 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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
Best line of the whole deal:
Leon: "What are you planning to do about it?"
CFO: "We're entertaining several possibilities."
Leon: "Entertaining nothing! The party's over!"
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <joh### [at] home com> wrote:
> <snip>
> Look at it this way, Andrew,
Hi John,
Are you back in the land of the living? ;)
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
