Slashdot Mirror


Volt Asks Temps To 'Vote" For Microsoft Pay Cut

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."

39 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. My kind of democracy by mc1138 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can vote anyway you want, the only catch is that there is only one choice.

    1. Re:My kind of democracy by Cally · · Score: 4, Informative

      HP / EDS pulled the same stunt. Oh, except that the CEO's taking a 20% cut in his basic (but pulled a $40,000,000 bonus last year), and there's no vote involved.

      http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/19/hp_pay_cuts/

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    2. Re:My kind of democracy by commodore64_love · · 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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:My kind of democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The choices should have been:

      1) I do not accept a pay cut. I understand that Friday will be my last day of employment, however, I do not go out much and do not have many friends.

      2) YES, please CUT MY PAY. Management at both Microsoft and Volt should be commended for their tough minded leadership during hard economic times. THANK YOU SIRS PLEASE GIVE ME ANOTHER!!!

    4. Re:My kind of democracy by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Contract workers get paid by the hour.

      So that would be from $50 to $40 for me. Which I'm okay with that, because I'd still be making double what anyone else in my family makes. I'm not greedy. I just want a decent job with air conditioning & a chair to sit on.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:My kind of democracy by QuasiEvil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FedEx did it too, about two months ago. CEO took a 20% cut, various levels of management took 7.5-10%, and everybody else (well, everybody salaried, aka me) took 5%. The bigger hurt was the suspension of the 401k match.

      Still, honestly given the economy, I'd rather see this than layoffs. Not that there aren't people I'd like to see gone, but that needs to come as part of the normal, "You're a moron/sloth, go pursue other career opportunities" methods. Layoffs always seem to get 75% of those people, and another 25% that were invaluable but pissed off the wrong person.

      The more layoffs we get, the further down the bottom of this thing is going to be. So, given that a company's options are lay some people off or just make everybody take a little pain for the collective good, I'll take the collective pain right now. I think it's better for the economy as a whole.

    6. Re:My kind of democracy by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, it's probably slightly more than that.

      If insufficient numbers of people vote for a pay-cut, they _will_ be in the position of having to do layoffs, and in all likelihood, the people who will get laid off in such a case are the people who the company best figures it can replace with a more cost efficient alternative (read as: new graduate willing to accept a lower rate of pay). They can get away with this quite legally as long as they pay adequate severance packages.

      How a person votes would likely not affect whether or not they got laid off, should a mass layoff occur, and it would really bite for the individual who voted that they would take a pay cut to get laid off anyways because not enough people voted that way, but hey.... nobody ever said life was fair.

      But by all rights, Microsoft _should_ be conducting this vote anonymously... so that they have no means of knowing which employees voted no and which voted yes, because if they don't and they only lay off people who voted "no", then they could be setting themselves up for a large number of constructive dismissal lawsuits... (and what's worse for them is that the employees would have an official paper trail to prove it!). Further, by conducting the vote anonymously, Microsoft would be publicly presenting the notion that they are genuinely trying to come up with methods of retaining their employees in hard economic times because they value them all, rather than simply terminating the ones who don't vote the way they want.

    7. Re:My kind of democracy by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In this case it is far worse. This is a 10% cut in the rate to the employment agency, so they have to cut the employees wage even further, on costs, insurance, profit etc, employees themselves are likely to get around double that cut.

      I see that you have some problem with economics. Reduced pay for employees results in reduced spending, which generates lay-offs. A lot of people base their debt payments upon the salary level with out much gap between them. A 20% pay cut will often result in bankruptcy, as the employees can not just whip up a quick letter telling their creditors they will now be paying them 20% less and if they don't like it, they wont pay them anything.

      Now is the pay cut to enable M$ to survive or is it to allow M$ to maintain it's current profit margin or even increase them. M$ has a history of having a total disregard for the costs of it's actions upon other people and companies as long their own profits keep increasing.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:My kind of democracy by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      If insufficient numbers of people vote for a pay-cut, they _will_ be in the position of having to do layoffs,

      Nowhere did I see that this was a binding vote. I'd say it's more of a straw poll for Volt to see if they can get away with this. For instance, where did they come up with 10%?

      Hell, if enough people vote yes, why not increase the cut to 15%? From the other posters comments I'd guess Volt doesn't really care about their employees and will try to squeeze them as much as possible. The "vote" is merely a means to figure out how hard to squeeze.

      --
      AccountKiller
    9. Re:My kind of democracy by glwtta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of people base their debt payments upon the salary level with out much gap between them.

      If that's true, then a lot of people are complete idiots. It really doesn't seem logical that employers should factor in their employees' overspending when making these kinds of decisions.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    10. Re:My kind of democracy by fractoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I always find it interesting when you have an ongoing agreement between a company and an employee, whereby the employee works X hours and gets paid $Y, and then the company decides it can simply ask the employee to work longer for less money. Usually it's couched as a temporary thing but frankly, once the employee has agreed to do more for less, why would the company ever go back to the original agreement?

      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".

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    11. Re:My kind of democracy by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This leads to the paradox that the more everyone tries to pay off their debts, the higher the debt becomes in real terms (eg in relation to inflation / deflation adjusted incomes).

      Nope. The longer someone avoids paying off their debits, the bigger the debt becomes (thanks to the wonder of compound interest). Then, when their interest rate goes up (as it must, since rather than reduce debt, they've increased it and become a higher risk), you get a second whammy.

      If nobody had debt, all earnings could be spent on direct consumption, without some (a lot, in many cases) being bled off by interest payments.

      We've just come to the end of a very unnatural cycle - one where people not just continually rolled over debt, but also threw in additional debt with every roll-over, to the point where they were using new debt as their chief way of making debt payments (that's what average spending of 103% of income really means - people are using their credit cards to make payments on their cars and mortgages).

      Deflation? After a decade of overinflated housing, we NEED a decade of housing deflation, just to get back to historic norms.

      Bail-outs? Why bother - this just rewards the greedy, penalizes the prudent, and shows that nobody in government knows the meaning of "keep your powder dry". All the bailout money is not just a waste - it also carries the hidden cost of missed opportunities to both rationalize the car and banking industries, and to invest elsewhere. Every dollar spent out bailing crooks is a buck taken away from schools and infrastructure and retraining - money that could BUILD the economy.

      For those who eschewed debt, delaying gratification, deflating prices back down to historic norms brings the reward of buying at proper value, not bubble prices. Call the bailouts what they are, a global "tax on stupdiity and greed."

  2. So, that would mean by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that their REAL "Elevate America" plan is to hire 10% more people but pay them 10% less?

    1. Re:So, that would mean by similar_name · · Score: 5, Informative

      GM doesn't pay much more than Toyota. In 2005 GM paid on average $31.35/hr vs Toyota paying $27/hr.

      The big cost difference comes from GM paying people who aren't working (Job banks and retirees[460,000 vs 1,600]) as well as taking more man-hours (34.2 hrs vs 27.9) to build a vehicle than Toyota. Some Toyota plants actually pay more than some GM plants.

    2. Re:So, that would mean by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because management deserves it. We make the big decisions and take the risks that enable the company to succeed.

      Probable AC troll, so I won't waste time on most of it.

      It's a good opportunity however, to point out that the problem with capitalism in recent years has been that the management have *not* been exposed to risks despite having been paid accordingly. They've worked themselves into the ludicrous position where they get paid bonuses regardless of whether they succeed or not.

      They're generally are the *last* people to be exposed to the results of their failure, assuming that they haven't been astute enough to move on before the results of their short-term, shareholder-pleasing actions become evident.

      Even when they're kicked out due to extreme incompetence, they'll still end up with comfortable payoff or at worst what they managed to get out of the company beforehand.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:So, that would mean by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    4. Re:So, that would mean by Repossessed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I'll agree few people could do the job of an executive well, I'd argue that very few executives manage to do a good job. Companies are failing left and right, most of the ones that aren't in distress exist on pure inertia. Nor is there any real effort to find good executives by most businesses. Instead they hire people who failed at a previous executive level job (see the guy who drove AMD into the ground, after trashing another company right before being hired), or who have the right networks to get the attention of the existing executives.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    5. Re:So, that would mean by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the UAW is working against the long-term interests of auto workers. They're great at gaining long-term concessions, but in the long run the Big Three simply can't afford how the UAW is bleeding them dry.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  3. Re:This is happening in plenty of places by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So why is Microsoft singled out? Oh, that's right, because they're number 1 in someone's twisted mind means that they can't protect their interests. They should be forced to dole out money until they go out of business so you same fucktards can caw on about how Microsoft's business model outlived it's usefulness.

    I'm sure much worse is going on elsewhere. It's just that this is such a bizarre way to do it. Do the temps really have a choice?

    Give me a break. This same bullshit is getting really old around here.

    There's the door, you know how to use it.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:This is happening in plenty of places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there an alternative to slashdot? (Honest question)

  5. volt's cut by Qrlx · · 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.

    1. Re:volt's cut by stox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bet Volt isn't taking a cut on their obscene margin.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    2. Re:volt's cut by jalet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > 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

      Considering your explanation above, I doubt any contract starts on day 1, because clearly they don't want to pay, and not starting contracts on day 1 is a way for them to not pay.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    3. Re:volt's cut by d8ta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My question exactly. When I was contracting at Microsoft, after I had dug up the gig, gone through the interviewing process, arranged a bill rate, and gotten steered by MS' HR area to go through Volt, Volt was proposing to take a 35% margin off the top for a deal that I had put together. Fortunately, I was able to find another "approved vendor" with a much more reasonable margin. I've come across Volt's presence in several other contracting situations, and they've tried to cram down similar margins there too. I hope that the folks actually doing the work at MS have enough contract flexibility and persistence to find a more reasonable subcontracting vendor.

  6. How about by esocid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they start sending this email to the upper management in MS and see how many Accept replies they get.

    And since when is something that's compulsory also voluntary?

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:How about by plopez · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can't do that. You need to pay top dollar for the best talent. Without the best talent you wouldn't get such market winners such as the Zune or the highly profitable X-box, soon to drive Apple, Sony and Nintendo out of the market.

      Just think of where we'd be today without Microsoft Bob or Windows ME. Or Vista.

      Top pay=top talent=best leadership=best products ever. :)

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  7. Vote No = Lose Job by racasper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The email stated "this is mandatory in order to continue your assignment at Microsoft ". So voting yes just means you want to keep your job.

  8. Re:This is happening in plenty of places by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree. There's plenty of companies negotiating concessions with unions and regularly staffed employees for pay or incentive cuts. Slashdot villify's Microsoft enough that they don't need to post the common business practices of third parties in the employ of Microsoft. Give us a break kdawson, enough with the sensationalist anti-Microsoft vendetta.

    How many of them made $17 billion in profits over the last year?

    It's one thing to cut salaries when you're hemorrhaging. It's another to cut salaries when everyone else is hemorrhaging, and you have a stable, monopoly-protected revenue base, just because your workers have no alternative.

  9. This is a farce by n00btastic · · Score: 4, Informative

    A large portion of their contractors are really contracted through temp companies. For example, I install computers in the Microsoft offices through one company while testing Xbox 360 hardware/functionality through another. I never received one of these letters, it was answered for me. I would also like to note I have barely had work for the last couple months, and it is terrible. Microsoft is a corporation which uses its contractors as fodder in order that it doesn't get the media that is normally involved with laying off employees.

  10. Re:This is happening in plenty of places by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, you could try life.

    Disclaimer:

    Life might have (severe) emotional impact and can harm your health including but not limited to depression, skin tissue damage, loss of hair, loss of bodily functions and death.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  11. Not just Volt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    All "a-" (contract employes) were told to take a 10% pay cut. Those of us at Aquent weren't even asked to "vote".

    We're trying to get the word out on this site: http://www.msratecuts.org/

    There's no headcount for permanent hires now, and I don't think any Blue Badges are getting raises, but that's different than taking a 10% pay *cut*. However, at least on my team, they're still hiring contractors.

    On the Aces (Flight Sim) team, they fired the whole team and then asked about 3/4 to come back as contractors, forgoing their severance.

    IMHO: This is an excellent catalyst for unionizing.

  12. From listening to NPR by way2trivial · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've heard that benefits for employees are also vastly in big 3 workers favor.
    I found one 'for example'
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n13.shtml

    [i] Like Friedman, he writes indignantly of decades (now ended) during which Big Three workers received "gold-plated medical benefits that virtually no one else had," under which United Auto Workers members had "no deductibles, copays or other facts of life in these United States."[/i] opinions of the validity of the argument aside, such benefits add a lot to the bottom line....

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  13. Re:Not with insane copyright laws... by setagllib · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will the US nationalists make up their collective mind? If capitalism and competition are good, then Microsoft can only be bad for stifling competition.

    Successful companies are a good thing, they can help improve the industry's efficiency through reduced prices and increased quality. But monopolistic companies like Microsoft rarely do either.

    If it wasn't for the monopoly, Microsoft would have been dead between XP and Vista. Six years between incremental product releases? Instant death in any *normal* industry. Fast-paced competitors like Apple and Linux would have eaten it for breakfast. And the economy would benefit. So does the US still need more Microsofts?

    --
    Sam ty sig.
  14. Re:This is happening in plenty of places by QuasiEvil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's one thing to cut salaries when you're hemorrhaging. It's another to cut salaries when everyone else is hemorrhaging, and you have a stable, monopoly-protected revenue base, just because your workers have no alternative.

    Hate to say it, but that's exactly why. The cost of labor is dropping, because there's a massive pool of it willing to work for less right now. Market forces and all - more supply, less demand, price drops.

    Sure, it was awesome for us all during the .com boom because it was the other way around (demand outstripping supply, causing outrageous salaries, etc.), but the point is stop your bitching when it goes the other way. That's just the way an open market works.

  15. Ultimately this is the answer. by Maxo-Texas · · 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%)

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:Ultimately this is the answer. by Savantissimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree, but the cap gains tax should only be on real profits over $500 per year taken as income and not reinvested. Now you pay on purely nominal gains caused by inflation, fill out onerous paperwork over tiny amounts of savings account interest, usually can't deduct all investment losses from profits, and usually take a tax penalty for rebalancing your portfolio. Investment companies don't have most of these burdens, but individuals do. Getting around the ridiculous rules is a big part of why the market is dominated by mutual funds, hedge funds, IRA money-jailers and other parasites.

      Inflation-adjusting nominal capital gains using the government's numbers isn't good enough. The have been fiddled with so much over the years that they are 3 to 6 percentage points lower than they would be when calculated using the methods of 15 to 30 years ago. This fiddling has also inflated GDP growth and screwed Social Security recipients by a similar percentage compounded over many years.

      Also, capital gains shouldn't be taxed if the underlying capital is intellectual property. Ireland got that right; it really paid off for them. (I know this is Slashdot, but individual authors and inventors would be more viable if their product weren't taxed out of existence.)

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  16. Re:Vote by ratboy666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I find it pretty absurd that a company should be "stuck" with the contract rates it offers."

    Slow down, cowboy! If you engage me, and then decide to stiff me on a contract, I WILL SUE YOU. And I will win. It doesn't matter how long it takes, or even how much it costs me -- it's just business.

    As soon as you announce "You won't be paid", I put down my tools, and walk. Again, it doesn't matter how much I may need the work.

    Why? What other leverage do I have? And, trust me, companies understand. If I didn't stick to my guns, I am afraid that others would start to take advantage of me. This is my protection, ok?

    About the only way I would take less is if mandated by a bankruptcy court.

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  17. What will this really accomplish? by christophercrooker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am a contractor at Microsoft right now subject to this pay rate decrease. Although I have my opinions about why it is happening, and what should be happening instead, I think more interesting is what the immediate effect of this will be. In my case, I cancelled several services I pay for in order to absorb the hit to my income and will be increasing my W-4 deductions to maximize my current income (up to my allowed amount) in favor of decreasing my tax return next year (here's to hope).

    But, I cancelled Netflix who licenses Microsoft's streaming video technology. I cancelled Gamefly who previously rented me Xbox 360 games. I will be providing less revenue through withholding to the federal government. There will be less discretionary spending and less revenue provided to my local and state government, all of whom need it just as bad as we do right now. All of those organizations rely on Microsoft products for their dwindling operations. In a very real way (since I live in northwest Washington) there will be less money for police to protect Microsoft's physical assets.

    Don't these circular relationships represent the defintion of a "downward spiral"? Are we sure we understand the impact of these actions?

    In the meantime I will buckle under and keep working my ass off. My kid's doctor doesn't accept righteousness as a form of payment.

    1. Re:What will this really accomplish? by JoeFromPhilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't these circular relationships represent the defintion of a "downward spiral"?

      Absolutely. This is why economists get spooked when they hear the word deflation. Even now they can't bear to say it, and resort to euphemisms.

      Are we sure we understand the impact of these actions?

      We understand the economy in almost exactly the same sense as we understand the weather.

      In the meantime I will buckle under and keep working my ass off.

      That's probably the only thing anyone can do. Good luck, this year is going to be a brutal adjustment for a lot of people.