>> As far as I know, in the UK unemployment benefit is unrelated to your 
>> prior income and is computed based only on how much money they think 
>> you "need" in order to survive. (E.g., stuff like whether you have 
>> children.)
> 
> Here it is a percentage of your last income. Makes sense in a way, 

Yeah, I guess.

>> Somebody asked if Fathead is taking a pay cut as well. We are told he 
>> is. (Obviously, there is no way to actually verify this.)
> 
> Ask him to proof it ;)

It's interesting... If Adam had said he was taking a 10% pay cut too, we 
would all just believe him without even thinking about it. But when 
Fathead says it, we're all suspicious... Maybe because he's such a good 
manager?

>>> Did you check if such a thing is even legal in the UK? What do the 
>>> unions say about this?
>>
>> It's legal if we all sign a written document agreeing to it. It is 
>> required to be unanimous though.
> 
> Does that mean it is only legal if it is unanimous or that they want 
> full pressure from do-workers on everybody?

We are told it's only legal if it's unanimous. IANAL. Maybe it's just a 
ploy?

>> The fact of the matter is, last year two key people left the company - 
>> our Director of Business Development, and shortly afterwards our 
>> General Manager. Since that time, our order book has become 
>> progressively more empty. 
> 
> Are you sure you have the events in chronological and causative order?

It would be a lie to say that the Director of BD left and the next day 
the lab was empty. It is true, however, that the BD guy left suddenly 
and unexpectedly (apparently HQ did something he didn't like), and that 
Adam left suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after that. And it's most 
assuredly true that nobody likes Fathead, our new site manager.

The recent quietness could be due to any number of things... it just 
seems like a bit of a coincidence that we now have 5 BD people instead 
of just 1, but there's no work. You could blame the banking crash 
(indeed, Fathead does), but it was quiet before that.

>> Then we got rid of our lab manager (we're not sure why, it just 
>> randomly happened one afternoon).
> 
> So the short version is that everybody that was actually able to find 
> new work is no longer working there? Enquiring mind wants to know.

Since Fathead has been our manager, staff turnover has been absurdly 
high. Like before, we'd maybe hire 1 person per year. And maybe 1 person 
would leave in a given year. And they'd announce that they're leaving, 
and a month or two later they'd actually leave. And we would probably 
all go out for a meal and say goodbye and stuff.

With Fathead in charge, you just come in one morning and there's some 
person you don't recognise wandering around, and it turns out they work 
for us now. Or we'll have a meeting and Fathead says "by the way, X no 
longer works for us, as of 2PM yesterday", and we're all like WTF?!

I especially like the way he decided to take on some temp staff in the lab.

1. The lab was almost empty, so why more staff?
2. It takes *months* to perform and document all the formal training in 
our policies and procedures before the new person can actually do any work.
3. During this training, somebody has to by training the person rather 
than doing their own job.

We had 2 people work for us for a month. Why? They didn't even finish 
their training period before their contracts ended. WORTH IT! Well that 
was a waste of money...

So anyway, several high-profile people have left suddenly, and with the 
lab being empty for so many months now, everybody has been getting 
twitchy about job security. And now this happens...

>> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how 
>> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the 
>> cut, and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.
> 
> That pressure alone would make it illegal in my opinion, but IANAL.

It _is_ suspecious that last month, things were "poor but managable", 
and now suddenly this week it's high-noon. Why?

>> PS. I'd almost consider resigning myself just so my collegues can keep 
>> their jobs... but my pittiful salary is unlikely to make much difference.
> 
> Here that would mean voluntary unemployment and a complete loss of benefit.

Possibly here too. I don't know.

> Whatever you decide: go looking for another job.

Er, yeah. Even if there are no pay cuts and I get to keep my job, this 
is *not* the company to work for! o_O

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere was 
> practically corrosive. 

You haven't seen corrosive until you've seen them call everyone in the 
company into the room on Friday morning and announce they don't have enough 
money to cut paychecks this week.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how 
> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut, 
> and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.

http://3laws.wordpress.com/the-laws/

No freebies, no backsies. :-)

If the bank won't lend them money, why should you?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Here it is a percentage of your last income. Makes sense in a way, 
> because if you earn more you have a bigger house, a bigger car and you 
> are probably the only income. So you need more to get you through the 
> hard times. Not totally fair perhaps but it prevents a lot of secondary 
> damage.

It's also the fact that you pay more taxes to cover it when you're working 
while you're employed, at least in CA. If you don't pay the taxes, you 
aren't covered. But if you do pay the taxes, you also aren't always covered. 
There are situations where a sufficiently small business winds up paying UI 
taxes and nobody there can collect.

>> Unions? We don't have any.
> Interesting. A relic from the Thatcher days?

A sufficiently small company isn't going to have a union either. :-)

> Whatever you decide: go looking for another job.

Yep.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 May 2009 09:06:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Invisible wrote:
>> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how
>> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut,
>> and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.
> 
> http://3laws.wordpress.com/the-laws/
> 
> No freebies, no backsies. :-)
> 
> If the bank won't lend them money, why should you?

That's what I'd go with.

I'd also question the true legality of using peer pressure to get 
everyone to agree to a pay cut.  At best that seems unethical to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere 
>> was practically corrosive. 
> 
> You haven't seen corrosive until you've seen them call everyone in the 
> company into the room on Friday morning and announce they don't have 
> enough money to cut paychecks this week.

PWN3D!! O_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> If the bank won't lend them money, why should you?
> 
> That's what I'd go with.
> 
> I'd also question the true legality of using peer pressure to get 
> everyone to agree to a pay cut.  At best that seems unethical to me.

Apparently it's moot now. Some people rejected it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 21-5-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Here it is a percentage of your last income. Makes sense in a way, 
>> because if you earn more you have a bigger house, a bigger car and you 
>> are probably the only income. So you need more to get you through the 
>> hard times. Not totally fair perhaps but it prevents a lot of 
>> secondary damage.
> 
> It's also the fact that you pay more taxes to cover it when you're 
> working while you're employed, at least in CA. If you don't pay the 
> taxes, you aren't covered. But if you do pay the taxes, you also aren't 
> always covered. There are situations where a sufficiently small business 
> winds up paying UI taxes and nobody there can collect.
> 
>>> Unions? We don't have any.
>> Interesting. A relic from the Thatcher days?
> 
> A sufficiently small company isn't going to have a union either. :-)

As I said, no real experience in the private sector, but as far as I 
know even people in small companies can be members of a union here. 
There are some big unions with divisions that span certain workers in 
all companies of a kind. Say all labpersonal organized as a group and 
all kitchen personel etc.
Apparently the situation is different in the UK and US.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:46:54 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> If the bank won't lend them money, why should you?
>> 
>> That's what I'd go with.
>> 
>> I'd also question the true legality of using peer pressure to get
>> everyone to agree to a pay cut.  At best that seems unethical to me.
> 
> Apparently it's moot now. Some people rejected it.

That sounds like the best option - even though some individuals may be 
let go as a result, it didn't sound like there was a guarantee that that 
wouldn't have happened even if everyone had agreed to the pay cut.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Apparently the situation is different in the UK and US.

No, I think it's similar. We have some big companies without unions and some 
small companies with unions, and some small companies with company-spanning 
unions.

I just didn't get the impression that Andrew's company had a union. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message