A friend works for a small company, maybe a dozen employees. The boss just announced that everyone must accept an 6% pay cut and would no longer receive paid holiday time off nor paid personal days.
A few days later, the boss invited all the employees and their SOs to his house for a Christmas party.
My friend is highly offended and considers this gesture a slap in the face. He insists he will not be attending.
My view is that perhaps the boss feels he wants to do something for his employees, and while it certainly won’t make up for the cuts, at least it will show that he still values them.
Tough one. You could see that as the boss wanting to do something nice for employees whose lives he just made that much more unpleasant, or as the boss not realizing that it looks to his employees like he can still afford to throw a shindig, while his employees are going to be eating spam now.
This, plus I think it matters whether or not the boss is the owner/guy who made the austerity measures decision. It probably also matters how much these folks socialize under normal circumstances – if they don’t usually have events together with the boss, doing it for the first time now could come across as patronizing.
All kinds of other crap might figure in too, like whether it’s obvious to the employees that the cuts have to happen for the company to stay afloat, what kind of person the boss is, what kind of boss the boss is, what kind of party it turns out to be, etc.
I’ve seen worse. When Mr. S was working as a school custodian, bennies and pay were going out the window, and union negotiations (that is, trying to form a union) were stalled. Then, at the big beginning-of-the-school-year meeting, some administrative honcho gave a speech first talking about how valued the support staff were, and telling about his family’s summer vacation to Aruba or some damned place, while most of the custodians were working only for the health insurance, taking home almost no pay (they were ALL living off spouses or other pensions) or even paying in. Shyeah, thanks a lot.
Without extenuating circumstances, as others have said, I’d see this as trying to do something nice. He’s inviting them to his home, not tossing some pizza in the break room. He’s including spouses, which is nice. (Mr. S’s former employer once announced an after-work dinner cruise. “Ooh, Scarlett’ll love that!” he said. What’s that, spouses aren’t invited? Since he didn’t want to spend time apart from me to sit on a boat with just his co-workers, he declined.)
I’d cut the boss a break. It’s probably still way cheaper to throw a one-time party than to maintain pay and benefits, but he’s probably trying to ensure that everyone gets to keep their jobs, and the party is a nice gesture. I wouldn’t be offended.
I think it would have to depend on the boss and his history with the workers, too. I had one boss who owned a small company, and I don’t doubt that he would do everything in his power to keep the company afloat and not take advantage. I’ve had other bosses where I would assume that he’s trying to screw over the workers to keep himself in champagne and caviar.
We had a similar situation in the Eighties when my husband’s boss was sent to prison for scamming government funds through a bogus women’s business scheme.
That summer we were invited to a large BBQ and taken on a ride on the boss’s huge pontoon where we passed his nicely landscaped home on the lake. The conversation also contained metion of a long and much needed decompression vacation in Hawaii and how well his race horses were doing. Ack.
At Christmas the bonuses were cut in half and accompanied by a letter which went on at some length about how difficult it had been for the family and thanking us for all the support.
At the time I thought, “It’s all about you, isn’t it?” I wondered if there was any understanding about how difficult it was to plan Chistmas depending on the bonus, or how uncomfortable it was to disclose where one worked given the predictable raised eyebrows.
I dunno. Depends on whether a person wants to carry a grudge, (which I obviously did for quite long enough to still remember it) or to put it down to an effort to compensate and forget it.
There’s still that whiff of “look what I have,” there if there’s any showing off whatsoever about it.
I dunno, I think that, once he made the cuts, he was in a no-win situation. Imagine if he had not planned the party (which, by the way, is an annual event):
“The bastard can’t even give us a Christmas party!”
“Yeah, that’s the least he coulda done!”
mmm
This is not a slap in the face. If he had done it in the past then doing it now makes perfect sense. The only way things get sour is if they guy lives in a mansion. Still, given the economy, it would be foolish to blame the boss as if he was just cutting salaries out of spite. One of those employees could have been out of a job instead, which would have made for a much worse Christmas.
It also depends (and you probably won’t know this) whether the boss is paying it from his own pocket, or from the company expense account. Yeah, there’s a very definite difference.
Is this company his only means of income, has he also taken a pay cut,
And it’s also not out of the question that his wife is helping to pay for this.
I voted No. I think it sucks that everyone had to take a cut in their pay, but continuing the annual Christmas party doesn’t really seem offensive to me. It’s not like this party is going to cost him what he cut in everyones’ pay.
My employer just offered to host a Christmas party, but then a week later informed everyone it would cost 25 dollars to attend, and an extra 25 if you were bringing a guest.
Since the clarification that this is an annual event I voted No, not insulting. I was leaning that way anyway but this was a no win situation for him.
If you presume the boss is a good guy he’s just trying to not have to lay off or fire anyone or close the entire company.
If you presume he’s a “me first” kind of guy who hasn’t cut his own pay he’s still already cut their pay and if he cut out a party he’s traditionally thrown as well it’s just taking more away from the staff. It’s not like cancelling the party would hurt him financially.
I voted that: No, the party invitation was not insulting, because…
But, upon reflection we don’t have enough information one way or the other. A 6% cut in pay isn’t overly horrendous, but no paid time off should be illegal. In fact in my jurisdiction it IS illegal.
Employers must either provide you with paid vacation time, or pay you 4% of your annual salary as vacation pay.
Look, we can have a Christmas party or not; the pay cuts really have no bearing on the situation. What good does it do for the boss to pretend that he doesn’t have a few hundred dollars of disposable income with which to entertain coworkers?
Depending on what the company’s history of Christmas parties is, that one is a step down. Dinner and a DJ in a downtown hotel would cost more than hosting at his house, even if the food is bought.
Unless the dude happens to be a self-centered ass (which doesn’t seem to be the case from what info has been given), I’d go for “nice”. I’ve been in situations where we combined “tightening the belt” with “that doesn’t mean we never get to… paaaar-teeeeee! Barbeque in the parking lot next Saturday, bring your own CDs”, it was better than doom’n’gloom.
IF it was not the boss’ doing, making pay cuts, etc. - if it was the head of the company dictating this, and not this particular boss, and if he was a cordial boss, not some aloof rich poobah, the head of an “office family” all on a first name basis, I would say no, it wasn’t an insult. I could imagine my co-workers saying, “what are you wearing to Larry’s party on Friday night”, or “I hope it’s as much fun as the picnic Larry threw for us in July”. Of course, I’m the meek type grateful for any crumbs from the rich man’s table, and not adverse to a free meal! But only if it was that kind of boss, and office.
With jobs so hard to get, the employees should feel lucky. I know they don’t, but a few weeks of looking for a new job would change their attitude, especially since their new job would probably pay less.
The one thing about the past two years is they’ve cut the deadwood out of companies.