Across the Board Budget Cuts - Fair for everyone?

Recently our nonprofit organization announced "Across the board budget cuts" and has asked everyone to reduce their hours and pay by 25% "across the board." This is a valiant effort in order to avoid layoffs, which our small firm would not be able to handle.

However, how does 'across the board' work with part-time workers? Some of our staff already reduces hours every summer voluntarily for their personal/family reasons. A 25% cut for them would be what they would normally do anyway. Whereas for full-time workers, it is a significant cut in pay and hours. What is a fair way to administer across the board cuts?

How do other agencies, companies, etc. make that happen?

Articles Like these frustrate me. Minority v. White?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_white_minority#mwpphu-container

We have seen several articles like these as the census comes nearer. Minority births, Minority immigration, and Minority percentage statistics to scare the historic White Majority away! These alarmist articles miss the point.

The world is becoming smaller. We are now dealing with emerging countries who are competing with us globally for better technology and education. And globally speaking, Chinese and Indians are the vast majority. Trying to protect our fragile racially conservative egos will only cause us to lose our competitive edge. Immigration has been our competitive edge throughout history. That is because we were formed as a nation of immigrants. Think about it. Starting from the European settlers, to the Irish mass immigration, to the Eastern European immigration, to the African slave trades, to the Japanese and Asian immigration waves, we have seen it all. And with every wave came a similar reaction from the "settled" folks. Fear mongering, discrimination, and sometimes worse. But what we feared actually is our strength. We are a country that is not defined by race but by ideals, and that makes a good country! Globally speaking, the world has always been shifting and immigrating. Immigration is determined by economics more than anything. High immigration is a sign of good economic conditions. Perhaps some people want higher immigration to our competing countries?

We lost the Olympic bid largely because our country was considered too hostile to visitors. Do we want to fall behind globally while pampering our fragile egos?

Time for something new?

After a year or so of ups and downs at Nonprofit law, I wonder if it is time for something new.

Several questions keep popping up in my mind. How soon is too soon to change jobs? Is a year too soon? How about 2?

How does one transfer skills from nonprofit to the private law world? Surely the case load is qualitatively different. The whole world of employment based immigration rarely enters the nonprofit world because of the income differences. However, this is often the bulk of the practice in the for-profit world. And employment-based immigration is a whole new beast to tackle.

So how would I go about convincing a potential private law firm employer that I am qualified for the job? Does beginning in non-profit mean I am pegged into the nonprofit sector hole for the rest of my career? It isn't that I dislike working at nonprofits. Actually, quite the opposite. However, there is limited growth at my current organization. I could not possibly wind up doing the same thing I have done for the past year for another 10 years.

I see some jobs popping up, but many of them require experience in the employment-based arena. That does not stop me from wanting to apply. Is it normal to feel bored of a job after such a short period of time?

I wonder. . .