This is a hard question. Imagine you are married with a family and by taking the pay cut they will suffer, a persons responsibility is in my opinion first and foremost to their family. This is a scenario which has been played out before, workers have taken pay cuts to save their jobs only for the company to close down anyway, there are lots of variables in this question. What side of the fence would I come down on? I can only say my backside would be sore sitting on it ;)
If a company can reduce staff numbers, due to lack of work or over staffing and the staff accept a reduced wage to try and secure jobs for their colleagues, the CEO may decide that he doesn't need the staff and can then pay the reduced wage!!
It was interesting to note that one respondent to the Vine show spoke about redundancies facing her company workers. The sales of their products had declined substantially and the directors had decided redundancies were the only option.
After consulting with all the workers they took a proposition up to the management. This was that everyone would take a 10% reduction in salary, including the directors, and a reduced working week to be invoked.
This was eventually agreed and ran for some months before sales picked up, whereby the normal working hours were reinstated along with the full salaries. The staff enjoyed a small bonus too as a reward for their loyalty and, best of all, no person was ever made redundant from that time to the present. TC.
I would not take a real cut. If they cut the hours by the same percentage as the wage cuts then maybe. I work in a very competitive business so I know that I have to perform to keep my job and earn my wage and the group around me and they do the same.
I can’t speak for people that do normal 9 – 5 jobs, I think that is different ball game.
This may work in some of the better companies but there are quite a few out there where payment of the minimum wage is the norm. These companies would not be able to accept any offer of a wage cut as it would then put them in conflict with the law.
If there's less work to do - then a pay cut in return for less hours (ie work sharing), might be an option worth considering.
If there's the same amount of work to do, but it can be done with less staff - then it should be done with less staff - that's how companies make themselves more efficient, which is a worthwhile goal (otherwise they will lose business, and lose even more jobs!).