Cutting hours 'better than cutting jobs'

Managers who fear that they might have to make redundancies should consider cutting working hours instead, according to new research.

A study conducted by workforce change management specialists Rialto found that more than half of workers would rather see their contracted hours fall than watch as fellow members of staff are sacked.

According to Richard Chiumento, chief executive officer of the company, this move could also see companies save more money in the long run.

He said: "It is much more cost effective to reduce a salary by five per cent than to make five per cent of the workforce redundant because there are no severance payments.

"It also prevents a possible exodus among survivors, in some instances creating losses much greater than the cuts achieved through the layoffs."

Management skills have come to the forefront in the recession as business leaders have been forced to find creative new ways of handling talent and staffing levels during the downturn, he added.

Recently, the Confederation of British Industry hailed the new level of co-operation between managers and staff which it claimed has developed during the recession.

Comments

Adi –
I have mixed feelings on the “pay cuts and furloughs vs. job cuts” debate. Having gone through both, I can say the overall effects of laying off 5% of your department is more painful and disruptive than everyone taking an equal cut in some way. However, I have to admit, there’s an evil side of me that wonders, would we all be better off if we cut loose the lowest performing 5% of our employees? Why should I take a pay cut to save some slacker’s job?
I’m OK with the “we’re all in it together” approach for the short-term, but not as a long term strategy.
I think it’s too soon to tell which is the better of two bad alternatives.

Take the construction industry. In southern California there have been thousands of layoffs the past two years alone. A number of seemingly unrelated factors are to blame. Perhaps you have noticed two or three of these factors yourself, but most most people have never linked all of these hidden layoff signs together to understand why these layoffs were inevitable.

There are good examples of both strategies I think. GE were famous under Jack Welch for 'culling' the weakest performing people in the company. Toyota on the other hand are famous for maintaining their workforce as much as possible and reassigning staff to other areas of the company if required.

I think that this idea stands until the pay cuts basically mean that each employee feels they are making a huge sacrifice for the company, and are struggling to keep their head above the water. To have a whole company suffering to save 5 jobs doesn't seem right.

Simon, of course I buy your idea but at the same time we really need to some consider other factors surrounding this whole thing.