- Oct 28, 2008
- 843
- 400
- Occupation
- Electrical wiring tech
If you had the option, would you give up 10% of your salary in return for saving the jobs of your co-workers? Or would you rather take a couple of unpaid furlough days a month? Or would it be better just to lay off 10% of the workforce?
In trying to close a budget gap, Los Angeles city officials are saying the proposed 4,000 layoffs could be avoided if all city employees took that cut, in which someone making $50,000 would see a drop to $45,000 -- no insignificant amount. Some people have also advocated furloughs as a way of avoiding either option, although the City Council worries about potential legal issues with that route.
http://www.google.com/search?q=woul...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
I personally would consider taking a paycut, but it seems you would have to look at quite a few variables, like how long will it be until your job too, is on the chopping block, it does sound fair looking out for others, I wonder though, on
sort of a separate issue but,
will doctors, surgeons, big pharma at any time follow suit in order to help with health care cost?
My guess is no.
I have heard of the many manufacturers that have closed shop and moved business out of the states, primarly for profit of course,
who goes into business to be upside down in profit and eventually go broke?
But in the case state workers, can unions be partly to blame? Do they want to much?
State's workers pay for furloughs program
Many are unable to make mortgage and car payments, and some face bankruptcy. Biden and Feinstein protest.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/30/local/me-furloughs30
It's an unprecedented and uncomfortable time for a state workforce long immune to the bumps and bruises of California's boom-and-bust economy. Pay for civil servants can be modest, but the trade-off had always been a stable income and a reliable retirement.
looks like
we all get hit....
In trying to close a budget gap, Los Angeles city officials are saying the proposed 4,000 layoffs could be avoided if all city employees took that cut, in which someone making $50,000 would see a drop to $45,000 -- no insignificant amount. Some people have also advocated furloughs as a way of avoiding either option, although the City Council worries about potential legal issues with that route.
http://www.google.com/search?q=woul...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
I personally would consider taking a paycut, but it seems you would have to look at quite a few variables, like how long will it be until your job too, is on the chopping block, it does sound fair looking out for others, I wonder though, on
sort of a separate issue but,
will doctors, surgeons, big pharma at any time follow suit in order to help with health care cost?
My guess is no.
I have heard of the many manufacturers that have closed shop and moved business out of the states, primarly for profit of course,
who goes into business to be upside down in profit and eventually go broke?
But in the case state workers, can unions be partly to blame? Do they want to much?
State's workers pay for furloughs program
Many are unable to make mortgage and car payments, and some face bankruptcy. Biden and Feinstein protest.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/30/local/me-furloughs30
It's an unprecedented and uncomfortable time for a state workforce long immune to the bumps and bruises of California's boom-and-bust economy. Pay for civil servants can be modest, but the trade-off had always been a stable income and a reliable retirement.
looks like
we all get hit....