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

[Richard92]

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.

Most times when the company is running into loss the first thing they do is to reduce Lacoste of staff in the payroll by slashing the workers salary however it is a good idea but one has to look at different areas of the business before doing that because it might affect the productivity of the company.

 

[Bookwormlux1]

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.

Those who usually lay off their employees do not have a good heart at all and this makes it easy for them to take such critical decision without thinking about the effect.

 

[eLdavis]

Those who usually lay off their employees do not have a good heart at all and this makes it easy for them to take such critical decision without thinking about the effect.

Some lay of their workers not just because they want too but because they have no other choice. Some take this decision as a very last resort. Not everyone is heartless. I know of a company that before it crashed it tried to make sure they kept all their workers, they tried everything within their power but in the end, they had no choice but to let some go

 

[Richard92]

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.

It is not a must to reduce the total number of stars on your payroll to reduce cost in the organisation but if needs be for you to reduce staff then one can carry out such action but most times it reduce the productivity of the organisation.

 

[Kelly5]

Yes it is a must to reduce the total number of staffs on your payroll to reduce cost and If you don't want to eventually go bankrupt at the end of the day in your own business

 

[Prettyjanie]

Thats while we preach independency, owning your business to avoid suituations like this, as long as you dont decide when income enters your account, the business can take a new turn. The managers decision is for the future best.

Well the truth is, so.e businesses will require that you have some staff. If the company or business is experiencing some low input, then one of the option will be to reduce the pay if the staff however, if it won't solve the problem, you may have to let some people go.

 

[Ub40]

Actually, there are a business might find it hard to pay all the staffs and still make profit. So there may be the need to reduce workers to save more money for other things. We should also remember reduction in staffs will also affect the amount of productivity. So one be sure before taking this decision. It is my take.

 

[Setfragil]

Yes it is a must to reduce the total number of staffs on your payroll to reduce cost and If you don't want to eventually go bankrupt at the end of the day in your own business

I do not understand why you will employ a lot of staff than what the profits of the company can afford. The best thing is to reduce them to the numbers that is commensurate with the company's income.

 

[Razor1911]

Actually, there are a business might find it hard to pay all the staffs and still make profit. So there may be the need to reduce workers to save more money for other things. We should also remember reduction in staffs will also affect the amount of productivity. So one be sure before taking this decision. It is my take.

Specially in pandemic times where the profit has been shrinking, It is wise to understand if any business takes such strict decisions. The business account to cut the expenses by expelling some of the stuff.

 

[Bookwormlux1]

Some lay of their workers not just because they want too but because they have no other choice. Some take this decision as a very last resort. Not everyone is heartless. I know of a company that before it crashed it tried to make sure they kept all their workers, they tried everything within their power but in the end, they had no choice but to let some go

I understand with this too, that is why it is best for employed people to try and be investing their income and salaries so that days like these don't take them unaware.

 

[eLdavis]

I understand with this too, that is why it is best for employed people to try and be investing their income and salaries so that days like these don't take them unaware.

Exactly, if they make plans for themselves, when such issues comes up, they would be better prepared to handle the situation. Many tend to be taken unawares because they have no plans

 

[Bookwormlux1]

Exactly, if they make plans for themselves, when such issues comes up, they would be better prepared to handle the situation. Many tend to be taken unawares because they have no plans

Probably due to not being properly informed financially and it is a very disastrous thing that could lead to eternal frustration, due to consitent brokenness.

 

[Josemendez]

There is a saying that to every action , there is an equal and opposite reaction . I believe reducing the working strength when there is need to have more workers will affect productivity.

 

[Bookwormlux1]

There is a saying that to every action , there is an equal and opposite reaction . I believe reducing the working strength when there is need to have more workers will affect productivity.

The organization concerned would try their best to pressurize those few employees to cover up for the absence of those that have been sacked.

 

[Delight]

Reducing the number of people in your business organisation so as to cope with the expenses is a good idea but you must make sure that the remaining employee that is available in your business will not work so hard, remember when there is too much work most of them will not like it.

 

[Josemendez]

The organization concerned would try their best to pressurize those few employees to cover up for the absence of those that have been sacked.

For them to do so then they will have to increase their salary as well because they are been subjected to more work that is not part of the agreement signed when they were employed

 

[Bookwormlux1]

For them to do so then they will have to increase their salary as well because they are been subjected to more work that is not part of the agreement signed when they were employed

Not all organizations follow what is stated in the agreement employees sign. So if is best to not even talk about the agreement as they would just sack you.

 

[Alexandoy]

There is a saying that to every action , there is an equal and opposite reaction . I believe reducing the working strength when there is need to have more workers will affect productivity.

In this pandemic period all the restaurants have cut down on expenses due to low customer load. They did not retrench workers. However, the workers come to work only half of the week like 3 days and the other worker works for 4 days. In other words the job is cut in half so the salary is also cut in half to accommodate all the worker.

 

[Psalmseen]

Well, it might not be a solution. I think the company should really spend money on those things that will yield maximum return. But retrenchment of workers is never and will never be the best way to reduce cost

 

[Josemendez]

Not all organizations follow what is stated in the agreement employees sign. So if is best to not even talk about the agreement as they would just sack you.

I can't use because I want to secure my job and subject myself to work that is very tedious . It is the employees right to make the employer understand how he is feeling with respect to job description