Volt Asks Temps To 'Vote" For Microsoft Pay Cut 412
theodp writes "In an email sent Friday evening to its Microsoft temp workers, Volt Workforce Solutions asked the techies to 'vote' to agree to a 10% pay cut. From the email: 'We want to support you in continuing your assignment at Microsoft and respectfully ask that you respond by going to the upper left hand corner of this email under the "Vote" response option and select, "Accept'" by close of business Tuesday, March 3, 2009. By accepting you agree to the [-10%] pay adjustment in your pay rate.' Microsoft managed to keep the Feb. 20 email detailing plans to slash rates from leaking while it pitched its Elevate America initiative at the 2009 Winter Meeting of the National Governors Association, touting Microsoft skills as just the ticket to economic recovery."
Re:This is happening in plenty of places (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there an alternative to slashdot? (Honest question)
volt's cut (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked for Volt at MS for a year. They offer a 401k plan and match a small percentage which is vested after a year. My year ended (MS only lets you stay a year due to the perma-temp settlement, then you have to take a 100-day break), but the Volt match never materialized in my 401k. Volt explained that to get the match I had to work 12 complete months. Sounds like a year, right? No. Since I started in the middle of the month, my first month wasn't a "complete" month, and it didn't count towards matching.
I told them their policy was BS, since 1 in 30 employees must start on the first day of the month, assuming people's contracts are as likley to start on day 1 as any other day. They didn't respond.
But the really nice part is today, when everybody on Slashdot gets to read about it.
Re:This is happening in plenty of places (Score:1, Interesting)
If another big company has the audacity to inform their employees of a paycut by sending them an email with an "option" and recommendation to "vote yes" on it, that would be equally deserving of a public flogging. There's negotiating a paycut and there's being a dick while negotiating a paycut.
Re:This is happening in plenty of places (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, the question is, how much is Volt cutting it's charges to Microsoft? Typically from what I've seen, the agency is making somewhat more than the contractors.
And what if you never reply to the email, maybe it got caught in the Hotmail spam filter???
Re:My kind of democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>You can vote anyway you want, the only catch is that there is only one choice.
That's true. My company has not done this yet, but I've heard from a neighboring company that the temporary Contract workers were told they must take a $10 cut, otherwise next week would be their last. A few stubborn persons refused, and were asked to leave, but most are still working with a reduced pay.
This "Microsoft vote" is mere formality; if you don't take the cut you may as well pack-up your desk and take a long, unpaid vacation.
Re:So, that would mean (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:volt's cut (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So, that would mean (Score:1, Interesting)
Truth be told, it would be better for the US Automakers if they went bankrupt. That would dissolve all union contracts, forcing them to restructure. While there are certainly other factors like demand and quality, the benefits alone received by members of the UAW make it almost impossible for American car companies to compete with non-union car manufacturers in the US. Its great when a company can afford to treat their people well, but when they can't, something's gotta give. Unfortunately, the UAW doesn't see it that way. Their form of compromise is to give nothing but take everything. Same story with the unions here in California. All take, but no give. And they wonder why the state is having a hard time paying them.
*For the record, I am opposed to huge bonuses being paid to execs whose companies received money on the backs of the tax payers. I'm not opposed to it as determined by the free market system, just when it comes on the backs of tax payers.
Pay Rate or Bill Rate? (Score:1, Interesting)
Volt could take a 10% cut in their BILLING rate, and not touch the PAY RATE of its contractors...
I worked for Volt for most of 6 years while at Microsoft, through tough times and around the time of the whole Contractor as Employee law suit...
The BILL RATE that Volt uses gives them about 100% on top of what the Contractor is getting paid...so what is the problem here, Volt?
Take a 10% loss on the BILL RATE and keep the Contractors happy...
Re:This is happening in plenty of places (Score:4, Interesting)
So what's wrong with singling out #1? Oh, that's right, because there are other companies out there doing the same thing, which means no one should call foul. People should be forced not to take advantage of the spotlight to rally for their cause. #1 would never do that... I'm sure. So, why can't these fucktards protect their own interests? Contract firms and temp agencies are in a powerful position. People should keep a close eye on the relationship they keep with the Corporations. They provide a service, but reap profits largely disproportionate to the gains they receive.
I was working as a Temp once for Adecco and was put into a position that required I see how much I was being billed out for. It was about 40% of my pay. I had been in this position for a few years without a raise. At this point the Temp agency was making 40% of my hourly pay for doing nothing but send me the check. I did not get enough hours to qualify for benefits. I had well compensated them fairly for finding this position. Now it's just a milking scheme.
So, sorry to say, but you're right. Everyone should protect their interests. Even these "fucktards"
It's easy to stand on a soap box anonymously.
Re:So, that would mean (Score:5, Interesting)
Pay is irrelevant.
GM doesn't know how to build, sell, or market anything other than a truck or SUV.
The only division of GM with the potential to compete against Toyota, is Saturn. And they're going to shut that division down in 2012 because they've never managed to make money.
The decision makers have been spouting off bullshit about how they deserve to make that kind of money because of their vision and leadership. All they have proved is that they're nothing more the 2nd rate salesmen who's only talent is convincing other 2nd rate sales men of their own value.
The management have fucked themselves, the Corporate Officers, Board of Directors, and all former Officers and Board members withing the statue of limitations all deserve to be sued into bankruptcy by the shareholders and pensioners.
And after they have been bankrupted by civil litigation, and have no money left to pay even a second rate attorney, the FTC needs to go after them for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, and anything else they can come up with and throw them in Federal prison. Then its the state's turn to go after them and make sure they finish out the rest of their miserable lives in the state pen with the gang-bangers and giving blowjobs for drugs. Because that the only thing they think will make their miserable lives a little more bearable.
Re:Vote (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it pretty absurd that a company should be "stuck" with the contract rates it offers.
A contract is a contract ... I'm not sure why not being able to back out afterwards if you change your mind is "absurd" - the whole point of a contract is that you stick with it.
(Now yes, in this case I suspect that temporary workers have zero rights, so they could easily fire them if they don't accept, but in general, I don't see how it's absurd that people are stuck with contracts that they enter.)
And considering how big salaries in USA are, it's a small miracle that they still manage to make a profit.
I don't think that follows - it's rather simplistic to assume that a company must be unprofitable. Given that many businesses with their "big salaries" have been staying in business for years, I find it unlikely that this is all chance. And whatever the cause of this recession is, it's not that salaries suddenly increased.
Ultimately this is the answer. (Score:5, Interesting)
American workers take a 25% haircut and become competitive again.
During the great depression there were several major waves of pay cuts.
This service economy fantasy is not sustainable.
What's missing is the 75% pay cut for the executive class back to 1987 levels when they "only" made 50 times the average worker (instead of over 400 times today) AND raising taxes on dividends and capital gains from 15% back to normal income levels ( these extremely low tax rates on div and capital gains are why warren buffet averages 17% income tax rate while his secretary averages about 30%)
Re:volt's cut (Score:2, Interesting)
Just to second this, I did a contract gig through Volt. At the end of my contract they changed the position to a vendor (no 100-day break) and went through another company. Same job, but I got raise and better benefits, without me even asking for them.
HPs orig. cross-the-board pay cut policy was good (Score:1, Interesting)
I think this pay-cut-instead-of-layoff was pioneered by HP back in the good old days when Bill and Dave were still actively running the company. This was a good for the company, good for the employee thing. You would be paid 10% less and get every other Friday off. The employees got to keep their jobs or look for a new job while still employed (always better than looking while you're out of work). The company got to save money, keep experienced people and, after the downturn was over, they could effectively staff up instantly without the slow and expensive process of interviewing and hiring. I was at HP when this was done back in the 1980s when John Young was CEO,but the Bill and Dave formula was modified. Some of us cut pay and hours, some got a lower pay cut but continued to work full hours, while others kept full pay but had to work extra hours. This just created a caste system and made people angry when mgmt talked of policing the system to make sure people were working their designated hours. Mgmt also gave no criteria for when we could go back to full pay; it was all just whenever mgmt felt like it. Shows how a good plan can be ruined by lesser management.
Re:Ultimately this is the answer. (Score:1, Interesting)
Aside from the lack of government expense incurred by investment activity, this would guarantee a reduction in investment in the US. Why would any foreign investor in their right mind pay almost 40% in taxes for investments?
Warren Buffet gets exactly the same federal government services as does his secretary or any other legal worker.
Re:My kind of democracy (Score:1, Interesting)
Reduced pay for employees results in reduced spending, which generates lay-offs.
And zero pay for laid off employees results in? If the choice is unemployment vs. a pay cut, as long as the pay and benefits that are left afterwards beats unemployment and (hoping to get) medicaid, guess which one I'm taking?
Re:My kind of democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Something similar happened at my (now ex-)work, they ran out of funding and told people to go home until they could pay us. Then a couple of weeks ago they sent out an email saying "hi folks, we really need to get working again to keep the company viable, no we don't have any money but you'll start work again Monday right?". To which the answer was "um, no" for me, but a surprising number of people said "oh, uh, ok then".
Eh? (Score:1, Interesting)
...stop your bitching when it goes the other way. That's just the way an open market works.
I thought that an open market was supposed to serve society, not that society was to serve the open market?
Seriously, the boom-bust cycle is pretty well documented in open markets, and these things are pretty painful. I would argue that it is better to sacrifice a bit of efficiency during the booms in order to make the busts less painful. In this case, we have a perfect example of why the government should be regulating labor and should not cut taxes too much during the good times. It is true that such policy would have cost some efficiency during the good times. However, here in the bust life would be better for workers and the government would have more room to maneuver in its fiscal policy toward stimulating the economy.
Re:My kind of democracy (Score:2, Interesting)