Which would you prefer: Reduced hours or a paycut?

[boosmom]

Just wondering which option would folks here would prefer?

[daennera]

2 days less

When my job cut us down to four days a week, I picked up a job working Fridays and Saturdays to make up the difference.

I couldn't have done that if I was still working five days.

[boosmom]

Jan 27, 2011 13:13:12 GMT -5 @daennera said:

2 days less

When my job cut us down to four days a week, I picked up a job working Fridays and Saturdays to make up the difference.

I couldn't have done that if I was still working five days.

Yes, I figured that folks could get a 2nd job to make up the difference.

[The J]

I could cut my expenses down. I'd rather lounge around more

[Deleted]

Can I choose to fire 3 of my coworkers and get a 10% raise?

[soon2bmomof3]

I chose 2 days less, but I'd rather it be an hour less during the work day.
We already do 9/80s (nine work days a payperiod, 80 hours), so we already get one Fri off every two weeks. I'd rather either come in an hour later or leave an hour early every day than have two more days off.

[spartan7886]

I chose the 5% paycut. As a young married woman, I've contemplated whether or not I want to go part time when I have kids and come to the conclusion that I could certainly get paid part time, but with the workload we carry and being on-call 24/7, I wouldn't actually be working part time.

It is tempting, though. I work a 9/80 as well, and I love those 4 day weeks.

[Deleted]

Perhaps I'm mistaken....but the POLL says (2 days less per MONTH and 10% pay cut), or is it supposed to be 2 days less per WEEK?

If the first...then 5% pay cut working same hours hands down. If the latter, then I'd probably go with the 2 days a week off and 10% pay cut.

[soon2bmomof3]

Well, if you assume a 20 workday month (5 days a week, 4 weeks in a month), two days is 10%...

[boosmom]

Jan 27, 2011 14:21:25 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Perhaps I'm mistaken....but the POLL says (2 days less per MONTH and 10% pay cut), or is it supposed to be 2 days less per WEEK?

If the first...then 5% pay cut working same hours hands down. If the latter, then I'd probably go with the 2 days a week off and 10% pay cut.

If you work 2 days less per week, that's a 40% monthly paycut, not 10%. 2 days out of 20-ish working days a month is 10%ish monthly paycut.

[michelyn8]

I chose the 2 days/10% reduction. I know I can easily live off 10% less since I was doing it a few months ago. And with working 4 - 10's, the occasional 3 day week sounds really good.

[telephus44]

I chose 2 days less, too. Personally, if I could convince my employer to let me work 4 days a week instead of 5, I'd take a 20% paycut.

[daennera]

Oops. Okay then give me the extra two days a month off. I have other ways to be productive.

I'm still in pain and I can't always read right.

[Deleted]

No debate. I'll take the time off. Actually I can not imagine an employer suggesting they cut my pay by 5%. I would be looking for another job.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I'd take the time off

[mollyc]

I will always take time over cash.

When my current job realized they needed me more than part-time, I tried to get 30 hours a week. They wanted 40 so we comprised at 35 hours/week. I was a little sad but it was still better than the 50-60+ hours/week I was working/commuting with the 2 part-time jobs.

I would say that over 60% of the time, I don't really need to be here for 35 hours so 2 days less a month wouldn't generally be a problem. I would just have to work more efficiently (like this month since I've been making up for all the time off in December).

[mawmawandlovingit]

I would also choose the 2 days off.....I'm going to ask my employer to cut my hours back anyway very soon. My work load does not require a 40 hour work week and most of the time I am BORED to tears!!!

[Cookies Galore]

Jan 27, 2011 15:33:40 GMT -5 mollyc said:

They wanted 40 so we comprised at 35 hours/week.

Thirty-five hours is full-time where I work! ;D

I'd take the two days off, I'm sure I'd pick up something part time, but it would also be nice to have the time off.

[Tiny]

I'd take the 10% pay cut and 2 days off a month. I wouldn't bother looking for additional income - I'd be just fine with the less pay. I can think of tons of (low expense) things I'd like to do and would work on doing them. As long as I still had health care benefits I could be very flexible on pay/work.

[midjd]

Hmm... I'd probably take the 5% paycut, I never leave work on time as it is. We get off at 4:30 and I'm usually there until 5:00 or 5:30. I'd probably end up coming in on my day off ;P

[happyscooter]

Wouldn't less hours mean less pay which would mean less taxes which would mean more money?

[robbase]

do some of my responsbilities / expected output (reports, projects, etc.) get reduced accordingly if I chose 2 days less a week? Or does the boss expect me to do the same amount of stuff somehow?

[The J]

Jan 27, 2011 21:14:59 GMT -5 happyscooter said:

Wouldn't less hours mean less pay which would mean less taxes which would mean more money?

Only if your marginal tax rate was over 100%

[The J]

Jan 28, 2011 9:55:44 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

I don't get the question. Usually reduced hours also involves a paycut. But, I would opt for number one as you could have those 2 days to work somewhere else if you wanted too.

The question is this: take a 5% paycut and work your current hours, or take a 10% paycut and get two extra days off a month. It's really whether or not the two days off a month is worth an extra 5% paycut.

[wheeler33]

I would never choose a pay cut over reduced hours. My time is worth something. I would use my 2 days per month to do something for me or look for another job!

[boosmom]

Wouldn't less hours mean less pay which would mean less taxes which would mean more money?

Well, like scooter said, a 10% gross reduction in income doesn't usually translate into a 10% NET pay reduction, so yes, you'd pay less taxes, but you're still getting paid less, so you'd never end up with more money in total....

I don't get the question. Usually reduced hours also involves a paycut. But, I would opt for number one as you could have those 2 days to work somewhere else if you wanted too.

Yes, a reduction in hours results in less pay, however your hourly (salaried) wage remains the same. You just don't get paid for the 2 days you don't work. However, a straight 5% paycut reduces your hourly (salaried) wage by 5%. So, when you are up for a raise, you are starting from the 5% reduced rate vs. the reduction in hours, your rate would be the same and you'd get the raise based on your current pay.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Is this a trick question? Seems to me that work less, get paid less is preferrable to work the same, get paid less.

[boosmom]

Jan 28, 2011 14:46:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Is this a trick question? Seems to me that work less, get paid less is preferrable to work the same, get paid less.

No, but some people would rather have only 5% reduction vs. a 10% reduction. I guess it depends on your finances. If you're living pyck to pyck, any reduction hurts, but 10% might not even be feasible. So they'd opt to take the 5% and work the same hours.

They could try to find a PT job to make up some of the 10% loss, but maybe with the economy so iffy, they'd rather not take the chance and end up with no PT job and a 10% reduction???

[Deleted]

For me, time trumps money.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

10% should be saved, 10% should be invested, and 10% should be giving-- according to a leading authority (me). So, that way when the inevitable bumps in the road are hit, there's some margin. That being the case, a person in this situation would do well to take the reduced hours, and larger pay cut, but instead of screwing around, or filling the time with errands, and chores-- that extra time should be devoted to finding a better job situation.