Refusing to accept a pay cut

[TankRizzo]

My company (large IT company, most in the field will know who it is) have just announced global pay cuts of 5% for normal employees. Obviously in the US they have some leeway to reduce pay almost immediately; however, in the UK, legally you have to give your formal consent to any official pay cut.

My question is, can an employer legally fire you if you refuse to give your consent to a pay cut? There are quite a few in here who are considering refusing it but don't know the implications.

[Parrot of Doom]

If the agreement contained a clause that promised to re-instate any lost pay at a later date, I wouldn't mind so much. Either that, or you do 5% less work.

[DamoLLb]

perhaps they could make you redundant.in a word no they cant fire you.
just walk out and claim constructive dissmissal

[G'kar]

I would not be HP.

[Jasandjules]

Uh, well they will then just introduce redundancies to cut costs... So, not the wisest decision to refuse a 5% cut.

[TankRizzo]

Jasandjules said:

Uh, well they will then just introduce redundancies to cut costs... So, not the wisest decision to refuse a 5% cut.

Quite, but you can at least make an informed decision about what to do if you know the alternative is certain redundancy, hence my question.

[Mannginger]

If you were your management and a large number of employees refused to take a cut, would you instigate a redundancy programme?

Look how hard the unions are working in the world at the moment to get companies to offer reduced hours / reduced working weeks / pay cuts in order to maintain employment. Surely this indicates a sensible approach taken by the management?

[TankRizzo]

Mannginger said:

If you were your management and a large number of employees refused to take a cut, would you instigate a redundancy programme?

Look how hard the unions are working in the world at the moment to get companies to offer reduced hours / reduced working weeks / pay cuts in order to maintain employment. Surely this indicates a sensible approach taken by the management?

I'm not sure. I would prefer to see redundancies where needed rather than the entire workforce screwed over.

[Timsta]

If there is less work and therefore, less income, then redundancy is surely they logical option.

[Fittster]

Mannginger said:

If you were your management and a large number of employees refused to take a cut, would you instigate a redundancy programme?

Look how hard the unions are working in the world at the moment to get companies to offer reduced hours / reduced working weeks / pay cuts in order to maintain employment. Surely this indicates a sensible approach taken by the management?

Unions want there subs, better workforce is poorly paid than reduced in numbers.

[FPC]

You can't legally unilaterally impose such a pay cut. Effectively you are offering a new contract of employment and so would have to dismiss the employee first.

[Fittster]

Timsta said:

If there is less work and therefore, less income, then redundancy is surely they logical option.

If you have TUPED a large number of people into the organisation it's possible they have contracts specifying large redundanices pay outs.

[Plotloss]

Accept the paycut and leave 22.5 minutes early, every day.

(Based on a 37.5 hour week)

Alternatively be happy that someone is paying you a wage in an economic st storm.

[mrmr96]

TankRizzo said:

Mannginger said:

If you were your management and a large number of employees refused to take a cut, would you instigate a redundancy programme?

Look how hard the unions are working in the world at the moment to get companies to offer reduced hours / reduced working weeks / pay cuts in order to maintain employment. Surely this indicates a sensible approach taken by the management?

I'm not sure. I would prefer to see redundancies where needed rather than the entire workforce screwed over.

Have you considered that you may be one of the ones made redundant.

(I don't mean they would target you for refusing the cut, I just mean that if they reversed the whole -5% thing and started cutting whole people out, you might be one of them.)

Unless you're super secure, I'd be careful what you wish for.

[TankRizzo]

Plotloss said:

Accept the paycut and leave 22.5 minutes early, every day.

(Based on a 37.5 hour week)

Alternatively be happy that someone is paying you a wage in an economic st storm.

Your latter point is certainly at the forefront of my thoughts.

I don't really know what to do.

[TankRizzo]

mrmr96 said:

Have you considered that you may be one of the ones made redundant.

(I don't mean they would target you for refusing the cut, I just mean that if they reversed the whole -5% thing and started cutting whole people out, you might be one of them.)

Unless you're super secure, I'd be careful what you wish for.

I don't think anyone could class themselves as super-secure in this environment. Our account has gone through some pretty major redundancies in the last couple of years and we're running pretty close to our minimum operating level...but I guess the reduction has to come from somewhere.

[talkssense]

swerni said:

I read it's has already come into force in the US.
They are going to have fun with this one, it's going to takes ages to get it through in some parts of Europe.

And cost them a shed load of money. I'd be going with the thought that you're lucky to have a wage at all. The more people who fight it, the more it costs the business and the more likely redundancies, closures etc will be.

[Fittster]

mrmr96 said:

TankRizzo said:

Mannginger said:

If you were your management and a large number of employees refused to take a cut, would you instigate a redundancy programme?

Look how hard the unions are working in the world at the moment to get companies to offer reduced hours / reduced working weeks / pay cuts in order to maintain employment. Surely this indicates a sensible approach taken by the management?

I'm not sure. I would prefer to see redundancies where needed rather than the entire workforce screwed over.

Have you considered that you may be one of the ones made redundant.

(I don't mean they would target you for refusing the cut, I just mean that if they reversed the whole -5% thing and started cutting whole people out, you might be one of them.)

Unless you're super secure, I'd be careful what you wish for.

But how much st are you willing to put up with because you are worried about redundancies? A pay cut, more hours, the boss screwing you wife and daughter?

[G'kar]

Fittster said:

mrmr96 said:

TankRizzo said:

Mannginger said:

If you were your management and a large number of employees refused to take a cut, would you instigate a redundancy programme?

Look how hard the unions are working in the world at the moment to get companies to offer reduced hours / reduced working weeks / pay cuts in order to maintain employment. Surely this indicates a sensible approach taken by the management?

I'm not sure. I would prefer to see redundancies where needed rather than the entire workforce screwed over.

Have you considered that you may be one of the ones made redundant.

(I don't mean they would target you for refusing the cut, I just mean that if they reversed the whole -5% thing and started cutting whole people out, you might be one of them.)

Unless you're super secure, I'd be careful what you wish for.

But how much st are you willing to put up with because you are worried about redundancies? A pay cut, more hours, the boss screwing you wife and daughter?

The daughter will be phased in by 2016.

But they will get the swivel chair at weekends.

[valve bounce66]

i worked in the motortrade with largest group in the country as a technician,i had no pay rise for 5 years and the bonus system was altered in there favour and any overtime was payed at flat rate ! was made redundant late last year ! so a pay cut of 5% in this current climate is not so bad !