I think that the variety of comments here has shown that there isn't a 1 size fits all answer. I think that there are times when taking pay cuts is very applicable.

My comments were simply to deride the notion that it is my responsibility to help someone else keep their job. I think that this places responsibility in the wrong place. Each person is responsible for himself.

No one likes losing a job, much like no one likes the market to drop, but both are inevitabilities in capitalism. That doesn't make capitalism bad. I feel for those that lose their jobs. I encourage them to stick to it and continue their "pursuit of happiness."

Before we should ask the questions about pay cuts vs. layoffs, we should ask why the EXECUTIVES aren't facing these same questions FIRST. In Japan, if a company gets into financial difficulties the first thing they do is cut EXECUTIVE PAY. Then, if that's not enough, they LAY EXECUTIVES OFF (with no golden parachutes). This simple system penalizes the people making the decisions that got the company into hot water to begin with instead of the sales and production staff that actually bring the money in to the company.

Now, that doesn't mean that the workers get off without any cuts. If necessary, cuts are extended to the rank and file workers. Of course, the smarter companies lay off the less productive workers first, then start with pay cuts. Fortunately, those moves hurt a LOT less when the executives have tightened their belts already! This leads to LOYALTY that isn't likely to be bought out! Imagine that, a company that shows loyalty to its employees BEFORE expecting their employees to show loyalty to the company!

P.S. Greed at the top is the poison corrupting and undermining the capitalistic system.

About 15 years ago, the company I worked for brought this question to the table. We ended up taking the pay cut for all the staff but once the company was in better shape a few years later, the company raised the wages back to that level and then increased them. We also let people who wanted to, take additional voluntary unpaid days off and prorated those days out. If a person felt they could afford it and wanted to take off 10 extra days that year for whatever reason, those days were essentially bought back by the company thereby letting the worker that could afford to take off time do so without penalty and eliminate the need for any other wage cuts. It worked well and to say that a person is not a high achiever, is incorrect. Some 'high' achievers wanting to take courses or balance their lives took advantage of the additional voluntary days off to do so.

People that want everyone to take a pay cut are not high achievers. Why should a high achiever accept less to pay for someone just getting by? That's nothing more than socialism. Smart companies use layoffs to show lower productive people the door. The problem is that not all companies are smart and efficient singling out poor performers.

I think people are right on both sides of this fence. It is the situation in question.

My husband got laid off last year from the hardware department of a building supplies company. They were already on a skeleton crew and down to a skull, a kneecap, a collarbone, and a few rib bones. The hardware department was great for its time when the housing market was hot. After that collapse, however, they had to cut entire departments and pass what little work might trickle in to one of the customer service employees. My husband was afraid for over a year for his job. Almost every morning, he say, "I don't have anything to do today." He was a champion when the business was hot.

On the flipside, I have seen a repugnant situation involving an environmental firm years ago where I worked. Business was almost at a dead stop. Benefits and jobs wer cut. Yet the managers gave themselves bonuses and pay raises. A year after I quit, that company filed for bankruptcy.

Then the middle ground which is what the majority voted for in this poll. I am pleasantly suprised. I got so cheesed off at one car factory employee who moaned that he should not have to get a pay cut because of someone else's bad decisions. I shouted back at the TV, "You are about to get NO PAY, you moron!" Years ago, at a cookware manufacturing company I worked for, the management likewise made a generous decision. Business had been hurting due to bad credit lending. New customers were buying the cookware sets using the company's credit but then not paying. The management took the first step and agreed to cut their bonuses altogether. The rest of us had our bonuses cut by 50%... not wages, just bonuses. Yet some people still whined but I laughed. I was expecting much worse news when we got called to the meeting. I had never had a job that offered me bonuses for anything (part of that bonus included GOOD ATTENDANCE... *L*). They still are doing good, it seems, last I checked, but I had to leave them a few months later to move out of state.

The economic approach of wage stickiness vs across the board reduction in salary depends on the overall economy. In a flourishing economy, wage stickiness appears to be the best choice. An across the board salary reduction would send a huge percentage of employees job hunting with your competitors and you may loose the good employee along with the less productive employee. "Abandon Ship" However, in an economy such as we are currently experiencing, employees would most likely accept an across the board reduction in salary because the overall job market is poor with fewer alternatives.

Proof that Neal's bark is worse than his bite. Nice guy!

Must have been Boortz. That's the only radio colleague that works with Clark that could have seven staffers.

If these morons running these businesses hadn't dung a hole of debt they wouldn't have to layoff or cut workers pay. I have a business and its doing great. I have a lot of money in the bank (all FDIC insured) and have 0 debt. I run my business responsibly!

I'm thinking that those that voted that everyone take a cut are the ones that feel like their own talent is questionable and would be the first to be laidoff. If capitalism is self-cleansing why can't the workplace be? Get rid of your dead weight and let them go flip burgers if that's all they're capable of doing.

What's with all this rah rah we're in this together stuff? Don't forget there is a distribution of performance across a staff, so everyone taking a pay cut might be a really poor decision. Use it as an opportunity to remove low performers. The people who now are crying "help everyone! You should take a pay cut rather than see someone else lose their job" are the same ones that would have been just as likely to step on your face before.

wonder if management could use this as a way to get out of paying a bonus. Who would be able to sleep knowing that they were personally "responsible" for seven people losing their jobs? I guess you just have to take management's word for it. Hopefully they do the right thing like this colleague did and award the bonus plus interest when things are better.