is this insane or am i

[jinman]

Take the pay cut, take the severance, cash the severance and find another job.

Okay, at least two of us are thinking alike.

 

[oldnslo]

I was in this same position about ten years ago when the company I was working for went through a "buy out".
IF you didn't apply for a position with the new company you lost all severance packages and were considered quit so no unemployment option.
If you applied and were offered a position and turned down the offer you again lost all severance and unemployment.
If you applied and and were not considered for a position tehn you received severance and unemployment.

This was a company spread across four states and affected an unknown number of employees. The vast majority took the new job offer until a better job showed up. Seems to be much easier to find a job when you are employed Vs being unemployed.

Best of luck on a bad situation.

 

[300UGUY]

Think of it this way, she's probably competing with another person and another government in some part of the world who will do the same job for 1/10 of the pay. Add some shipping, forget power and rail costs, subsidized health care, taxes, property taxes, taxes on profits, taxes on Texas, tacks on excess, and taxes on cesses. Don't mention evironmental rules and regulations and of course union contracts and the game should be pretty clear. Take a step back and look thru all the posts on this forum concerned with not wanting to pay dealer costs for product and parts. Instead buying Nigerian, Chinese, Russian, Korean, Indian, Pakistan, Beluchastan, Palookastan, Bananastan and Candystan made tractors and implements, and you should get the feeling on how few members give a thought to the impact of their purchase decisions. When their ox gets AlGored, they whine like a aerated hydraulic pump. But when they go shopping, the price is everything. Screw their neighbor. BTW, guess how many countries came to the aid of hurricane Sandy victims...

Anyone know where I can get an oil pump for a North Korean made 1 wheeled tractor that runs on ant feces? Got me a deal direct shipped from the People's Kaching Prison, Barbed Wire, Land Mine and Tractor factory...

Yup. Everybody is in favor of "free" trade until it bites them....

 

[MossRoad]

Okay, at least two of us are thinking alike.

Yep! :thumbsup:

 

[CobyRupert]

Take the pay cut, take the severance, cash the severance and find another job.

- Winner winner chicken dinner!

 

[LD1]

The "severence" is a voluntary offering from the company. "Good will" on their part.

BINGO. They dont have to offer her anything at all other than a 2 month notice. Just like vacation and retirement. They are benefits that are NOT guaranteed. Yea, loosing a job sucks. But at least they are offering the severance and potential employment.

On a side note, as far as UE is concerned, if the pay-cut is unreasonable, I think she will still be entitled to the benefit. Cause at least in OH, when unemployed, you can state a wage for which you wont work for less. BUT...it has to be reasonable. IE: if you make 25/hr, you cant state that you wont work for less than 30. So in her case, lets say she makes 25, and new company offers 21-22, I think she has to take it or forfeit the UE. BUT, if she makes 25 and they come in and offer 14, I think she is still entitled.

Take the pay cut, take the severance, cash the severance and find another job.

BINGO. Just be sure to read the fine print on the severance and how long you have to work for the new company without forfeiting the severance.

 

[Egon]

Yep! :thumbsup:

That may be good.:thumbsup:

Then again that may be bad!

 

[MossRoad]

Please elaborate...

 

[nybirdman]

Got to love them "Right to work" states.Employers can do what they want.

 

[Car Doc]

Is the severance a guarantee no matter what or just if nobody buys the sinking business out? If it was a guarantee and she still had a job doing the same old thing at less money its not a total loss. Id maybe have her take some time off after she gets the severance and go look for another job whats she got to loose?

edit: I see where Moss and I think alike on this situation! :thumbsup:

 

[jinman]

Got to love them "Right to work" states.Employers can do what they want.

I believe "right to work" is in reference to employees and not the employer. It says that I don't have to join a union just to be hired and work in a job. Of course, the union workers will complain that those employees get all the benefits that they worked to get. The other side of that cookie is the union gets the benefit of all the work the employer did to start the company and invest capital. Employers take all the initial risk and now have to share their reward or face a strike. There's some truth to both sides of the argument, but I'm inclined to come down on the side of the employer. The best jobs I've ever had were in an non-union environment, and I didn't have to contribute to causes I did not believe in. Right to work is also the right to quit. I don't have to show up for work in the morning if I choose, and my employer cannot sue because I resign. I also cannot sue a company because it ceases operation and liquidates assets. If I have a contract, there may be some liabilities. But if no contract exists, it's employment at will.

 

[dmccarty]

Okay, at least two of us are thinking alike.

Me three.

If she takes the severance and has a lower pay job, she still has a job which is more than many can say. She can look for new work, and if she finds it at the same or better compensation, she will be doing well. On the other hand, there maybe no jobs to be had, so having a job at less pay is better than no job at all. It sounds like the alternative is no job at all if the company is not bought out. My county has had quite a few company closures that have rippled through the local economy. One was a chicken plant that was bought up with a crazy business plan that never went anywhere. The local government and a new company are trying to get the new owner to sell the plant to put people back to work but so far the idiot is not selling.

I will be working for less pay in 2013 because of company actions while I do more work for less compensation. I will be working for less because of tax hikes as well but at least I have a job which is more than many people I used to work with can say. Employment at my company is down around 50% from its peak.

Later,
Dan

 

[dave1949]

I believe "right to work" is in reference to employees and not the employer. It says that I don't have to join a union just to be hired and work in a job. Of course, the union workers will complain that those employees get all the benefits that they worked to get. The other side of that cookie is the union gets the benefit of all the work the employer did to start the company and invest capital. Employers take all the initial risk and now have to share their reward or face a strike. There's some truth to both sides of the argument, but I'm inclined to come down on the side of the employer. The best jobs I've ever had were in an non-union environment, and I didn't have to contribute to causes I did not believe in. Right to work is also the right to quit. I don't have to show up for work in the morning if I choose, and my employer cannot sue because I resign. I also cannot sue a company because it ceases operation and liquidates assets. If I have a contract, there may be some liabilities. But if no contract exists, it's employment at will.

Sorry to hear about the job difficulties by the OP's wife. Jobs aren't what they used to be for most people. It is a curse of our times.

One thing you overlooked Jim, regarding right to work, is by federal labor laws, if a union is present in a workplace, they are required to represent all employees eligible for union membership--whether they are members and pay dues or not. Of course how well they will/do represent those non-members is open to debate, and there have been court cases where an eligible, but non-union member employee, has successfully sued a union for non-representation. That is hardly fair to the union.

The right to quit has nothing to do legally with "right to work" laws.

I am inclined to come down on the side of unions, we enjoy many labor laws and conditions due to the union movement in the past. That said, I think unions in general need to return to their roots and show real value for their members. I predict a global union rebirth as globalization progresses. Too many people are working for too little, and it's becoming less it seems.

 

[sam5570]

i really thank everyone for there responce to this matter i probably should have added some things witch would simplfy the deal somewhat witch would be her age and the difference in wages witch would be major but the good thing is right now there is no buyer and they only have 10 days left till closing she has give this company 30 years of service so im hoping she will chose to retire and not be forced to work for someone for 9 bucks an hour i hate typing and thats why most of my post and responce to threads is short sorry but i think my question has been answered and we can close this thread before we start arguing about right to work and unions because thats an argument that no one wins there is so many problems with both sides again thanks everyone

 

[ultrarunner]

One company where I worked was bought out and we all had to re-apply for our jobs.

The application process required listing every job held since age 18 plus pages of other things.

One co-worker refused and the company denied unemployment. He fought it and won arguing the new company was only accepting applications and no offer of a job had been made.