# What happens if employees refuse pay cut



## ney001 (23 Apr 2009)

Hi quick question on behalf of a friend.  She owns a small business, approx 7 employees I think. Friend has realised that in order to survive everybody including herself will have to take a paycut.  She called a meeting and informed everybody of her plans, giving them a few weeks notice of cut.  They all came back in the next day and refused to take the cut.  Question is, what happens now, in a few weeks she literally won't be able to pay the full wages for everybody.  Can she go ahead with pay cut anyway?,  What i am wondering is, what happens next.  Suppose the employees refuse to work altogether, what rights does my friend have?.  There is no union involvement.


----------



## AlbacoreA (23 Apr 2009)

Can she let some staff go instead?


----------



## Towger (23 Apr 2009)

P45s


----------



## ney001 (23 Apr 2009)

To be honest, she's that annoyed she feels like letting them all go and hiring new staff but to be honest, she wants to keep everybody on (with the exception of one who she is letting go for other reasons) hence the pay cut.  Q is can you let everybody go because they won't take pay cut and then immediately hire new people for same positions?


----------



## 8till8 (23 Apr 2009)

I think your friend has badly mishandled the situation and is encountering difficulties which she has caused. She simply cannot 'round-up' the staff and give notice of a pay cut, it doesn't work like that. 
There is a contract (written or not) between the company and each staff member which specifies the rate of pay, if she wishes to change that contract, then it must be by agreement or else she has broken the contract.
Its natural the staff would refuse the pay cut, if the communication was as blunt as you describe.
Your friend will now have to try and recover the situation and use a bit of common sense, communicate openly and directly, explain the company situation and earn some good-will back. 
If your friend can't afford to pay wages, then redundancy must commence immediatly, does your friend know how to do this? There are strict procedures, she needs to be aware of them.
The question regarding letting everyone go and hiring new people is absurd, what will that solve? The new staff will just react the same way as the old staff when they discover what a bad boss she is.
Your friend needs to get real, get some training in employment law and do it fast!


----------



## ney001 (23 Apr 2009)

8till8 said:


> I think your friend has badly mishandled the situation and is encountering difficulties which she has caused. She simply cannot 'round-up' the staff and give notice of a pay cut, it doesn't work like that.
> There is a contract (written or not) between the company and each staff member which specifies the rate of pay, if she wishes to change that contract, then it must be by agreement or else she has broken the contract.
> Its natural the staff would refuse the pay cut, if the communication was as blunt as you describe.
> Your friend will now have to try and recover the situation and use a bit of common sense, communicate openly and directly, explain the company situation and earn some good-will back.
> ...




Less drama more constructive opinions please! 

Okay, just to clarify.  I put in a shortened version of events here.  Actually they were put on notice months ago i.e before Christmas that pay cuts may be initiated early in the new year, there was no issues raised at this stage.  I should also point out that the employees are on a very high rate for the industry they are in, friend always paid higher rate to ensure loyalty I guess.  Also, I must also add that out of the 7 employees, only 5 have been asked to take pay cuts, the reason for this is that the other two have young families, the other five individuals concerned are all single - now perhaps this is where the problem lies, I don't know! 

To assume that she is a bad boss is some leap based on my post! I have always felt that she has been extremely fair and always played by the rules.  The hiring of new staff will not be a problem as she receives CVS every single day from high qualified people who would be very glad of the rates that she is paying so quite frankly it doesn't sound absurd to me.  My friend does not have a high turnover of staff and never did, the staff have always been happy with their jobs and the fairness with which they have been treated which is why almost all of them have been with her for a long time.


----------



## callybags (23 Apr 2009)

It is a very delicate situation.

She cannot force pay cuts, but she needs to explain the consequences of the staff not accepting the cuts. This is usually redundancies or the closure of the business.

I would be very careful of selecting certain staff over others for the cuts, no matter how good the reasons.

She cannot let people go and then hire new staff at reduced rates. She would be open to unfair dismissal charges.

The best approach is to be completely up front with the staff, even to the point of giving some financial information from the latest accounts to back up the points.

It is then up to the staff to make their own judgement as to their best course of action.


----------



## ney001 (23 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> . If she "feels like letting them all go" based on the reasons you have given, she might want to read up on employment law and find out how much trouble she could be in if she doesn't play by the rules.



If you read the rest of that sentence (in context) you would see that she wants to keep them all on! 

What I was trying to put forth was that she is very irritated and worried by all of this and is doing the best she can to keep everybody in employment, rather then having to let some go and keep on others. 

My point here lads which I think you are missing is that she WANTS to play by the rules, she WANTS to keep the staff on but she NEEDS to give them a pay cut.   You all seem to be assuming that she is looking for a handy way out of all of this - that is NOT the case, the question is, how to push forward and keep everybody working.  

Staff were informed that paycuts may have to be given, it wasn't a definite at the time, it was basically a worst case scenario which was explained to staff & as I said there were no problems then. 

I do agree about the pay cut to 5 out of 7 being unfair, this was purely based on the facts that those two staff members (more senior staff) have young families.


----------



## dereko1969 (23 Apr 2009)

in fairness, people can only comment on what you put in your original post, so where you baldly stated 'she called a meeting' would imply to most reasonable people that it came out of the blue, you have since clarified the position but if you'd done that originally it would have been better.

i think what she should do is make plain that the cut is across the board, if she's paying people a very high salary (above industry norms) then it should be acceptable to the staff. treating people differently based on marital status could see her in trouble on equality grounds, she really needs to tread carefully here.


----------



## ney001 (23 Apr 2009)

callybags said:


> The best approach is to be completely up front with the staff, even to the point of giving some financial information from the latest accounts to back up the points.
> 
> It is then up to the staff to make their own judgement as to their best course of action.




Hi Callybags, financial situation was explained to them by the accountant in a bid to mediate. 

At the moment, there is a stand-off staff won't take pay cut, paycut has to be given - what to do next??


----------



## callybags (23 Apr 2009)

Not knowing the business it is very hard to advise any further.

If any of the staff can be let go without being replaced, then this is one option.

If things are that critical, and the business cannot be run with a reduction in the numbers, then closure of the business is a real possibility unless the necessary cuts can be found elsewhere.

This stark reality needs to be made clear to the staff.


----------



## ney001 (23 Apr 2009)

callybags said:


> Not knowing the business it is very hard to advise any further.
> 
> If any of the staff can be let go without being replaced, then this is one option.
> 
> ...



I don't want to go into the details of the business but will confirm that the reality of the closure of the business has been made very clear.  She will be letting one employee go and will not be re hiring for that position.  Things are quite critical at the moment agreed and she is taking advice on what to do next.  My query is just a general query which might point her in the right direction. i.e people who have actually experienced this and how they managed.   The suggestions of reading up on employment law is something which of course in an ideal world would happen but quite frankly she is fighting to save a business and doesn't have the time to sit down and study (presumably why she is taking advice) - As I said I was hoping for advice of a general 'experience based' nature.


----------



## pinkyBear (23 Apr 2009)

Can your friend contact IBEC or a local chamber of commerce to assist her with the legalities of what she needs to do.

Dont worry about the employees - there were redundancies where I work over a year ago and no it wasn't handled brilliantly - but the owners of the company were apolagetic and they did explain that foor them this was unfortunatly a very new experience for them...


----------



## ney001 (23 Apr 2009)

pinkyBear said:


> Can your friend contact IBEC or a local chamber of commerce to assist her with the legalities of what she needs to do.
> 
> Dont worry about the employees - there were redundancies where I work over a year ago and no it wasn't handled brilliantly - but the owners of the company were apolagetic and they did explain that foor them this was unfortunatly a very new experience for them...



Thanks PBear I guess that's the problem here, she has been in business for a very long time but has never been faced with having to reduce pay before.  Will recommend the IBEC route
cheers


----------



## dereko1969 (23 Apr 2009)

ISME might actually be better given the size of your friend's company


----------



## pinkyBear (23 Apr 2009)

Hi there,
A friend of mine is also a member of a group in Fingal - called Women in Business. She has found it helpful in the past - that is if your friend is located in North county Dublin...

[broken link removed]


----------



## WaterSprite (23 Apr 2009)

If the employees won't accept a paycut and the business needs cuts to survive, then the company must find the cost savings elsewhere. Therefore, OP's friend must consider redundancies and, if so, should do them properly and within the law - this is not just a moral question but she protects herself against further claims if the redundancies are carried out properly. As well as the advice offered elsewhere on the thread, there's a heap of free information on the NERA and Citizen's information sites about selection criteria, redundancy notice, pay etc. 

OP, you say your friend is "seeking advice" - does that mean she's gone to a solicitor? Obviously, that would be the preferred route to ensure legal compliance in the event of redundancies. 

She needs to get over her pique and start dealing with how to cut costs and meet the option of redundancy head on.

There are a few immutables:
- she can't reduce pay without the employees' agreement
- she can't let them all go and hire them back for lower salaries without running the risk of them claiming that the initial termination was an unfair dismissal

The fact that she was only expecting single people to take a pay cut is, to my mind, appalling. It's not illegal per se (she can single out whoever she wants to ask to take a pay cut, and they can say no). If she makes redundancy selections based on family (or lack thereof) grounds or suchlike, that would invite a pretty clear-cut claim for unfair dismissal/unfair selection.

If she doesn't have the knowledge/experience to tackle redundancies herself and doesn't have the time to bone up (both understandable), then she needs to get in contact with an actual advisor (HR or Legal) to guide her through this process. If her knowledge of redudancies and the processes involved is limited now, then I'd advise against relying on free information to do it properly (although she should read all the information available so that she's informed to the best extent she can be). Unfortunately, that means she's going to have to consider spending money to save money, but I think that's probably better than selecting people for redundancy and then finding herself on the wrong end of an employment claim.


----------



## Complainer (25 Apr 2009)

ney001 said:


> Also, I must also add that out of the 7 employees, only 5 have been asked to take pay cuts, the reason for this is that the other two have young families, the other five individuals concerned are all single - now perhaps this is where the problem lies, I don't know!
> 
> To assume that she is a bad boss is some leap based on my post! I have always felt that she has been extremely fair and always played by the rules.


She has displayed complete ignorance of Equality legislation with her approach above. She has discriminated against the single individuals on grounds of their family status. This may well cost her dearly.


----------



## Purple (25 Apr 2009)

She needs to have a clear plan of action.
Her two options are across the board pay cuts (she should take a bigger cut than her employees but she should not discuss her salary level or her personal financial circumstances) or redundancies. 
I agree with other posters that she has handled the situation badly (even if she meant well) but the bigger picture is the survival of the business and by extension the jobs of her employees. In that context the stance taken by her employees (I’m not doing what needs to be done because you hurt my feelings) is remarkably stupid. 
Considering the loyalty she has shown to them in her position I would be very peeved.

So, I would suggest that she reads up on employment law (relative to this matter only). This can be done on Citizens advice or here on the relevant forums. I would then apologise to the staff about how things were communicated but restate very clearly that the material facts hadn’t changed and that if they didn’t agree to pay cuts the business would be closing within weeks.


----------



## jdwex (25 Apr 2009)

ney001 said:


> I do agree about the pay cut to 5 out of 7 being unfair, this was purely based on the facts that those two staff members (more senior staff) have young families.


 

I would have a fit if my employer asked me to take a pay cut on the basis that I didn't have kids.


----------



## AlbacoreA (25 Apr 2009)

She needs to get professional advice. So far she's heading for problems.


----------



## Purple (25 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> I think thats a bit much, calling them stupid. If an employer told me I was getting a pay cut, and that collegues with families weren't, no negotiation, no please and thank you, just like that, I'd tell them to swing for it too. If they did it properly, I would be completely understanding and do everything I could to help.
> The loyalty she has shown them is to discriminate on unfair grounds, and fail to follow even basic procedures. Its not a matter of hurt feelings, its about being treated properly and professionally on all sides. And she can be as "peeved" as she likes, she messed it up in the first place.



From what the OP posted it lokks like the employer mmade a balls of things but the staff just plain refused to take any pay cuts. They didn't say they would take them if everyone took them, they just said no. In the context of a business going down the pipes what else is it other than stupid?


----------



## Claire1956 (25 Apr 2009)

Having had to face NERA and LRC because we didn't 'read up' on employment law was a dumb excuse on our part - we have learnt the hard way and had to face both because we thought we were too busy running the company to have deal with staff properly.

The law is not hard to digest - in fact it is pretty basic stuff.

If your business is in difficulty, get the necessary knowledge to deal with issues and don't hide behind not having time cos you're trying to save the business. 

Once we changed our attitude to dealing with our issues more constructively, a masive weight was lifted.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> From the info posted, you have no idea why the employees responded in that way, or what they said. We have only the employers friends version, who likely wasn't even there. We do know that the employer doesn't seem to know what she is doing. Its a big leap to call the employees stupid, when the only info available points to the stupidity of the employer.


We have no idea what the full story is on either side, just a general second hand overview by the owners’ friend. None of us are posting based on anything else. What it look like to me is stupidity on both sides. 
Employment law at this level is very simple and takes no more than a few hours to read up on. I don't understand how anyone would not inform themselves before making decisions about pay cuts. 
That said pay cuts are necessary in order to make the business viable again so a more constructive approach from the staff would help.


----------



## MandaC (26 Apr 2009)

Have the employees actually said why they are against the pay cuts.  Do they feel she is just trying to pull a fast one.

I am single and no offence to anyone with a young family, if I thought the pay cuts were not universal, I would have a complete canary.  Single people have bills too, ie, large mortgage on one  (cut) income.  Her logic in doing this may be the crux of the matter and should be sorted out.

She sounds like she is a good boss - and people do need to remember this is new to our Employers too.  We were in a takeover situation last year (ended up being taking redundancy) and it was handled badly.  This was more down to the personalities of the people than any ill intent.  I am still friendly terms with both directors as we all did ok out of it and  at the end of the day, they are human too.


----------



## ajapale (26 Apr 2009)

Im moving this interesting discussion from Askaboutbusiness to  Work, Careers, Employment which is where employer/employee rights and responsibilities (and employment law) are discussed on AAM. 

aj
moderator.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2009)

MandaC said:


> I am single and no offence to anyone with a young family, if I thought the pay cuts were not universal, I would have a complete canary.  Single people have bills too, ie, large mortgage on one  (cut) income.  Her logic in doing this may be the crux of the matter and should be sorted out.


I agree completely. No consideration what so ever should be given to a person’s personal circumstance when their pay rate is being set. If wages are set by any criteria other than the value of the input that person has it becomes utterly unfair and arbitrary with the whim of the employer rather than the value of the employee determining remuneration.


----------



## extopia (26 Apr 2009)

Having good intentions doesn't make you a good boss.


----------



## Purple (26 Apr 2009)

extopia said:


> Having good intentions doesn't make you a good boss.



Very true.


----------



## ney001 (29 Apr 2009)

update on this:

Employees refused flat out to take paycut.  Friend returned to all employees including the married/family ones and said that paycut would have to be taken across the board i.e everybody gets same paycut.  Immediately family guys accepted paycut, singles guys didn't.  Friend then let them know that she would have to consider cutting the number of hours they worked per week.  All of the employees came in the following day and stated that they would prefer to have the paycut.  Paycut going through.


----------



## WaterSprite (29 Apr 2009)

That's great that your friend got agreement.  If people are given an option, they are usually accommodating.  Good result.


----------



## Deiseblue (29 Apr 2009)

ney001 said:


> update on this:
> 
> Employees refused flat out to take paycut. Friend returned to all employees including the married/family ones and said that paycut would have to be taken across the board i.e everybody gets same paycut. Immediately family guys accepted paycut, singles guys didn't. Friend then let them know that she would have to consider cutting the number of hours they worked per week. All of the employees came in the following day and stated that they would prefer to have the paycut. Paycut going through.


I note from some of the posts that the employer in question was advised to contact IBEC or the SMA.
I really wonder why workers don't request union representation at times like this.


----------



## Pique318 (29 Apr 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> I note from some of the posts that the employer in question was advised to contact IBEC or the SMA.
> I really wonder why workers don't request union representation at times like this.


Because they have sense, perhaps ? Bearing in mind the recent 'near miss' at Lufthansa Technik.
Employees are generally willing to do what needs to be done if given the relevant information. Unions are not, unfortunately, as flexible and would be 'calling on their brethren to show solidarity' etc.etc. leading to strikes and an increased feeling of Us Versus Them rather than Us & Them.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2009)

Pique318 said:


> Because they have sense, perhaps ? Bearing in mind the recent 'near miss' at Lufthansa Technik.
> Employees are generally willing to do what needs to be done if given the relevant information. Unions are not, unfortunately, as flexible and would be 'calling on their brethren to show solidarity' etc.etc. leading to strikes and an increased feeling of Us Versus Them rather than Us & Them.



Well said


----------



## gixxer (29 Apr 2009)

It must be remembered that "the union" are all the members there off.
The Union representatives are like solicitors, they advise members of their rights and potential consequences of their actions, legal etc.
I am a shop steward and my hardest job is trying to convince members that they will not get extra pay for being "busy", and this is a spurious argument.

If the members decide that they want to ignore this advice, the Union rep. will still represent the members and bring the process through the agreed procedures (Rights Commissioner, Labour Court etc.)

A solicitor will do the same, give you advice, but will continue with the process you want once you pay for the work. (Union Subs cover this).

Also, a comment on the situation above: picking people for pay cuts based on their circumstances is very dangerous under the Equality Legislation...Who's to say that one of the young "single" employees could have two   incapacitated   parents at home etc. etc. 

Gixxer.


----------



## ney001 (29 Apr 2009)

Pique318 said:


> Because they have sense, perhaps ? Bearing in mind the recent 'near miss' at Lufthansa Technik.
> Employees are generally willing to do what needs to be done if given the relevant information. Unions are not, unfortunately, as flexible and would be 'calling on their brethren to show solidarity' etc.etc. leading to strikes and an increased feeling of Us Versus Them rather than Us & Them.



Completely agree, I think there has always been a good relationship between staff and boss here but unions being brought into it would IMO have soured that relationship.  As it stands all sides are back to normal now work has resumed and hopefully there will not be any other problems.


----------



## BoscoTalking (29 Apr 2009)

WaterSprite said:


> IIf she makes redundancy selections based on family (or lack thereof) grounds or suchlike, that would invite a pretty clear-cut claim for unfair dismissal/unfair selection.


discrimination based on Marital status/ family status i think. 
Anyway i think she should contact as many people to help her - isme, ibec whomever. 

I also wonder aloud as to what the local FF TD would think of the situation and if he she could offer qualified mediation services for free based on the fact it seems like an all or nobody paying tax...


----------



## Deiseblue (29 Apr 2009)

Pique318 said:


> Because they have sense, perhaps ? Bearing in mind the recent 'near miss' at Lufthansa Technik.
> Employees are generally willing to do what needs to be done if given the relevant information. Unions are not, unfortunately, as flexible and would be 'calling on their brethren to show solidarity' etc.etc. leading to strikes and an increased feeling of Us Versus Them rather than Us & Them.


My reading of the Lufthansa Technick dispute is that the Union on behalf of it's workers faced down Lufthansa on two seperate occassions and negotiated improved terms on behalf of it's members both times.
Brinksmanship perhaps but it worked !


----------



## peelaaa (30 Apr 2009)

The company I work for cut all staff salaries, we all had a meeting and then a letter to state the new salary.
It was not agreed upon though by the staff, we were just told and that was that. BTW there is no union where i work.

Is this illegal by the company?


----------



## Mpsox (30 Apr 2009)

peelaaa said:


> The company I work for cut all staff salaries, we all had a meeting and then a letter to state the new salary.
> It was not agreed upon though by the staff, we were just told and that was that. BTW there is no union where i work.
> 
> Is this illegal by the company?


 
Yes

having said that, what were the consequences for the company and you and your colleagues if all staff refused the pay cut. Redundancy and closure?


----------



## peelaaa (30 Apr 2009)

Mpsox said:


> Yes
> 
> having said that, what were the consequences for the company and you and your colleagues if all staff refused the pay cut. Redundancy and closure?


 
They didn't state that they would close, the company had already made  staff redundant last year and then more this year with the remaining staff taking a pay cut.
Majority of staff in the company are low paid too, it wasn't as if we were over paid etc.


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> My reading of the Lufthansa Technick dispute is that the Union on behalf of it's workers faced down Lufthansa on two seperate occassions and negotiated improved terms on behalf of it's members both times.
> Brinksmanship perhaps but it worked !



Yes, and it only cost the good will of the management, the plants efficiency ranking within the organisation and quite possible the long term viability of the whole operation here. Just another good days work for the bearded brethren.


----------



## Deiseblue (2 May 2009)

Purple said:


> Yes, and it only cost the good will of the management, the plants efficiency ranking within the organisation and quite possible the long term viability of the whole operation here. Just another good days work for the bearded brethren.


I would suggest that the workers in Lufthansa have a greater knowledge of the way the company operates than you or I have.
The basis of any Trade Union is to protect the terms and conditions of it's members who democratically turned down what turned out to be the two opening offers by Lufthansa and eventually agreed to an improved accepted offer.
I quite agree " a good days work "
As to losing the good will of management I sure they would agree that it's merely the cut and thrust of normal Company/Union negotiations.
The final point I would make is that if the Company was non unionised they would have arbitrarily carried through their initial offer without negotiation - hardly fair I would have thought !


----------



## Complainer (3 May 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> I
> As to losing the good will of management I sure they would agree that it's merely the cut and thrust of normal Company/Union negotiations.


Isn't it strange how no-one worries too much about 'goodwill' when O'Leary boasts about raping Boeing when he does a deal for new planes. He is their hero. But others are supposed to worry about maintaining goodwill.


----------



## Kate10 (6 May 2009)

I think the other posters are right and your friend has been very naive.  I understand that she wants to do what she thinks is best, but it doesn't work like that.  For starters, her decision is selecting only single people for paycuts is divisive, and I would find it offensive.  Secondly, if your friend's business is no longer making enough money to support all of her staff, and the staff will not accept pay cuts, then her only option is redundancy.  Clearly she must follow proper redundancy procedures and select people for redundancy fairly.

I understand that this person is your friend, and you want to be supportive, but every employer must have a basic understanding of employment law.  It doesn't take very long.  An hour on google would give her a least a basic insight.


----------



## Purple (6 May 2009)

Deiseblue said:


> I would suggest that the workers in Lufthansa have a greater knowledge of the way the company operates than you or I have.


Actually I know quite a lot about that particular company.
As for good will, the best thing the management can do is explain the situation and why they are proposing what they are proposing clearly. Everyone within the organisation is then informed as to what the facts are and they can make a decision to secure their existing pay and conditions or their long term future. 
Hostility between people working for the same organisation (groups that the bearded brethren, still living in the 1920's call "workers" and "management") is not good for any organisation. I know that such division is what unions seek to ferment so that they can live off it but in reality it is utterly unnecessary.


----------



## Purple (6 May 2009)

Complainer said:


> Isn't it strange how no-one worries too much about 'goodwill' when O'Leary boasts about raping Boeing when he does a deal for new planes. He is their hero. But others are supposed to worry about maintaining goodwill.


Are you seriously suggesting that the relationship between employees in the same organisation could or should be equated to a purchasing negotiation between two businesses? Do you know the first thing about managing or running a business?


----------



## ney001 (6 May 2009)

Kate10 said:


> I think the other posters are right and your friend has been very naive.  I understand that she wants to do what she thinks is best, but it doesn't work like that.  For starters, her decision is selecting only single people for paycuts is divisive, and I would find it offensive.



Discussed at length already see other posts.



Kate10 said:


> Secondly, if your friend's business is no longer making enough money to support all of her staff, and the staff will not accept pay cuts, then her only option is redundancy.  Clearly she must follow proper redundancy procedures and select people for redundancy fairly.



Again, discussed and employees accepted pay cut see above


----------



## mdebets (7 May 2009)

Purple said:


> Yes, and it only cost the good will of the management, the plants efficiency ranking within the organisation and quite possible the long term viability of the whole operation here. Just another good days work for the bearded brethren.


 You get this wrong, the management agreed to the deal as well. They are not a charity, therefore this deal must have been better for them short term and long term, than the closure of the company, which would  be the other option.
So it's not a win-loose, but a win-win situation for the Union and management.


----------



## Purple (7 May 2009)

mdebets said:


> You get this wrong, the management agreed to the deal as well. They are not a charity, therefore this deal must have been better for them short term and long term, than the closure of the company, which would  be the other option.
> So it's not a win-loose, but a win-win situation for the Union and management.



Rubbish; in the short term they need to fulfil their contractual obligations to their customers and maintain their delivery record. In the long term they need to deliver maximum return on investment to their shareholders. That means that they run their business from the location that offers the best ROI. If costs are higher and work practices are less efficient in Ireland than another plant in another country then they will increase capacity in the other facility. This takes time so in the short term they will agree to the union’s demands but in the long term they will seek to maximise their return.


----------



## balzo (15 Jun 2009)

Hi,the company i work for introduced a 10% pay cut and no bonuses across the board in Feb.I also have to work on Saturdays without pay.
To-day i was informed of two options:
1)They make my only other member of staff in my dept redundant and i also take another 10% cut.
2)They make me redundant.
I cannot afford to take another 10% cut when i will be doing the work of 2 people.
Cananyone please advice me?


----------

