Monday, January 19, 2009

Cut down people or cut down salaries?

I read in the news that Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam said that 45,000 employees will go on leave for 2 of 3 weeks this Chinese New Year, with either paid or unpaid leave (and I presume, partially-paid leave). I heard of similar exercises during the recent Christmas/New Year season. He also said that some 14,000 had been retrenched as at Jan 12.

The economic recession is starting to take its toll. And we read news similar to the above since last year. A hypothetical case popped in my mind. And I let it brew. What if, a factory that employs, say 1000 workers, needs to cut down production by 10% due to decrease in the demand in the same proportion. Let’s say the management has decided to choose one of two options, either retrench 100 employees and maintain the salary of the remaining 900, or keep everyone but cut their salaries by 10%. Let’s say their current salary is RM1000 per month, so after the cut, it would be RM900. And to be fair, their working time will also be reduced by 10%. It’s not an unusual situation for the management to make such decisions.

But, what if, the management asks for the 1000 employees to vote for either option 1 or 2? The outcome would differ, I think, on whether the 100 to be retrenched in option 1 has been identified or not. If the 100 has been identified (let’s say the managers choose the 100 least performing employees), how would the remaining 900 vote? How many would choose to shoulder some loss (RM100 per month, which is a lot to them) in order to let their colleagues (friends?) maintain their jobs? But, if the management didn’t identify the 100 to be retrenched, and says that a balloting (so it’s based on luck, rather than performance, so that the higher-performing employees have no reasons to feel more secure) to determine the 100 will take place after everyone has voted for option 1 or 2, then it’ll be a different story. My guess is, majority will go for option 2 because now it’s a calculation of how probable it is for them to be the ‘selected’ 100. And my guess is, most people would feel RM900 is still better than nothing. Hmm.. I’m somewhat reminded of Joker’s ‘social science experiment’ in the movie The Dark Night (you know, the two ships? I like the movie, by the way).

And what’s the point of this pondering? I also don’t know. It does make an interesting socio-economics study though. I have these ‘what-ifs’ and ‘I wonder…’ thoughts pretty often, but they don’t normally find their way onto paper (digital or otherwise). May Allah protect us from having to be involved in such an unpleasant situation.

3 comments:

Zidni

when it comes to packages like this... management can't really pick the 100 with justifications that they're non performing (there's 1 case i heard that this kind of move backfired when the 100 sued back questioning why us 100? what is the criteria of selection?)

just to spice it up & to demonstrate that democracy (voting) can be flawed... say there are 3 groups. roughly 1/3 is top performing. 1/3 in the middle and 1/3 less performing.

the first group will vote for retrenchment (33% yes, 67% no), the second group will vote for unpaid leaves (33, 67), and the last will vote for salary cut (33,67 again).

so how? :P

SMM

zidni,
usually, management would offer a package, and if the package is attractive enough, they can do a vss - voluntary severance scheme, offer to those who wants it. but that's a big cost too..

haha.. what's the probability that the vote will be split exactly equal? in any case, the management need not make the results of the vote known and use it to make a decision. they just need to know the outcome to gauge people's opinion. this is called consult (instead of democracy).. afterall, i doubt any mgmt would ever use this voting way to decide heheh..

Anonymous

yeah... i know the vss style. the case i heard was weird - apparently vss taken did not meet the target so a few were "given" the vss. (which is not voluntary at all.) employee sued back and won.

at the court, the hr manager was making the case that this is business decision, etc2. then the employee showed the judge an ad (apparently that employee had found and kept the company recruitment advert a few days before he was given the vss) and the hr manager went speechless, unexpecting the situation, and eventually lost the case

i said roughly, not exactly. all im saying is... it is possible that within the 3 options, majority of 51% cannot be reached.

  © Blogger template 'Minimalist G' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP