Frances, another staffer who does not want to give her last name, agreed.
Sablan said she understands the current financial situation of the government.
Compared to unemployment, she said it is better to have 64 hours of work so she can still bring food to the table.
She noted that since 2006, government employees have been coping with austerity measures.
“Now that things are getting worse, why can’t we share the pain together instead of watching others lose their jobs,” she added.
For her part, Frances said it is very hard to find another job these days so she might as well be happy with what she has.
There are many people who are jobless and those who still have a government job are lucky, she added.
She, however, admits that the 16-hour cut will be too hard for lowly paid government employees.
She said she knows somebody who earns about $10,000 annually.
Juan, another government employee, prefers to “look forward to better days ahead.”
He doesn’t want work hour cuts.
The low-income employees, he said, will “suffer” if their salary is reduced.
“It’s going to be too hard for them, but the elected officials will not feel the crisis that much,” said Juan who also does not want to give his last name.
Rep. Joseph M. Palacios, R-Saipan, said that if he were to decide, he does not want any reduction in working hours.
But if that would mean laying off employees, then there’s seems to be no other way but to endure the cuts, he added.
