[del]The dependent stuff sounds like family status discrimination.[/del]
Edit: Never mind, that’s not a federal protection and Texas has apparently chosen not to protect it either.
It’s a jerk thing to do because it’s in no way a consensual agreement: “take this pay reduction or we’ll fire you” isn’t exactly an agreement made without duress.
Exactly. It smacks of utter class-based spitefulness.
With any luck public reaction would get the bosses fired or force them to quit, and new bosses can come in and fix things.
If no one signed it, the company would have a hard time firing their entire staff.
No–as I mentioned, I was thinking more like this. (Although I suppose a pike could be used afterwards.)
And this is why you need unions.
^ Aye.
Well first you cannot pay less than minimum wage no matter what. So even if you agree to accept less, you file a wage claim and get it back.
If you’re paid via salary, this also presents another huge issue.
So I doubt this is going to pass any legal challenge simply from those points, unless they plan on docking in successive paychecks or their employees all make enough to allow the docking and all the employees will remain above minimum wage.
Also wage claims have a two year look back period (three if willful) on a federal level and on a Texas state level. So the company is leaving itself with a potential of three years from now employees filing for back wages at both a state and federal level.
The company could be facing severe liquidity or solvency issues, which could force it to lay off employees. If this allows more employees to keep their jobs, it could be a win-win. It’s not unusual for companies to force pay cuts during recessions; most employees gladly sign these, as it alleviates some of the anxiety about potentially getting laid off. Or…management could be greedy jerks. No way to know unless we have the details.
Taking back the child credit is wacky. What if a spouse’s company does the same?
Wanna bet not a single management level salary, perk or performance bonus is being cut?
What, it’s just a coincidence that the amount of money the company needs in order to stay liquid happens to be identical to the sum the workers are receiving from the government? That’s… statistically unlikely.
Is there something we don’t know, like this company has a lot of laid-off people still receiving full pay as though they are working regular hours? In that case, it would be a situation like jury duty. Businesses that pay you your full salary or wages while you are on jury duty then want to collect your juror’s check, and it makes a certain amount of sense-- it’s like double-dipping to keep both.
People break laws all the time.
Reading the whole news story, it sounds like they are going to back down a bit. Perhaps they’ll modify to be consistent with paying the minimum wage.
On the plus side, they are standing up against a Trump administration policy. Not one I’d stand up against, but it’s a start.
How are they ‘standing up against a Trump administration policy’?
They don’t seem to have any problem with the money going out … as long as it all ends up in their pockets.
CMC fnord!
Allegedly they tried to effect this change by altering the hourly wage to $0. This is a violation of federal minimum wage laws and arguably the 13th amendment (compelling someone to work without pay is slavery).
Various sources seem to point to a company called Conduent being the specific offender in this case, but there are reports that multiple companies are trying to do it as well.
We truly are living in a new robber baron age. Consider this a preview of what’s going to happen when climate change hits.
According to Wikipedia, Conduent is 10% owned by Carl Icahn, has 68,000 employees spread out over at least 40 countries and in 2019 had revenue of US$4.47 billion dollars.
If it is them behind this IMO that makes it even worse that they are trying to take money from their employees: they don’t really need to.
Live better; work union.
Looking a bit deeper at Conduent, its stock price has fallen from $23 to $2 in 18 mos. The market value of the stock is about 1/4 of its debt. Revenues have fallen consistently over many years. Looks like they paid a hefty legal settlement and sold off a chunk of the company. They appear to be a technological services spinoff from Xerox, which means a low growth economy could further accelerate the revenue decline.
I can’t tell how many of their 68k employees are in the US and get paid less than $75k per year, but let’s assume 20,000. That would be a cash flow savings of $24 million. Probably not enough to make a huge difference in a company of that size, but the thought was probably to set the precedent in case there were future government payment programs as well. Again, better than laying off a portion of their work force equal to that amount… or about 400 employees at $60k a year. I completely agree that the amount should not be directly linked to the government payout. But if management is also giving back a reasonable portion of their salaries and bonuses, I wouldn’t have a problem with this decision.
I still don’t understand the attitude. Let’s say you hire me at $4k/month. The economy and your stock value goes to hell.
You could lay me off. People would understand. You could also come to me and give me the choice of staying at $3k/month or getting laid off. I might not like it, but it is better than no job at all. And people would probably understand.
But if you hear that I am getting a $1,200 stimulus check, you could say that for one month, you are reducing my salary to $2,800 and the other months stay at $4k. You think it is a win-win because I get to keep my job without a loss in pay and you get to cut your expenses to stay afloat.
However in the last scenario, people want your head on a pike. I really don’t understand the outrage.
I am not your charge and you don’t owe me anything except a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. You only hire me at my specific pay rate because it makes you money. If you don’t make money, you either cut my pay or let me go. If it is not economically beneficial to me, I can quit. Sure, that’s an illusory choice in this job market, but companies face the same choices.
They are using emergency funds sent out to keep the economy afloat to cut their labor costs. Other countries are making specific promises to businesses to help cover salaries, but this stimulus check is not that. It’s bullshit on every level and if you can’t even understand that, that’s your fucking problem.
That is keeping the economy afloat: the company doesn’t have to lay off people.
I further bow to the superior intellect contained in your rebuttal.