If you recall, DH’s company has been having money flow issues and isn’t sure it’s going to last through March. Employees had to take about a month long 10% paycut in order for them to make payroll at the end of 2016 (they’re back at full pay now). It’s also highly dependent on government contracting work which could mean lots of money or very little money over the next few years depending on how/if money is allocated to the DoD. (The DoD does a surprising amount of life-saving research– it isn’t all weapons.)
The guy who recruited DH to the company just quit the company in order to take a job in a more stable company at a lower salary with no benefits (they do reimburse ACA claims and they’re in a state with its own exchange program and individual mandate so Trump won’t make the exchange go away).
He has a SAHM wife and two small children. He needs the stability more than he needs the larger paycheck.
The company CEO called DH to make sure he wasn’t going to follow suit and also leave. It would have been a good time to ask for concessions if there wasn’t a worry about the company going under in a couple months.
DH has a wife whose job has high stability and doesn’t really need a paycheck at all (we’d have to cut down on education/retirement saving and some luxuries, but we’d be fine). That means he can stick with a job that has a high salary and high flexibility but at any point in time could go under in the next three months. Heck, he could cut down to part-time contract work at any point in time and he would be ok. I provide that ability. Our heavy retirement saving these past few years means that we could even cut down retirement savings and we’d be fine. Being massively risk averse, ironically, means we can take more risks because with my job security and our savings these risks are measured risks.
But most people don’t have that kind of financial independence. That means that when a company does something like temporarily cut pay by 10% they’re going to lose good people who need that stability. Breadwinners from single earner families may be less likely to leave a stable job (I assume– I haven’t read research) but when that stability disappears they may be more likely to seek a new position so as to not have to deal with an unemployment spell. At least, that’s the case with DH’s colleague.
As for what this means for the company– it’s a small operation and his role was important. They won’t be hiring to replace him any time soon. But that won’t be important if they go under in March. So we’ll see what happens.
I’m just glad that we’ll be fine no matter what that is.
What determines when you or (if applicable) your partner changes jobs? Could you handle a lengthy unemployment spell?