I read an article on the BBC that British Airways has asked it's 30,000 workforce if they would be prepared to work for free for up to a month.
So the company's hard up presumably, some directors have agreed to do it, okay they earn 00,000's per annum, but what about the staff who only earn very modest salaries with mortgages to pay kids to feed etc. Doesn't sound to me like a very professional way to run a company, if the management are so confident they can come out of this recession why don't they offer very attractive share incentives in lieu of salary to those able to help them out, that would sound more sensible to me.
So the company's hard up presumably, some directors have agreed to do it, okay they earn 00,000's per annum, but what about the staff who only earn very modest salaries with mortgages to pay kids to feed etc. Doesn't sound to me like a very professional way to run a company, if the management are so confident they can come out of this recession why don't they offer very attractive share incentives in lieu of salary to those able to help them out, that would sound more sensible to me.
Well would you? What would your answer be?
Ronnie
xx
9 comments:
That's a tough question. I think it would depend on the company's history. If I felt that in the past, when things were good, the company had been wise with their money, if they had done eveything that they could to help keep their work force happy and treated well then yes, I might consider it.
If the only ones in the past to get perks were management and that corners had always been cut in benefits and ways to help the workers then no, they made their bed let them lie in it.
Hugs,
PK
Wow, that's a tough question Ronnie. I would be hurting pretty bad if I had to work for free for an entire month. I agree that it would be nice if they offered their employees some sort of incentive package. I don't know that I would expect the lower paid workers to work without some sort of pay. I could see the high salary workers perhaps cutting pay or doing without because they most likely have savings and other stocks that could be cashed in... Good heavens know I'm stressing over how to fix their budget :-P
Hugs,
kitten
A few years ago, we were asked to take a few days a year off without pay. it may have been one day a month, maybe less - I forget exactly. We enjoyed the extra time off. it was a tiny cut in pay, and the pleasure of more free time made it quite palatable.
If the job was one I loved, and the firm one I respected and wanted to succeed, then yes, I would work without pay. But I wouldn't want to find out that the executives were being given huge bonuses.
Hugs,
Hermione
Honestly? No. I dont think I would unless my usual pay was amazing. In saying that...I'm about to possibly start working for a charity volunteer work, doing marketing and PR for free. So...that is slightly different. But no...I'd not be very happy to not be paid for a month unless every director took a cut for a few months.
Hi, Ronnie!
I would do my job for free if I could afford to. Already I go in to work an hour or two before my shift, and never leave on time...usually anything from 15 mins to an hour late going home; I attend courses in my own time and dont put in for time off in lieu, as I could... and I take all my paperwork home with me, putting in, on average, 15 hours a week free in admin/planning.... so I think I do my part....but, I do have the utmost respect for my boss who does NOT take huge profits but ploughs all monies back into her business to give us the best resources available to work with.
Good question!!
Hugs, have a great weekend...was gutted to miss you earlier.... xxxxxx
In today's economy, a lot of workers aren't getting a choice. Management just cuts their pay. Their only alternative is to quit and find another job, which also isn't easy in this economy. It's a Catch 22.
My present employer pays very badly. This is the second worse paying job that I have ever had, the worse was working for an environmental agency, were I was prepared to take low pay to do my bit for the cause. I simple could not afford to work a month without pay because I have not been able to build up enough savings to cover a month without pay.
Besides, our senior manager is a class A, useless Git. Totally unprofessional, encouraging the poorer members of staff, as long as they are really good at licking his useless arse and deliberately coming down on the good workers and administrators because they are less easy to corrupt to his will. The office stinks of nepotism, inefficient and uneconomical work practices, back handers and corruption and so....
1/ There is absolutely no way that I am going to work for nothing for the sake of a loser like that.
2/ By sacking our present senior manager and bringing in someone with more competence and a more professional attitude, more money could be saved, over a year, than by stopping everyones wages for two months, let alone one. So there is a better money saving option.
Prefectdt
noooooooooo way would I agree to this.. in the past all those companies did stupid things with all the money that came in...
the people who did not make this crisis happen (the hard working people like most of us) should not have to pay its bill...
this crisis was caused by people who did not use their braincells where they are meant for... let them pay for it...
they should all stay away from our salary, retirementfunds etc...
they should listen more to what the unions have to say...
Ronnie, have a wonderfull weekend...
xxx, Lessa
Thanks all, I enjoyed reading your views.
To me it would depend on the company I was working for. I would happily agree to maybe have a shorter week for everybody to save money then nobody would have to work for free. Maybe give the workers shares in the company or agree to pay them the number of days they worked free when the company was doing well again.
I think for a start thought the higher paid management should take a drop in salary before they ask the workforce to do anything.
Have a good weekend all.
Ronnie
xx
Post a Comment