Future of Work

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,764
0
0
I heard a news story on radio the other day and I think I have seen the future of work. There is this company (didn't catch the name) that decided not to lay off any staff but decided to put everybody on a 3 day workweek and everybody takes a 10% paycut plus some benefits cut.
 
Everybody? Including the owners (Shareholders...)? I think not...
 
It's called worksharing. The general idea is you put everyone on a reduced work week and EI kicks in for the rest. You don't make as much as if you were working 40 hours but you make more than if you were just on EI. Plus you're still out in the work force.

Not so good if you're a high performer though.
 
Our tribal elders said that the 6 day workweek use to be the norm. Now the 5 day workweek is the norm. Why can't the 4 day workweek be the future norm? What is so sacred about the 5 day workweek?
 
Worksharing and EI?

That sounds like a terrible idea. This seems like the worst of both worlds. I'd rather have an actual job and the appropriate income, or else get the EI and not have to go to work.
 
The EI worksharing only works if your company's downturn in production is of limited duration. Can't just do it indefinitely, management has to make a case to EI.
 
Hangman said:
or else get the EI and not have to go to work.

Yeah, but a) EI only lasts so long and b) you have to look for work while you're getting it.... frankly I'd rather have a job then look for one.
 
I disagree (as is my lot on TERB), when companies downsize they fire the least productive people and retain the stars, why average it out when you're trying to cut costs... makes no sense at all.

OTB
 
onthebottom said:
I disagree (as is my lot on TERB), when companies downsize they fire the least productive people and retain the stars, why average it out when you're trying to cut costs... makes no sense at all.

OTB

Well, let's assume they have gotten rid of the bad apples and want to keep all of the good ones, but the only have enough work for 60% of them

Going to a shorter work week allows them to scale down production without losing trained people.
 
onthebottom said:
when companies downsize they fire the least productive people and retain the stars,

Not necessarily true.
1) Many companies offer "voluntary termination packages" to ALL employees.
2) A company like a hockey team cannot have 100% stars. They still need the "worker bees". We can't all be the Queen Bee.
 
Rockslinger said:
2) A company like a hockey team cannot have 100% stars. They still need the "worker bees". We can't all be the Queen Bee.

This is true, the problem is everyone but the stars are considered expendable. They can hire replacements for lower wages, less hassle, and still maintain what they consider necessary for their core competitiveness.
 
onthebottom said:
I disagree (as is my lot on TERB), when companies downsize they fire the least productive people and retain the stars, why average it out when you're trying to cut costs... makes no sense at all.

It does if you're just trying to get through a downturn and want to keep all your staff long term. Especially when you consider how bloody expensive it is to recruit and train new staff.
 
Keebler Elf said:
It does if you're just trying to get through a downturn and want to keep all your staff long term. Especially when you consider how bloody expensive it is to recruit and train new staff.

Yes, this is that company's rationale. The recession will not last forever so let's try to keep all hands onboard but cut back the hours and wages to get through this storm.
 
Keebler Elf said:
It does if you're just trying to get through a downturn and want to keep all your staff long term. Especially when you consider how bloody expensive it is to recruit and train new staff.

I'll play devils advocate.

If you take this approach your best people could leave (because the best can always find another opportunity) and the worst people will stay.

Now, much of this depends on the learning curve for the job, the amount of "skill" required.....

OTB
 
Close to 30 years ago the company i worked for asked everyone to take a 20% cut in pay for a 6 month period. We of course declined the offer. Beginning the following month we went to a 4 day work week.

After a couple of months and several people laid off we went back to a full week and the company grew.
 
Hangman said:
Worksharing and EI?

That sounds like a terrible idea. This seems like the worst of both worlds. I'd rather have an actual job and the appropriate income, or else get the EI and not have to go to work.

Spoken like a true slacker.....lol...

Keeb is right, work share has been around for quite a while now. I was part of a similar program about 8 yrs ago, only problem was we were expected to get the same amount of work done in the reduced hours. So effectively the company was still getting 40+ hours out of an employee, but only paying them for 32.
 
onthebottom said:
I'll play devils advocate.

If you take this approach your best people could leave
OTB

Exactly...

I also think it's a dangerous approach. I personally wouldn't implement such an approach. How many people can survive on a 3 day work week. All the best talent will be looking elsewhere pronto.
 
The Houdini said:
Exactly...

I also think it's a dangerous approach. I personally wouldn't implement such an approach. How many people can survive on a 3 day work week. All the best talent will be looking elsewhere pronto.

True but you are overlooking one thing.... if the company that these pros are working for is suffering from lack of business, how likely is it that other companies in the field are looking to hire?

Whether people accept the 3-day work week or look for other work will depend a lot on their relationship with the company.... is it a good place to work sort of thing. If you have a job with a company that makes you happy to be working there you're going to have more loyalty than if you're at a company that's always jerking you around.