional working hour attach to the new condition of the pay.

On second thought, don't you think a 50% pay cut is cheating workers, it may be for the benefit of the company but employees have to be considered too, when workers don't get good incentives it doesn't usually encourage workers, it will affect the productivity of the company.

Pay cut is a reduced in our current pay rates right? So how can it be worth it? I think what you mean there is that you will stay as long as the cut is not too much but for me I think I will have no choice but to retain my job no matter whatever the conditions are although I will follow what you have suggested there which is by looking a backup job in the background.

Once I confirm that I am officially accepted, that's going to be the time I will resign on my previous job. I think no company will lay off a worker without paying them because they already know the consequences of doing it. Instead of saving, they will ended up paying more for the scandal that they have made.

Both of which are actually difficult choices, a 50% salary deduction is clearly not sufficient for the needs of the employee in terms of the economy and financially, there is a but, if the employee has expertise in other fields of course for me it is better to choose to quit, other than that he can try to apply for jobs in other companies or he can open his own business with the expertise he has, maybe that's better, we know how long to work in other people's companies, if the employee is nearing retirement he will automatically stop too.

Conclusion: in the two-choice method, if you have to choose one, of course a good choice is to stop, if they have real expertise, a different story if you don't know anything, I mean no skills, of course for employees like that it's better to work with 50% income than not having anything, the problem lies in the situation and circumstances of the employee.

As sad as it is to be laid off, what's worse is having to have a 50% cut mostly in a job one probably was thinking of leaving. A threat may make a company decide on what's best for its survival, and so anyone working at a company should at least have a second alternative of income. To be faced with such a delimma in these economic times and with family to carter for and bills to pay is the why an employee should work on ways to source a second or third income stream.
I would prefer a lay off as I believe it will usher in a fresh and even better start.

Well if my boss made a discussion with me about that, I would prefer just the pay cut, although if I was earning quite okay with my commissions, I would just go with the lay off and just chill-ax for a little bit. Nothing is stopping you anyway to look for another opportunity while you are working though some companies might restrict you from doing freelancing as per contractual agreement.

A lot of people here in my country are doing the "job hopping/diving" since their first job obviously does not end up being well-paid or they are open to far more opportunity, although at this current economy we have, it is a risky move.

Lay offs are more dangerous but honestly people will choose the layoff instead of pay cut in my opinion. And also lay off may benefit the company long term because its just one time work while pay cut may not be that much effective in their efficiency and also companies laid off people recently because they are not really in any loss they just feel that they don't need that much human work force in this era.

Yes, but most of the places being discussed are in major metropolitan areas where there are a fair amount of other tech businesses or businesses that need tech in general. Being in the middle of nowhere is always going to be an issue for some jobs.

The other side is also, if you are at 50%, what else is out there and what is the pay for it in the 'anyone can work here' job.

If you were making $70,000 a cut to $35,000 puts you at $17.50 an hour. (50 weeks / 40 hours a week) if the local job market is paying $16 an hour for no brain - no stress work it might be worth it to go to $33,000 a year and not have the stress of working at a company that is obviously having money issues.

-Dave

you would be surprised by the opposite

certain towns only have a small amount of tech companies. so the employment pool of "tech" is small

however management is wide. you could be manager of a mcdonalds one year, then a supermarket the next then a accounting company the next.

generalised skills/experience/qualifications like business management open doors more widely than computer science

every business needs a manager. not every business needs a code developer..

when it comes to promotion prospects
lets say you start as a McD's burger flipper and work your way up
going into management opens more doors than training to be the grill repair guy(technical skill qualification)

Looking at the current economic crisis, no one will want to lose their job because finding a new job at this time is not easy. I will also choose to pay cut, but I hope the company will also reduce our working time. Although it is difficult to find a full-time job that matches my specialty, I think I can find a part-time job to fill that free time.

I've seen a lot of companies lay off employees rather than pay cut, I'm lucky I don't fall into that situation but perhaps if the crisis lasts, it will be difficult to say what. Right now, saving is something I think we should all be doing to get through this, even though you or I haven't lost our jobs or taken a pay cut.

This one reminds me of the company where I used to work for 2 years and 4 months. At first, my salary was only $250 a month but increased to $300/month on a consistent basis. However, due to uncertain market situations, they have decided to cut my salary to just $200 and I’m fine with that as long I got some sustainable income until they’ve decided to lay me off due to the market getting worse.

If I have no other income source, I would take it. But if I have more than one, it would really depend on how much I have earned per month with other projects whether if it’s good for me to let this one go or keep it.

At least I can have a guaranteed income, I'll probably stick with 50% salary and rearranging household spending plans a little extreme. People are more afraid of getting fired, while out there it's very difficult to find companies that can open vacancies in the midst of an economic crisis.

We are in cryptocurrency winter and the world economy inflation is also increasing lately. I believe every big company that lay off its employees is definitely because of a pay cut and in other for them to keep up by avoiding the pay cut they release some employees that are not the company's backbone while they keep the staff that works in the most important area.
It is something I have experienced before.

Yeah, with extra time that also be cut you can still find extra job to fill your lapses, instead of lay off which is very hard to find
another full-time job with the same position.

You can take your time to find new part time and use that as your opportunity to
adjust once you already get the experienced either you can find another new job
or you can stay the same way as how the setup might be.

Just like @Dave said it is easy for Tech guys to get new jobs once laid off but those on management, its hard for them to get another so interms of management I would just accept a pay cut but that can also be with some hours shorten, with that I could run an extra work to add to it. But the paycut most be something I have looked into and could well be able to take of the major necessities.

Of course, the option of reducing wages is more preferable.  

By the way, during the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic, I was faced with a situation where my salary was reduced by 1/3.  This is unpleasant, but not fatal.  

Pay cuts allow you to pay for the most important current expenses and at the same time make the decisions necessary for later life.  

You can try to look for additional sources of income, optimize some of your expenses, or take action to find a new job.

Assuming this is a US based question I would take the lay off. October was the worst month so far this year as far as I can see in terms of the economy adding jobs and it was still over 250,000. Big Tech is laying off people. There are still a lot of places hiring like crazy.

Obviously, a lot depends on your skill set, but a good general programmer or manager at this point can get fired before breakfast and be working by lunch.

Having a more specialized skill set may make the job search more difficult but there are jobs out there.

I discussed it a while ago somewhere here, but I know someone who worked for Gemini that got laid off earlier in the year. Took her severance package, goofed around / relaxed for a bit, and then got a job in under a couple of weeks once she looked. Others didn't even take that long. All while the fear mongers were screaming 'the sky is falling'

Even low skilled retail / service places have signs out. Apply today - work tomorrow.

-Dave

That kind of situation would not be an ideal one knowing that it’s going to be for a change in situation. We are all going to be in a hard spot and getting paid half would mean that I’m undervalued in the current market. I would choose a different company that can afford me knowing that it’s a scarcity job. So it depends on what job you have and how it’s going to be strategic with the job market.

For those jobs that are easy to be replaced, I think it’s really best to study on something that is on demand and possibly upgrade your skills so that you are going to be hard to be replaced.

That would be an impossible case in the above-mentioned situation.
Amazon, for example, is planning on cutting full departments and postponing developments in a lot of their programs so for them that project is losing money, paying somebody even half or even doing it for free and it's still a failure.Another thing to note here is that Amazon is firing 10 000 workers after it hied 55 000 last year and it's not planning to stop hiring in its warehouses for the holidays still looking at 150 000.

So the thing is not that the company can't afford to pay you, your job and what you were doing there is no longer needed as it's a money pit!

As for the question, it all depends on what's the amount and what can you do with half of it.
Am I making  30k a month I'm down at 15k but my job is as easy as it can be, I will take it!
I'm making 3k a month and I'm supposed to live on 1500 while McDoandls is paying 2500, you can guess the answer.


Tell that to foxconn
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/1949918/rise-robots-60000-workers-culled-just-one-factory-chinas
Apart from the initial cost, there is little to no drawback right now against a human worker, the only real advantage longterm a human has is that it can be trained easily to do a different job for the same company while a welding robot can't be sent to packing for example.
This is like self-checkouts, everyone hates them but everyone rushes to them when they see what line is at the cashier lines.

I will consider a pay cut if it is worth it mean while i will also be searching for a better offer  but if it doesn't worth it I will leave the job to go look for another job, its not going to be easy to get a job it might just be an opportunity for me go get a Bette job .

In my place my friend works in a Setraco construction company there was a period when the company was short of contracts and couldn't meet up to workers payment what they did was that the unskilled workers that are not really contributing to daily activities were laid off while the other unskilled and skilled workers that their services will still be needed was place under redundancy because the company knows that more contracts will come in future that this workers will be needed. It is unfair to just lay off a worker without compensation.

Agreeing to a 50% pay cut is not an option for me. Any employer, who offers such 50% pay cut is simply insulting the employees.
I would most likely quit voluntarily, if the employer offers me a 50% pay cut.
From a corporate point of view, laying off the employees is a better solution than cutting the salaries by 50%. The corporation cuts a bigger chunk of it's costs and having less employees means less bureaucracy and less issues. What if the corporation doesn't have enough work to keep the workforce at 50% salaries? Keeping a bunch of inactive workers at lower salaries is a big cost, which cannot be handled in times of recession, when the corporate revenue is going down. "Profit is king" for the big corporations. Not many big companies would choose to sacrifice their decreasing profits in order to keep a big part of the employees.

If we cannot limit the uncertainties, we cannot answer the question asked. The person evaluates these items and makes his decision accordingly. He looks at his expectations, looks at his own economy, how long he can live without a salary, etc. Therefore, answering this direct question creates great uncertainty. To answer though, if my own economy isn't enough until I get a job, I'll accept a 50% salary. I would start looking for a different job while continuing my job.

It's a dilemma for me to choose between the two.
If I choose to be laid off, it will be very difficult for me because at times like these there are rarely job vacancies, even opening a business is not necessarily successful, especially for me who is used to depending on salary. at the end of the month.

If I choose a 50% pay cut it will be difficult for me to make ends meet, while my 8 hours/day job will be very tiring and not worth the salary I get.
For me, the second option is better and it seems I have to negotiate the percentage of salary and timeframe to be discussed more deeply so that no one feels disadvantaged either the company or personally.

I will choose the 50% pay cut. Nowadays many companies are laying off their employees making it hard to find a new job specially if you're not a degree holder or your skills are not indemand.

So instead of choosing to be laid off, I'll be wise and choose to stay. Atleast I still have an income to rely on despite of the pay cut, this way I don't have to worry on where to get the budget for our monthly expenses. And then I'll start to find another source of income or start to look for other companies with vacant position that I can apply on and has a better compensation compared to my current job.

If I were an employee I would of course choose to take a pay cut rather than quit but for the company a layoff is so much better than a pay cut. If you take a pay cut, you won't be able to save by layoffs because there are so many other day-to-day expenses that the company has to pay, not just the employee's wages, like energy costs, meals, insurance... a lot of things.

Sure, layoffs are undesirable in any company, but given the current situation, it's a must. Instead of firing a few people, continuing to hold out can lead to the bankruptcy of the entire company and have more serious consequences.

Losing job or pay cut is not such a big issue, we can manage to cope with it easily, we lose jobs many times during the life & find another one in, such problems come in life but we overcome them with positive attitude.

Humans have history to survive in disastrous situations either it is  natural or man made. Humans have adaptable nature because unlike other creature they have the flexibility to eat many variety of foods, learn from others and live in different environments.  

https://brilliantio.com/why-are-humans-so-good-at-adapting/

Taking a 50% pay cut is too much depending on your environment and bills to pay. If an employer offers such ludicrous pay cut it simply means the services of the employee is no more appreciated and they can only manage you. This is why you need to up your game and get better with knowledge on what you are doing so that you are relevant always. Savings and diversification is good and in such case you can fall back on what other options you have because from 100% to 50% is going to look like nothing in your finance.


Replacing human labour with robots is not however a total profit for the employer. Somehow the robots get to be maintained and I believe the cost of maintenance of the robots has to be taken cognizance of like wear and tears. Some part of the robots can totally be removed and replaced with a new one and that is also running cost. It is not a total win using robot.

In some countries, hiring and dismissal is a slow process, and therefore the rate of retention of workers in their jobs may reach for several years, regardless of the financial situation of the institution, but in countries, expulsion is considered easy, including high employment rates, and vice versa.

In many cases, the vast majority will prefer to reduce the salary by  50%, but it will be a red flag to stay away from the platform.
Therefore, any salary cut means the departure of many employees who may be side doors and loopholes to destroy your organization.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what the leadership of certain organizations is counting on. The choice is not great; either you stay and get paid half as much, or your boss hires another, already much worse specialist, who agrees to work under such conditions.
OP, you forgot about the Amazon company, which continues to replace people with robots. The most delicious reason is that the robots do not need to be paid, and they work 24 hours a day.
AI is gradually crowding out jobs, thereby further exacerbating the hope of finding work for those in need.

A 50% pay cut will be it for me, thank you very much. . In my country, asides from those who have a skill or two that can get them gainfully employed or which they can always fall back to when things go south, I think most would settle for a half pay because a half bread is better than none and a bird in hand is worth more than a thousand in the bush.

 The only setback to this is that one would have to cut back in excesses and that can't be a problem since humans are adaptable in nature.

Accepting 50% pay cut is a better option because the economy is not in good shape , new jobs are not being created  & I don't have any other source of income to meet with my living expenses but at the same time will continue struggling to get a better job as well as take some time to learn new skills those can help to generate some extra income.

A pay cut would be beneficial both to the company and the employee. The company has spent a lot of money investing in the worker through training and other developmental programs. Sacking the worker would make them loose the worker and the money they have spent on the staff. Laying off also affects the goodwill and reputation of the company negatively. It gives the public the notion that the company is not well managed or might soon go bankrupt. Investors are also skeptical to invest in a firm that is sacking its staff. 

The worker can manage the pay cut until he gets a new job. It is even possible to cut ones expenses and still survive on a half salary. But an outright sack would totally destabilize the worker and his dependents. It could even lead to poverty, health issues or even death.
To your question OP;I would gladly choose a pay cut  .

Most american tech corporations are located in silicon valley california. Taking a 50% pay cut is not an option for employees there. As the cost of living in those areas is so astronomically expensive most probably could not afford to pay their rent on 50% wages.

The most likely scenario is a massive exodus out of california as the only link holding tech employees to that state are severed. The vast majority of workers will likely migrate to another state, where they will try to re-establish a tech industry in a place with lower taxes and reduced regulation.

It is also possible that they will choose to migrate outside the USA as many have done recently. Mexico city for one is being inundated with migrants from america. As are many other regions.

Personally, I would probably want to move out of california and reside in another state. States like texas and florida are popular off them having no state income taxes. Being laid off would therefore be the better option.

It's too much of a general question.

- Will I still be able to survive with a 50% pay cut?
- Is there any other job opportunity if I get laid off?
- Can I afford not having a job for a couple of months?

etc.

Given that it would be very difficult to find another job during a recession, if I were in that position, I would choose to cut half of my salary for a period of time. Of course, with a clear agreement that does not harm either party in the future. I firmly believe that if there were no serious problems, the company would not have done that, and we as employees would understand very well the steps the company is taking why they are giving such a difficult choice. I think it's a wise move when the company offers us 2 options that involve us in deciding that, because very rarely we will come across such a thing. And even if I were the owner of that company, I would try the same to save the company as well as my employees.
Incidentally I have a story like this about a friend of mine who works in a company and it happened about 2 months ago. The story is, he was laid off by the company with the reason to improve the efficiency of the company and it was the initial stage to allow a reduction in the number of employees in the company. There was a coworker who happened to be still working there and he said if given the choice he would rather have his pay cut than quit his job. This I think will be on the minds of many people when they are in such a situation.

Companies may choose to layoff its employees for several reasons which include but not limited to cost-cutting, staff reduction, relocation, buyouts, and mergers. When you go the Google and search for layoffs you would find out it almost seems like a conspiracy among big companies to layoff its staff almost simultaneously.

• Meta, laid off 11,000 people
• Twitter, laid off about 3,700 people
• Stripe,  laid off about 1,000 people
• Salesforce, laid off hundreds of its employees last week
• Microsoft, laid off fewer than 1,000 jobs
• Zillow, Snap and Robinhood, laid off 300 of its employees late last month.

A pay cut is a decrease in an employee’s compensation. It could be a reduction in salary, benefits, hours and more — it’s not limited to monetary compensation. It can happen for a variety of reasons. For example, a company might be trying to avoid layoffs and/or save money during a tumultuous period, with the intention of returning salaries to normal once the threat is over.

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?