Surely most employees would rather endure an across-the-board salary cut than risk being laid off. In the 1930s, General Electric polled its workers on this very question, and the majority agreed that they would rather endure salary reductions. A few years later, when the economy recovered, GE had all of its employees in place and did not have to spend years recruiting new people. It shot out of the gate in full operating mode.
Moreover, the company had made progress improving designs and making plans during the lull. When business picked up, so did salaries. In the end, it was win-win for everyone.
Take, for example, a news service that needs to reduce costs. Instead of cutting staff by 50 percent, thereby forcing a radical reduction in the scope of the news coverage, it would make more sense to cut salaries by 50 percent and retain full service. If lowering the price of the service would keep the subscriber, viewer or listener base steady, or if reducing the cost of advertising would keep the support base steady, it would be better to make one of those moves rather than cutting staff. Either program would maintain quality and serve to keep the service in the forefront among news providers. Inflexible competitors would go out of business, thereby helping the survivors