Bonus payments to employees who took paycuts

D

DannyBoyD

Registered User
Messages
2,945
MNC sought pay cuts from employees; in Ireland staff had the right to reject pay cuts, so individual employees could vote to accept or not.

There was no carrot of bonuses or when salaries might (if ever) be restored. It was a yes or no choice at the time.

MNC now seeking to pay bonus to those who took the pay cut, but exclude anyone who voted no.

I can understand the logic to an extent; but if that information wasn't made available at the time of the voting process then staff were being asked to make that choice without full details.

Thoughts?
 
DannyBoyD said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Seems reasonable to me.
(In fact, I worked through such a situation during COVID with an employer who took the same approach.)
They presumably couldn't promise bonuses in lieu of pay cuts at the time of said cuts because they didn't know how things would pan out.
Now that they know that they can afford bonuses they are paying them to those who took the cuts.
What's the problem with that?
 
Shirazman said:
Yup, it's absolutely outrageous that the MNC couldn't foresee the future.
Click to expand...
Indeed, totally agree - sarcasm always better than legitimate comment.

If you are asked to vote for a TD, did so, and subsequently found out that they had (say) a criminal conviction - would you believe that to be relevant information that should have been available to you as being likely to influence your decision?
 
is the bonus to make them whole v the paycut they took? if so makes sense and those who didnt take the paycut can hardly feel aggrieved they arent getting the bonus.
 
Is the situation not that everyone had to take the pay cut (even those who votes no) and now the MNC just wants to give a bonus to those who votes yes (even though everyone had to take the pay cut due to majority vote)
 
messyleo said:
Is the situation not that everyone had to take the pay cut (even those who votes no)
Click to expand...
I don't think so based on this:
DannyBoyD said:
so individual employees could vote to accept or not.
Click to expand...
I took this to mean that each individual could choose to participate in the salary reduction scheme or not. And those that did not now get no bonus while those that did, do.
 
messyleo said:
Is the situation not that everyone had to take the pay cut (even those who votes no) and now the MNC just wants to give a bonus to those who votes yes (even though everyone had to take the pay cut due to majority vote)
Click to expand...
In Ireland, no one is obliged to accept a change to their conditions of employment unless by agreement. (The public sector’s pay cuts after the 2008 crash were agreed by the unions on behalf of all workers).

In the case of the MNC, the workers who accepted the cut may have done so in solidarity with the company’s predicament or in the belief that it would protect their livelihoods.

I’m glad their generosity is being acknowledged and would be appalled if the other workers were being similarly treated.
 

My "legitimate comment" would have been absolutely scathing so I opted for sarcasm as the more gentle option.

And, seeing as you want to indulge in a bit of whataboutery: what are your views on the chap who wanted to have his cake and eat it?
 
Shirazman said:
who wanted to have his cake and eat it
Click to expand...
where did I say that?

in any event my view is as follows:

bonus won't make up for the lost income from pay cut; if restitution was the plan, this won't cut it.

those who declined the pay cut are still better off

but...

if the plan was to give partial or entire restitution, it would have been better to say so up front when the vote was called for

and no matter how you hack it you've now created a division in your employees.

Matters not a whit to me, I've no axe to grind!

@ClubMan - perhaps understanding analogies are not your strong point - it's to do with transparency and providing all relevant information before asking for a vote.
 
DannyBoyD said:
@ClubMan - perhaps understanding analogies are not your strong point - it's to do with transparency and providing all relevant information before asking for a vote.
Click to expand...
So sarcasm is only objectionable when it comes from @Shirazman? I can perfectly well understand analogies - if they make sense and are in context. One involving an elected representative and criminal wrongdoing is completely off the wall in the context of this thread.
 
Wasnt being at all sarcastic.

the explanation, (since it apparently wasnt clear to you) is that the background of someone standing for election would have a significant influence on your decision making.

In the same way, the MNCs intent to pay bonuses was pertinent information at the time employees were asked to elect to take paycuts.

Transparency (or lack of it) is the link.
 
DannyBoyD said:
In the same way, the MNCs intent to pay bonuses was pertinent information at the time employees were asked to elect to take paycuts.
Click to expand...
I suspect it wasn’t their intention at the time, or certainly not one they could share for fear they couldn’t make good on the suggestion.

I don’t know why you think the bonuses should be a potential reason for division. If you, and others who didn’t take a cut, didn’t suffer any ill-will as a consequence at the time, I don’t see how the ones now in receipt of a bonus should suddenly be pilloried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register