It might be since a lot of companies don't want to have to go through re-training new hires. However, Susan J. Lambert from the Univ. of Chicago says that “the change in working hours is the canary in the coal mine,” meaning: “First you see hours get short, and eventually more people will get laid off.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/business/economy/31jobs.html?_r=1&adxn...) It might feel safer to stay with the part-time job, but it's probably just a signal to start looking for another one while you can.
The unemployment rate is 5.5%, which isn't great, but its not horrible. It might be smarter to take a full-time job that pays less per hour/salary than the part-time job, but still retains some benefits which part-time positions don't.
Given the fact that out of 45 work hours per week, 16 are considered unproductive, the reduction may improve productivity, boost morale, bump up the economy and initiate a positive cycle. It also provides a transitional wage-earning capacity, may enhance sustainable lifestyle take-up, and diminishes the burden on traditional financial support mechanisms.
Here in California the governor has reduced the wages of 200,000 state employees to the $6.50 minimum federal wage. While drastic, it is better than cutting out jobs, or, reducing hours.
Reducing hours causes the employee to work for the same money he would get on unemployment without the benefit of having the time to find a new job. Layoffs allow people to seek other employment while giving overtime to the others to complete the work. Everyone's happy!!!!!!!
May be or may be not. My point of view is the majority of companies are failing to find real ways to be more produtive instead of giving lay offs to personnel.Its more easy to reduce working hours instead of sit down to find ways to be more effective.They must reduce expenses not working hours.
Not unless there is near universal buy-in, all your employees mean it and there is some fairly short timeframe.
Otherwise your best people have another motivation to "test the market." Besides, cutting back isn't a bad exercise on occasion. It has you look at your priorities.
It is definitely not a viable alternative as the goal of the organization is to manage and retain top talent. Layoffs during an economic downturn is done only for poor/average performers to begin with.
If the layoffs are to be done for star performers, then it is a viable option for some time.
Again it depends on the fundamentals and the nature of business- If its a venture backed company, then retaining every penny counts!
If its a listed public company, then growth has to happen and bottomline management is known to be one of the standard task in an economic downturn scenario.
It depends on these variables but reducing work hours will never solve the long term problem which is related to growth!
Personel costs are typically a very small portion of any company's balance sheet thus have only a small affect on the bottom line when the cost is reduced.
Simply creating a shorter work week and work hours during an economic downturn seems to be a bit short sighted. Unless I've been locked in a closet somewhere strategists still recommend investment and growth during a downturn.
Smart companies understand that economic cycles are an eventuality not a mere possibility. They plan to reduce certain production-oriented roles with attrition and by shifting talent into strategic, growth oriented areas of the company.
If that's not enough - have we considered that reducing force (via any means) creates an environment that the best performers tend to flee - because the best talent always has options? When the economy turns again then the companies who RIFed have to re-invest time, money, and effort in replacing talent. So I wonder why a company would want to continually play 'catch up' during and after a downturn?
I would like some informations about Keith H. Hammonds, i need to do a university job about him.
informations as a age, academic background, biogrofhy
can anybody help me?
10 Total
August 7, 2008 at 9:44am by Rachel King
It might be since a lot of companies don't want to have to go through re-training new hires. However, Susan J. Lambert from the Univ. of Chicago says that “the change in working hours is the canary in the coal mine,” meaning: “First you see hours get short, and eventually more people will get laid off.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/business/economy/31jobs.html?_r=1&adxn...) It might feel safer to stay with the part-time job, but it's probably just a signal to start looking for another one while you can.
The unemployment rate is 5.5%, which isn't great, but its not horrible. It might be smarter to take a full-time job that pays less per hour/salary than the part-time job, but still retains some benefits which part-time positions don't.
August 7, 2008 at 2:02pm by Bailey King
Given the fact that out of 45 work hours per week, 16 are considered unproductive, the reduction may improve productivity, boost morale, bump up the economy and initiate a positive cycle. It also provides a transitional wage-earning capacity, may enhance sustainable lifestyle take-up, and diminishes the burden on traditional financial support mechanisms.
August 7, 2008 at 2:18pm by david wayne osedach
Here in California the governor has reduced the wages of 200,000 state employees to the $6.50 minimum federal wage. While drastic, it is better than cutting out jobs, or, reducing hours.
The work needs to be done.
August 7, 2008 at 2:59pm by Mrs. Adrienne Hall
i think that it may be okay to work 4 ten per hour days and have every monday off.
August 7, 2008 at 4:54pm by James Ford
Reducing hours causes the employee to work for the same money he would get on unemployment without the benefit of having the time to find a new job. Layoffs allow people to seek other employment while giving overtime to the others to complete the work. Everyone's happy!!!!!!!
August 7, 2008 at 6:33pm by FELIX MELENDEZ
May be or may be not. My point of view is the majority of companies are failing to find real ways to be more produtive instead of giving lay offs to personnel.Its more easy to reduce working hours instead of sit down to find ways to be more effective.They must reduce expenses not working hours.
August 8, 2008 at 6:18am by Robert Hassmiller
Not unless there is near universal buy-in, all your employees mean it and there is some fairly short timeframe.
Otherwise your best people have another motivation to "test the market." Besides, cutting back isn't a bad exercise on occasion. It has you look at your priorities.
August 8, 2008 at 8:24am by Prakash Gurumoorthy
It is definitely not a viable alternative as the goal of the organization is to manage and retain top talent. Layoffs during an economic downturn is done only for poor/average performers to begin with.
If the layoffs are to be done for star performers, then it is a viable option for some time.
Again it depends on the fundamentals and the nature of business- If its a venture backed company, then retaining every penny counts!
If its a listed public company, then growth has to happen and bottomline management is known to be one of the standard task in an economic downturn scenario.
It depends on these variables but reducing work hours will never solve the long term problem which is related to growth!
August 11, 2008 at 10:52pm by Karrie Sullivan
I wonder whether we're asking the right question.
Personel costs are typically a very small portion of any company's balance sheet thus have only a small affect on the bottom line when the cost is reduced.
Simply creating a shorter work week and work hours during an economic downturn seems to be a bit short sighted. Unless I've been locked in a closet somewhere strategists still recommend investment and growth during a downturn.
Smart companies understand that economic cycles are an eventuality not a mere possibility. They plan to reduce certain production-oriented roles with attrition and by shifting talent into strategic, growth oriented areas of the company.
If that's not enough - have we considered that reducing force (via any means) creates an environment that the best performers tend to flee - because the best talent always has options? When the economy turns again then the companies who RIFed have to re-invest time, money, and effort in replacing talent. So I wonder why a company would want to continually play 'catch up' during and after a downturn?
August 19, 2008 at 1:46pm by Filipe Limas
I would like some informations about Keith H. Hammonds, i need to do a university job about him.
informations as a age, academic background, biogrofhy
can anybody help me?