The Concept of Feeling Entitled to More
I can’t recall disagreeing more with something you’ve penned than with this article, where you criticize the 1,100 unionized workers at The New York Times for wanting a justifiable pay increase. This is within their legal rights as part of a collective bargaining agreement, and it seems like you’re encouraging people to forsake their legally-obliged employer benefits.
You highlighted that The New York Times’ stock price (NYT) is at its lowest in three years, but that doesn’t relate to the obligation to compensate workers properly for their labor.
The Times spent $150 million on stock buybacks on February 2, 2022. Why do they claim to be short of funds now when it’s time to pay the employees? Plus, they paid about $57 million in dividends this year. They can splurge over $200 million annually on stock buybacks and dividends, but cry poor when it’s time to pay the people who do the work?
That sum could have handed every one of the 1,100 unionized New York Times workers $181,818. How about trimming the stock buyback to $100 million and using the remaining $50 million for raises over the next five-year contract? That would mean $45,454 per unionized employee.
It’s also worth mentioning that as the NYT’s value and subscriptions were soaring, workers’ wages weren’t. They aren’t demanding an extravagant raise; they merely want to catch up to where they should have been if their wages had kept pace with inflation.
Turning Down Tuition Reimbursement Is Unwise
You admitted that you didn’t request your MBA tuition reimbursement after layoffs in 2004. You feared for your job, but willingly surrendering a legally-promised benefit seems absurd to me.
You were with a global investment bank, which likely desired you to have that MBA to enhance your value. They had budgeted for that benefit, and I doubt that the decision to lay off would have been based on the tuition cost difference between employees.
You essentially allowed your employer to withhold a promised benefit. Claim what is rightfully yours, especially when your employer is likely to spend it elsewhere. Companies must balance shareholder interests with fair payment to their workforce.
The Struggle Between Management and Workers
I can sense your passion. However, I must clarify that I’m not attacking The Times employees. My concern is that striking during an industry-wide layoff phase can be risky.
During challenging times, friction between executives and workers often intensifies. Executives aim to raise share prices for shareholders, as that’s where their compensation lies. Employees seek the best possible compensation and benefits, although stock options might comprise only a small part of that.
Advocating for employees when you’re not responsible for their salaries might be easier. It’s akin to supporting tax increases for the greater good as long as it doesn’t affect you directly.
Defining a “fair wage” can be subjective. But to add context to the reader’s comment, it’s pertinent to examine the cost-benefit analysis topic.
In short, my choice not to claim $12,500 in tuition reimbursement ultimately led to earning at least $1 million more.
Navigating Tuition Reimbursement and Career Decisions
I joined Credit Suisse in 2001 with a pay bump and promotion after two years at Goldman Sachs. I overheard a conversation that I wouldn’t be offered a third-year analyst position, so I made a timely move.
Within a couple of years, 80% of my GS analyst peers were laid off. I was lucky to escape that fate.
The 2000 dotcom collapse led to a tough decade for stocks. I shifted my money to real estate in 2003, but this also meant taking on mortgage debt.
In the volatile finance industry, job security is fleeting. Consequently, I applied to UC Berkeley’s part-time MBA program as a safeguard and made use of Credit Suisse’s tuition reimbursement program.
The Reality Was Different Than Expected
The decision to attend business school part-time made sense on paper, but dealing with the reality was more challenging.
My manager’s expectations clashed with the time required for my MBA, and he was unsupportive of my studies. With the company’s stock price plummeting, I was in a tight spot.
Fear and Decision Making
In finance, there’s a belief called LIFO (Last In, First Out). As a recent hire, I felt vulnerable.
I submitted three semesters of tuition reimbursements before hints of more layoffs surfaced. At that point, I made a conscious choice not to ask for another semester’s reimbursement.
The Payoff
Ultimately, I made it through the rough patch, earning promotions and pay raises that far exceeded the unclaimed tuition money.
In 2012, I was laid off with a generous severance package after 11 years of service. I had the right to the $12,500 tuition reimbursement, but a calculated decision was made to avoid risking my job. This choice enabled me to build a solid financial base.
Emotions, Intelligence, and the Bigger Picture
With high emotional intelligence, I may have still secured the tuition reimbursement without jeopardizing my job. However, I made the best decision I could at that time.
I eventually started Financial Samurai in 2009 after recognizing the opportunity to make a mark for myself. Emotional intelligence can lead to happiness, financial security, and freedom.
Conclusion
It’s vital to understand the risks and make wise decisions based on the current situation. Emotions play a key role in our choices. Sometimes, thinking long-term and understanding the bigger picture can help you make decisions that are beneficial in the long run.
It’s about finding a balance between immediate gains and long-term security. Emotions must be guided by intelligence to navigate the complexities of professional life.
We must remember that every decision has its trade-offs, and it’s essential to weigh them against each other and the broader context. Whether it’s deciding about tuition reimbursement or standing up for what you believe in, a calculated approach is often the best path forward.