I Wonder How Long...

Nurses General Nursing

Published

Before a health care company tries this nonsense:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/la-fi-britishair17-2009jun17,0,7524008.story

Seems to be "all the rage" these days. I'm just getting the feeling that sooner or later there will be a wide-spread, non industry-specific nationwide strike crossing many professions / trades.

And the Dow will lose 2000 points in just a few days.

Be_Moore

264 Posts

Specializes in Pulmonary, MICU.

I would work without pay, honestly. I mean, here is what they are saying. "If you can go for 4 weeks without pay, we might be okay. But if we can't get rid of some of our labor overhead, we could easily go under." And hell, 4 weeks without pay is like a month-long vacation. Remember before we had "Real jobs" when we were waiting tables and being cashiers, before we had PTO? Hell, a month off without getting fired would've been awesome! Especially if people happen to be following the rules of personal finance. In this case, the one that says you should have 6months of living expenses saved up in a separate bank account. If you had that, you could easily take a month off.

In an industry like the airlines, where no one is hiring, it would be better to do a month without pay and maybe keep a job versus either A) quitting or B) the company going under, and then 40,000 people are unemployed.

Katnip, RN

2,904 Posts

Be-Moore, they aren't saying take a month off. They are saying work for a month without pay. No PTO. Just work to keep the company running and don't get paid for it. That doesn't sound like a month-long vacation to me.

No, I wouldn't do it. I couldn't afford to, and most people are probably in the same boat. Sure, people at the top who make millions could probably manage it, but the people who are there-pilots, attendants, the people at check-in, baggage handlers, probably don't have enough money stashed away to live on for a month and pay their bills.

Be_Moore

264 Posts

Specializes in Pulmonary, MICU.

Ah, I didn't read that article. I read another article that also discussed the option of just giving people 4 weeks of unpayed leave. This article actually makes it look better. I mean, losing a weeks worth of income each month for 4 months, or 1/2 weeks income per month over 8 months wouldn't be as bad as just one month without pay. Realistically when offered this way, it just comes across as a temporary pay cut.

I'd like to note that there has already been 1 large US hospital that made the news for offering permanent paycuts to all of it's staff, and the CEO was praised for that decision by the employees...because by giving paycuts across the board, they didn't have to layoff any of the vulnerable staff, such as housekeepers and techs.

https://allnurses.com/nursing-news/avoid-hospital-layoffs-377264.html

pers

517 Posts

I wouldn't do it and I know the majority of my coworkers wouldn't do it either. I'm not getting a raise this year and I can live with that but no way will I work for free. There is a definite trend where I work that what you voluntarily put up with will become the new norm. Manage to get everything done by busting butt with one less person and suddenly you don't get the extra person at all! If I agreed to a temporary pay cut it I have no doubt it would become permanent.

morte, LPN, LVN

7,015 Posts

Ah, I didn't read that article. I read another article that also discussed the option of just giving people 4 weeks of unpayed leave. This article actually makes it look better. I mean, losing a weeks worth of income each month for 4 months, or 1/2 weeks income per month over 8 months wouldn't be as bad as just one month without pay. Realistically when offered this way, it just comes across as a temporary pay cut.

I'd like to note that there has already been 1 large US hospital that made the news for offering permanent paycuts to all of it's staff, and the CEO was praised for that decision by the employees...because by giving paycuts across the board, they didn't have to layoff any of the vulnerable staff, such as housekeepers and techs.

https://allnurses.com/nursing-news/avoid-hospital-layoffs-377264.html

and if you read the whole thread, you know there were a lot of us that thought the staff was getting the shaft

Be_Moore

264 Posts

Specializes in Pulmonary, MICU.

Hey, it's all perspective. I'm not saying that any of these situations are optimal, but realisitically, I'd gladly give up some of my salary if it could keep people who need it more than me with jobs. I can get another job with easy because I'm a skilled laborer with a college degree. But what about the developmentally delayed housekeeper that works on my unit? Or the transporters trying to pay their way through college? Or the techs that are getting close to retirement age?

Not to mention, if those people get laid off, other people have to pick up their slack. IE, us. So realistically, you pay for it either way. But I'd rather keep those people employed, even if I had to pay for it.

So how this applies to the airline company...they are facing a huge situation. And if working for decreased pay could prevent or at least cut back the layoffs, or even prevent the company from going under where 40,000 people would lose their jobs, I'd do it in a heart beat.

For all you Christians out there, Matthew 22:39.

Katnip, RN

2,904 Posts

Hey, it's all perspective. I'm not saying that any of these situations are optimal, but realisitically, I'd gladly give up some of my salary if it could keep people who need it more than me with jobs. I can get another job with easy because I'm a skilled laborer with a college degree. But what about the developmentally delayed housekeeper that works on my unit? Or the transporters trying to pay their way through college? Or the techs that are getting close to retirement age?

Not to mention, if those people get laid off, other people have to pick up their slack. IE, us. So realistically, you pay for it either way. But I'd rather keep those people employed, even if I had to pay for it.

So how this applies to the airline company...they are facing a huge situation. And if working for decreased pay could prevent or at least cut back the layoffs, or even prevent the company from going under where 40,000 people would lose their jobs, I'd do it in a heart beat.

For all you Christians out there, Matthew 22:39.

You may or may not be able to find a job that easily in this market. Even for nurses the market has tightened up.

Not every nurse can afford to work an entire month off without being paid. Some are single parents, or even part of two income families who can barely make ends meet.

I would gladly give up some of my hours to help others, but my situation is vastly different. I have a husband who still makes a heck of a lot more than I do. But I also have bills to pay and kids to help support and get through college.

morte, LPN, LVN

7,015 Posts

Hey, it's all perspective. I'm not saying that any of these situations are optimal, but realisitically, I'd gladly give up some of my salary if it could keep people who need it more than me with jobs. I can get another job with easy because I'm a skilled laborer with a college degree. But what about the developmentally delayed housekeeper that works on my unit? Or the transporters trying to pay their way through college? Or the techs that are getting close to retirement age?

Not to mention, if those people get laid off, other people have to pick up their slack. IE, us. So realistically, you pay for it either way. But I'd rather keep those people employed, even if I had to pay for it.

So how this applies to the airline company...they are facing a huge situation. And if working for decreased pay could prevent or at least cut back the layoffs, or even prevent the company from going under where 40,000 people would lose their jobs, I'd do it in a heart beat.

For all you Christians out there, Matthew 22:39.

are the CEO's doing the same? and you giving up your income to keep others employed is the height of socialism, you do understand that, yes?....if it were an honest thing were it started at the top and worked down.....would nt have so much a problem.....but without transparency in the finances, i wouldnt believe it.

2BSure

267 Posts

are the CEO's doing the same? and you giving up your income to keep others employed is the height of socialism, you do understand that, yes?....if it were an honest thing were it started at the top and worked down.....would nt have so much a problem.....but without transparency in the finances, i wouldnt believe it.

Now that is funny. If any CEO I knew worked a month with no pay it would hardly impact them.

Ayvah, RN

722 Posts

Specializes in Med Surg, Specialty.

Hospitals already ask employees to work without pay

-when employees can't get a lunch break and are penalized for putting in no lunch

-when employees are asked to come in early to prepare but aren't compensated until 7

-when employees are told to clock out and then finish charting.

They try not to be blatant when doing this, but they do ask employees to work without pay. There are numerous threads here about this issue.

Be_Moore

264 Posts

Specializes in Pulmonary, MICU.

Well, considering that a lot of CEOs receive a bulk of their pay in stock options and profit sharing, many of them have taken massive pay cuts already and many CEOS of large corporations (Ford, GM, Citigroup) have already signed their contracts to work for $1 per year. And yes, I see your point and I don't necessarily believe in making low end workers suffer while the upper end still get fat. But I would do that at my facility, where our CEO declined her raise last year. Something tells me that the CEO of British Airways has also taken a large income decrease as well.

+ Add a Comment

By using the site, you agree with our Policies. X