Bonus payments to employees who took paycuts

Definitely division in my opinion; doesn't mean anyone is being pilloried.

Those getting the bonus are still worse off than those who refused the paycut.

All in all, not a good move by MNC I think.
 
Surely the division arose when some staff took a pay cut and others didn't. Now those who did are getting some recompense for their loyalty. I see nothing wrong with that.
If this was a 3 person operation (the owner and 2 other employees) and the owner sat them down to say things were tight and he was looking for everyone to take a pay cut but that it was voluntary. If one employee took a pay cut and the other didn't, would you see an issue with the one who took it subsequently getting some compensation (in the form of a bonus) when things improved again? If not, why would it be any different in an MNC?
 
I disagree. The fact that some people took a pay cut and some didnt, already caused a division.

I am very cynical about the motives of employers, especially large ones, but it is unlikely, IMHO, that they withheld the information about the bonus at the time, it is much more likely that they didnt have permission from head office to promise a bonus in the future.

I dont see an issue with the employer retrospectively compensating employees who took a pay cut. Its not causing division, its reducing the division caused by the paycut.
 
Salvadore said:
In Ireland, no one is obliged to accept a change to their conditions of employment unless by agreement.
Click to expand...

This is true.

Salvadore said:
The public sector’s pay cuts after the 2008 crash were agreed by the unions on behalf of all workers).
Click to expand...
This is false. The pay cuts were legislated for after propsal by government and vote by Oireachtas. The unions were never going to recommend pay cuts to staff to vote on.
 
DannyBoyD said:
if the plan was to give partial or entire restitution, it would have been better to say so up front when the vote was called for

and no matter how you hack it you've now created a division in your employees.
Click to expand...
No, even if they were confident that business was going to improve to a point where partial or full restitution to employees who worked with them in tough times would be possible they would have been crazy to mention it. Just the suggestion that it might be possible sets an expectation that they would likely never meet. Now they fine themselves in a position where they can give a pleasant surprise to those who helped them out at the time.

The division was created at the outset when some staff chose to take the pay cut and others chose not to. Reading what's been posted here sounds like it's coming from the perspective of someone who chose not to help the company out at the time now feeling bitter that those who did are getting getting something back, even if it is only partial restitution.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
The unions were never going to recommend pay cuts to staff to vote on.
Click to expand...
You’d be surprised. If the alternative is compulsory redundancies and reductions to pensions, a pay cut that you hope may only be temporary might be regarded as a win if the other options are taken off the table.

The Croke Park agreement was made on this basis and voted on by union members. The Haddington Road agreement which followed was similarly agreed.
 
Which, if that's the case, is bonkers because they're feeling bitter for being better off.
 
Leo said:
feeling bitter that those who did are getting getting something back,
Click to expand...
I'm always impressed at the ability of folks to project their perceptions onto posts.

if any one has reason to be aggrieved in the scenario outlined, it's those who took the pay cut as those who declined are still better off.
 
DannyBoyD said:
if any one has reason to be aggrieved in the scenario outlined, it's those who took the pay cut as those who declined are still better off.
Click to expand...
Who's to say that the employer won't do another future round of bonuses to bring those employees back parity - or better? That's how it worked with the one that I worked through.
 
Salvadore said:
The Croke Park agreement was made on this basis and voted on by union members.
Click to expand...
The Croke Park agreement provided for no pay cuts.

Salvadore said:
The Haddington Road agreement which followed was similarly agreed.
Click to expand...
Again, the Haddington Road Agreement merely "noted" that there would be legislation to impose pay cuts on higher earners.

To my knowledge no union in Ireland has ever voted for nominal pay cuts.

Management (particularly in the private sector) tend to prefer to reduce headcounts instead of across-the-board pay reductions. The logic is that you know who your least productive workers are and you can reduce payroll without reducing output as much. Likewise, productive staff who aren't let go tend to feel grateful.

Otherwise to get back to the original post, if individuals took voluntary pay cuts a few years ago it seems reasonable to privilege them today with bonuses.
 
DannyBoyD said:
I'm always impressed at the ability of folks to project their perceptions onto posts.
Click to expand...
If you don't want the perception of others, perhaps best not post on a public forum.

In my view, it is far less likely that someone who took the pay cut at the time and is now pleasantly surprised to be getting some recognition would come on here posting what you did. Your description of a partial restitution as a 'carrot' rather then a gesture that doesn't fully make up for the concession further supports your being in that camp.
 
ClubMan said:
Which, if that's the case, is bonkers because they're feeling bitter for being better off.
Click to expand...
Yep, having managed people a long time, I'm no longer surprised by that attitude. I've had people in the past admitting that they're struggling to meet the minimum requirements of the job get all offended when they're not awarded a significant annual bonus!
 
Especially in the times we live in, lots of people like to think that workplaces/organisations are or should be some sort of paragons of egalitarianism. When, in fact, and by their very nature, they are inherently discriminatory. From the initial selection of some candidates over others for actual employment*, to offering different individuals/roles different remuneration packages, to rewarding some (ideally the best performers, but I've seen organisational dysfunctionality and nepotism skew this) over others with bonuses and perks.

* I always liked the David Brent one of throwing half the CVs in the bin because he didn't want to hire unlucky candidates. It's probably as good a selection process as some that I've witnessed.
 
DannyBoyD said:
again, I have no axe to grind here.

It's a scenario with which I have no prior experience; hence interested in others thoughts (as opposed to projections!).
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but people always project their own knowledge and experience into the thoughts and opinions they form.

My thoughts are the company was entirely correct not to set any expectation of a potential future bonus at the time the offer was made. Any such statement could become binding and a company taking such drastic measures to cut costs is unlikely to have absolute guarantees of future cash flow. You'd also have some of those who took the cut forming expectations of grand payouts to reward their sacrifice. Many of those would then likely be disappointed unless they were made whole and got more on top. So setting any expectation is lose, lose from the company perspective.

From a purely neutral perspective then on the matter of those who made the sacrifice now getting a bonus payment to part make up for that, I applaud the company for making that gesture. Many wouldn't and might simply hold the money to improve the financials or further invest in the business. It is good to see companies reward loyalty.

For anyone who chose not to take the pay cut who now feels hard done by, well, they're unlikely ever to be happy. Some of the most impactful things I have done as a manager was simply removing some such people from the team.
 
my old employer did exactly this 7 years ago, staff were asked to take a paycut as part of a move to protect cash flow. Those that did subsequently (around 3 years later) got their pay back and a bonus as a "loyalty" payment for taking the cut in the first place. Of course, some people who did not take a pay cut moaned about the subsequent loyalty bonus but then there are always some people in life who moan about what everyone else gets if they don't get it also.
 
Reactions: Leo
Both the CP and HR agreements, which were voted upon by union members, effectively endorsed the Government’s previous actions insofar as they related to pay and other matters.

There was never an acceptance that the Government had acted legally in unilaterally imposing pay cuts but, in the climate, there was little appetite for doing anything about it.
 
DannyBoyD said:
again, I have no axe to grind here.

It's a scenario with which I have no prior experience; hence interested in others thoughts (as opposed to projections!).
Click to expand...
It depends how you look at it.

If I had taken a cut years ago, I might have felt like a mug afterwards because my immediate colleagues continued to earn more without any real fear of losing their job.

I might even feel like a mug now to realise that my loyalty “bonus” still leaves me out of pocket relative to these colleagues.

If I was one of those who didn’t take a cut, I’d be commending the wisdom of my decision years ago, given that I’m still quids in relative to those now getting a bonus.
 
Salvadore said:
There was never an acceptance that the Government had acted legally in unilaterally imposing pay cuts but, in the climate, there was little appetite for doing anything about it.
Click to expand...
Your chronology is totally off. The first pay cut (aka "pension levy") was announced April 2009, the second pay cut was announced in October of that year and came into effect January 2010.

These were unilateral measures with zero trade union agreement. They were perfectly legal.

The subsequent Croke Park agreement was July 2010.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register