Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

People like the above commenter say "half a loaf is better than no loaf at all" but I don't see this the same way at all. I'm pretty much working for free more than 2 hours a day now. I'm supposed to be thankful to still have a job and not complain that I took a drastic pay cut. This pay will never EVER come back, I would be willing to bet anything and everything I have on it. I am not thankful to still have a job. I wish they would fire me and not cut the pay of all my coworkers who are barely making enough to raise a family in the first place. This is just an excuse to further cut the salaries of unskilled workers and push more people into poverty. These pay cuts may look like these companies taking creative measures to keep jobs, but it is really them taking advantage of their workers, never intending to repeal these pay cuts.

I'll be out of professional school in a few years and making serious money, but the people I work with now who were forced to take these pay cuts will still be working for barely enough to live on.

@betatron: Pretty much. That, and you still are locked to a position with continual pay if you don't find anything, but can still quit if you're a lucky one and find something else. Heck, that friday off can even help you on a job hunt.

@xthexlanternx: If you look at it, its not just a pay cut, but its also an hours cut. You are getting paid the same rate, but at reduced hours

@xthexlanternx: OK, quit and find another job in this economy. If you're under contract, I'm pretty sure you can raise a fuss about the whole idea and get fired.

If you can, great. Go with it. If you can't, then this reduced schedule is your best option.

If you're so worried about your paycut never returning, then know this: When the boom years return, the job market is likely to favor the workers again.

I think it's wishful thinking to think a "government stimulus package" is going to suddenly turn the economy around.

Better dig in your feet folks, it's going to be awhile.

@xthexlanternx: If you wanna make more money, you gotta have more skills. Simple is that. Adapt or die.

@robodomo:

I am getting paid less money to work the same amount of hours. I have to show up to work over an hour early and stay over an hour late to even get done (and the same for everyone else). We run routes for the post office and they cut all of our routes by 15-20% even though we can't drive any faster and still have to go through the full route.

@Grive:

This isn't about me. This is about everyone else that works with me. I can quit and be fine. I am young and unmarried and I have a plethora of skills. I work this job because it is convenient while I finish school. This environment is used as an excuse to screw workers even harder than they already are being. Sure, the job market will favor the workers in boom times and people can switch jobs if they like, but at my job (doing a postal route) people are still going to be forced to work for free for a portion of their day because if people are willing to do it, why would there ever be a reason to actually pay them?

cut my hours, keep my benefits. i can get a part time job or find ways to cut my budget better than i can get by with two part time jobs and no insurance.

A many, many years ago I worked 3 part-time jobs 4 days per week, totally 37 hours per week. Actually, I kind of like it. I never got bored. The 3 jobs were not related. It was nice variety. The only downside was I didn't qualify for any entitlements. But, then I found a better paying full-time job. So, I took it. But, I kept 1 part-time job for added income.

@xthexlanternx: Are you saying you do contract delivery? Not that what's happening doesn't suck, but I think the article is talking about wage employees and not independent contractors, so there are some differences.

@catastrophegirl: That's the big factor to me, and there's no mention of that in the original article.

This only works with jobs that require physical labor. Otherwise the employee is really getting screwed.

I'm amazed how many people take a blackberry without a raise. If you use it 1hr a day, that's 5hrs a week. Assume you work 40hrs a week, your now at 45. You've increased your hours and kept your pay the same. Your hourly (which even if you salary is really the metric to be looking at) went down. You fail.

Working 4 days a week in a non-labor job means more working off the clock.

Problem with reduced hours is it means less money, but not enough free time to find supplemental work to make it up. Sometimes the layoff is better since it gives you the opportunity to find a good job. It's really an individual preference though.

My wife just got a raise and a bonus, after only being there about 4 months.

On that same note my company just got rid of matching 401k and is cutting hours to around 32-ish, so it's a wash.

@xthexlanternx: But you're still getting your health insurance and other benefits through work right? You want to give those up?

I have done the same for my employees many times offered them reduced hours to keep everyone working.
We are doing it right now. Do I lay off someone and see their world start to come apart? Jobs are few and far between. Better a paycheck with fewer hours at the same rate of pay. There is also the benefit of the social part of being with other workers who are friends.
I am seeing 15- 20 people walk through the door every day looking for work. We just filled an assistant manager's spot. Over qualified apps 90%, hungry for any job 100%
When things pick up again these are the same people that are already trained whose hours will be going back to normal

We've just had to deal with something similar in my home. But it was universally decided that a small pay cut for a while and no bonuses was much more preferable to losing the job entirely.

Then when the paycuts came down, they luckily were less than my merit raise the last year, so it just means that our budget is back to last year's numbers.

I think most people would rather have something for sure, no matter how much smaller.

I think one thing that a lot of people are missing in this is that, while they may cut your hours, they may also require you to complete more work per hour. It's a win/win for the company - if you're fired, you can use COBRA and unemployment insurance to keep going until you find a job ... you lose that if you quit. So, they can string along employees, force more work per hour, and pay less.

Of course, with less income, they're going to buy less and be able to save less, so it really doesn't help. It would serve the economy better to allow the markets to naturally realign the workforce.

back in 1980 when the economy tanked, lumber mills in Eugene Oregon did a two-week cycle. they worked half the crew for two weeks while the other half went on unemployment, then two weeks later they swapped places. That way the company could run at 50% capacity without laying anyone off, and the workers could get full unemployment benefits for the two weeks they weren't at the mill.

Look for this kind of thing to come back as someone's "new idea" soon.

they may also require you to complete more work per hour.

They are cutting hours because... wait for it... wait..
there isn't enough work.... wow was that worth the wait.

orders are down everywhere in every business.
Less orders = less hours needed
This is the whole point of the OP

My company already did a round of layoffs and I survived, and I found out today that I (along with every other hourly in my office) will be taking two unpaid weeks off, starting tomorrow.

While I'd like to have the option of working and getting paid, or at least a bit of extra notice to make sure everything is taken care of while I'm gone, I'm kind of looking forward to having the time. I can see my family for an extra day over Christmas, I can finally clean my apartment (which I've been dying for a decent opportunity to do for almost a year and a half, as odd as it sounds), I can write more for the website I work for on the side. And I don't have to worry that it looks bad that I'm taking days off or that they feel like I'm not dedicated or that my bosses are judging me for not being at work.

And also, it has given me the opportunity to get drunk on a Monday night for the first time since college. So, my pint glass is half full on this issue at the moment.

@jayntampa: Realign the workforce? Into what? Stocking shelves at Wal-Mart? It's high time the government we hired to take an interest in such things actually do the job we pay them for.

Ahh, this brings back memories of hearing family members talking about "the three day week" when I was a kid (in the UK) in the 1970s. I remember being utterly at a loss to fathom what could possibly be the downside of only having to go to work three days a week.

Cutting me down to four days a week in my job now would just result in me working even longer than the 10 hour days (which should be 8) I currently work, in order to get the same amount of work done in less time... all for less money. But yeah, better than (shudder) being laid off altogether, I guess. There's just that small matter of the mortgage, of course, but... ugh.

A nicer way to do this kind of thing, while putting a more positive spin on it, would be to do what a lot of bigger companies (including the company I work for, and the one I worked for before) do, and offer employees the opportunity to buy an extra week's vacation (ie to have their pay cut by a pro-rated amount over the year). Sell it as an optional benefit. Just don't offer the 'sell back a week's vacation' option.

Pretty much guaranteed that, given the crappy leave allowances most people get in this country, anyone who can afford to do it will be clamoring to sign up.

@Meiran: You so exactly described the position our family is in that I had to ask my husband if he posted this.

Honestly, if I had the choice of no job or less hours, I'd choose the less hours. At least I'd still have hours. I'd also have time to look for a second job - anything. Waiting tables, serving coffee, anything.

I'm like alot of people : to layed off or to be paid less which is a loaded question .

I wouldn't mind 4 10 hour days or 3 12s spread out over 5 days .It all depends on the job and the actual coverage needed .Different shifts less hours might work on project type work but if you have to be there for customers or other departments that's another story and probably more work for you .

Then how much commitment can you make to a second job if needed .I've seen companies give extra hours in tough times not hiring or replacing anybody who leaves .

I guess it depends if you can get by on a plain old cell phone instead of a Blackberry or 7-11 coffee instead of Starbucks .Those are the easy choices,some need every hour and dollar wether it's for the kids,food or house .

Take my health benefits. I'll use the emergency room for my bypass.

Here's the thing though, I'm not sure if this is state by state or company by company, but all of the hourly jobs I've ever worked at had a rule that if you dropped below 35 hours a week for 6 weeks or more then you lose your benefits. Conversely if you work more than 35 hours a week for 6 weeks or more they were required to give them to you.

So we always had situations with the full timers who were afraid they would lose their benefits from having their hours cut, and there were the shady managers who would hire someone, work them 40 hours a week for like 4 weeks in a row and then cut them to 30 for a couple of weeks to fall under the benefit limit, then go back again.

Also keep in mind that taking COBRA means that you're paying 100% of your plan now instead of your employer, and that coupled with only making 50-60% of your salary on unemployment makes it seem like a much crappier option.

@DeeJayQueue: it might be state by state. i used to work for disney in florida and it was 32 hours. that was also part of the union negotiated contract

My hours and those of most of my co-workers have been cut by 20%, to four days a week. If it's necessary (and I have my doubts), then so be it. But without any ownership in the company, there's no way I'll put in more than 32 hours a week. Once I go back to 40 hours, then I'd be more willing to go above and beyond (within reason).

@Grive: Indeed you could use that time to complete the loaf via (a) an extra part-time job (if you can find one), and/or (b) a more in-depth job search without the awkwardness of interviewing during "lunch" -- all while having at least something in the pocket to show for it.

@sir_eccles:

My work doesn't pay for any benefits.

@floraposte:

Yeah I am a contractor. They told us two weeks ago that they weren't going to honor our current contracts and they were cutting 30+ minutes off of every route, even though the routes still all take the same amount of time. At the end of the day, it won't break my back.. I'm a college student and I'm unmarried with no kids, so $3000 less a year just hurts how much I go out. The thing is, this money will never come back to these routes. They've been cut massively (the hours cut without any actual work cut means you're working a significant portion of the day for free, massively diluting your actual wage). I won't suffer, but the people I work with who have families to raise and bills to pay will (not to mention the fact that these were contract routes that were not renegotiated at all-- we were simply told they weren't going to pay us our full rate).

@Oregon:

At my work, there is the same amount of work needed to be done as always. They are simply using the economy as an excuse to cut people's hours while still making them do the same (or more) work.

@digitalgimpus: It doesn't quite work like that, or at least it doesn't have to.

I use my Exchange-synced phone to be away from the office and at home more. I'd rather be in my dining room on the computer for, say, 45 minutes than sitting in the office from 1p-5p.

As soon as 5p hits I turn the corporate email account off and now I'm "clocked out" for the day.

@Ninja007: oh, and no other responsibilities or obligations. mustn't forgot those.

@catastrophegirl: ah but be wary of dropping below the minimum hours worked per year that gets you access to FMLA. drop below that be s.o.l. if anyone gets seriously ill.

@jayntampa: COBRA = $700/month to even HAVE insurance, you d-bag. Pay that on unemployment and still eat and make house payment/rent, not to mention heat the home.

@DeeJayQueue: retail, fast food, call centers - already on that bandwagon. who's next for that little piece of asshattery. . . .

@Oregon: The problem is some employers will cut hours like this so that they can also cut benefits. Would you like to go part-time? Okay, good, now you don't get health insurance. Losing the benefits package probably saves the employer almost as much as cutting the hours, but the employee probably doesn't have an easy way to get that health insurance back.

Uh that's called entry level job in the arts. I work 28 hrs/wk at a library and I have an MS.

I've been working a four-day week for ten years now. It was presented to me as an opportunity to have more time with my kids, but I know it was also a way for my department to save money.

I do like the hours. Having 20% lopped off my salary was a little harder to adjust to, but we managed. I still get health insurance etc. If people can stretch their budget and take the cut in hours to save their jobs, then... go for it. (But don't expect you'll get those hours back again. Several times I've asked to go back full time, but there is never a budget for it.)

My hours and salary have not been cut.

Since my company has already been paid contracts for this next year before all this crap happened, and we can't lower hours, because we're always shorthanded anyway.

over the summer, while gas prices were around $4.25/gallon, i worked at a summer camp, about 30 minutes from my house. Our director set the schedule so we worked 4 10-hour days each week, instead of 5 8-hour days... i loved it because (1) i got a full day off once a week, and (2) i used less gas (and yes, i understand that my situation isn't the same as what the article is talking about)

Sounds good to me! Bring it on! Of course, then again, I'm on salary...

I love it! For years the US has been making fun of countries like France for their low working hours and long vacations; but now they are doing it too.
Something civilized about working to live, rather than living to work.

I must be missing something; most employers I've been with haven't had a 40-hour work week in years; 32-35 is the norm, and Bob help you if you somehow got any unapproved overtime..and ALL overtime was unapproved.

Of course, that was the hourly workers--salaried folks (like me) were worked like galley slaves until we dropped in our places.