Double-edged sword, I guess. Interesting dynamic that the two who agreed to a reduction are the two with connection to the school.@cncchris33
What's your take on the football assistants not taking paycuts and that info going public?
Seems like a precarious situation to me.
Double-edged sword, I guess. Interesting dynamic that the two who agreed to a reduction are the two with connection to the school.
I believe the idea that the other eight (?) who refused would seem to be more justified if we were 5-1 or better and on a clear upward trajectory, and more well-received by fans. Instead, we are currently a dumpster fire showing no signs of improvement or promise in year three. That is going to rub people the wrong way, but is perhaps a little hypocritical to say its OK if we're winning, but not if we're losing.
And lastly, a contract is a contract. It binds both parties. Those eight who refused have no more loyalty to their employer than I have to my multi-billion dollar company of 18,000 employees. If I were given the "option" of taking a pay cut, or not, I know which option I'm taking.
Can't argue with most of that. Like I said, it's a two-edged sword. A respectable argument can be made for either position, I think.If the company just randomly wanted you to take a pay cut, or if they did it so some executive could get a bonus, sure. But given what's happened the way I saw it is the pay cut is being asked for to probably help save some other people's jobs. And in that case, if I knew me taking a pay cut could help save someone else's job (who likely makes a lot less), I don't hesitate. Which is another reason the 2 guys that did being VFLs doesn't surprise me.
Yeah contracts are contracts but I doubt pandemic that affects the entire economy was written into said contract.
Can't argue with most of that. Like I said, it's a two-edged sword. A respectable argument can be made for either position, I think.