is it a must to reduce the total number of staff members on payroll to reduce cost?

[Ralphjoe]

To reduce cost on payroll you have to reduce the amount of staff you have
But mind you if you reduce an employees definitely your productivity will reduce, so you have to think wisely.

This is the advantage that goes with reducing the amount of employees on your business payroll meaning that your expenditure will reduce but it can also affect the productivity of the organisation so I would only consider this when it is extremely unavoidable to do.

 

[Sotherefore]

this should only be considered if the business you are going into is not making progress because reducing the number of people working in your organisation shows that your business is not profitable at all, you don't have to reduce them but you need to do something about your business.

 

[eLdavis]

You could either reduce the number of staff you have on payroll as you have said, or you could reduce their salary. I have lots of company using this method. This way they dont have to let go of hard workers.

 

[Shigobad20201]

Business at times deploy some dirty strategies to reduce the cost of production and operations. Decreasing the total amount of on payroll expense can increase the money available to invest in other areas of the business. Most business owner lower their payroll expense which affect the quality of their product and/or service. Decreasing payroll expenses can place extra burden on your remaining employees and cause quality to suffer.

.......what are your vie

To some manager or boss, reducing the total number of staffs or workers to reduce cost of production so that they can increase the money available for investment but a smart boss can just invite the staff and tell them the situation in ground , and they can agree in increasing the workload.

 

[Bookwormlux1]

If reducing the number of workers is the best way to manage cost , then it is already obvious that you don't have any alternative. But you can take measures like reduce salaries instead.

 

[Genie01]

You have to weigh the benefits and risks of such action. It shouldn't be at the cost of the productivity as much as possible.

 

[Bookwormlux1]

You have to weigh the benefits and risks of such action. It shouldn't be at the cost of the productivity as much as possible.

Sure, there is actually no sense in laying off your workers who are instrumental in the productivity of the organization. Such layoffs usually affect lazy workers only.

 

[Razor1911]

Obviously the staff salary accounts in the expenditure of the company. And hence when you will have less staff means less effect on your exchequer. But, you must also understand that lowering staff will increase the work load on other members.

 

[Bookwormlux1]

Obviously the staff salary accounts in the expenditure of the company. And hence when you will have less staff means less effect on your exchequer. But, you must also understand that lowering staff will increase the work load on other members.

And this could make a lot of them to seek better alternatives elsewhere since they know that you can easily lay them off anyday just like you did to their colleagues.

 

[eLdavis]

To reduce cost on payroll you have to reduce the amount of staff you have
But mind you if you reduce an employees definitely your productivity will reduce, so you have to think wisely.

True, reducing staff leads to delay in production and even reduce in quality of the product. I believe that is why most companies and organizations, instead of cutting off workers they would rather reduce the pay instead to be able to pay more.

 

[Bookwormlux1]

True, reducing staff leads to delay in production and even reduce in quality of the product. I believe that is why most companies and organizations, instead of cutting off workers they would rather reduce the pay instead to be able to pay more.

I think it is even better than sending people to go and start from scratch in the streets. That would be very much devastating than reducing the employees Payment.

 

[eLdavis]

I think it is even better than sending people to go and start from scratch in the streets. That would be very much devastating than reducing the employees Payment.

True, its quite painful some years back i heard a news about how a bank had to cut off over 100 workers because there was no money to take care of them, it was really painful imagine does with families, how would where would they start from, some even commit suicide because of these

 

[Razor1911]

True, its quite painful some years back i heard a news about how a bank had to cut off over 100 workers because there was no money to take care of them, it was really painful imagine does with families, how would where would they start from, some even commit suicide because of these

This thing happens and even happened during last year. When pandemic striked hard, businesses where well shaken from their track. Many faced huge losses, many even acknowledged that they are not in capable of paying their staffs. And have to cut the employees number by firing them.

 

[Haveit]

Nothing is entirely a must as there must be other methods you can use to achieve what you want, to cut expenses on the company's fund you can try reducing output or increasing market price of the product.

 

[babdud02]

Yea it’s necessary to reduce the total number of staff on payroll to reduce cost to provide enough money to run the business and i think it’s just for the main time when the business is going down and you can always get as many staff when the business is doing ok

 

[eLdavis]

This thing happens and even happened during last year. When pandemic striked hard, businesses where well shaken from their track. Many faced huge losses, many even acknowledged that they are not in capable of paying their staffs. And have to cut the employees number by firing them.

Though Reduced pay might be a better option to be able to retain the workers, but in most cases there is no other option that to let them go because even the reduce in pay cannot help them in any way. I have even seen a case whereby the company not only had to let go of some workers, they even had to sell it off to another competition

 

[Razor1911]

Though Reduced pay might be a better option to be able to retain the workers, but in most cases there is no other option that to let them go because even the reduce in pay cannot help them in any way. I have even seen a case whereby the company not only had to let go of some workers, they even had to sell it off to another competition

I agree, sometimes a situation is just out of our hand. Lowering the payroll may not work every time. situation become sometimes very complicated and there is no other option just to let them go.

 

[Bookwormlux1]

True, its quite painful some years back i heard a news about how a bank had to cut off over 100 workers because there was no money to take care of them, it was really painful imagine does with families, how would where would they start from, some even commit suicide because of these

Laying off workers is very common in the banking sector and this makes the job uninteresting for so many people who don't want to suffer the same fate.

 

[eLdavis]

Laying off workers is very common in the banking sector and this makes the job uninteresting for so many people who don't want to suffer the same fate.

Exactly, not to mention the fact that the job is actually very stressful. Imagine after having sleepless nights and lots of hours working in the office trying to meet up outstanding works, only to be told you nolonger have the job again.

 

[Sotherefore]

if you are not making as much profit as you use to before, it's advisable you cut down on the number of workers you have to ensure that every other person gets paid in time and work efficiently.

It is not advisable to cut down the numbers of workers to accommodate what you can afford to pay, if you are reducing the number of people working in your organisation then your business is failing, this is just a simple fact.