If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   Employees, thank you for helping us achieve $511,000,000 in profit last quarter. We need 1,100 of you to pack up your things and leave   (realclear.com) divider line 358
    More: Obvious, Texas Instruments  
•       •       •

23030 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:59 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



358 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-22 01:18:51 PM  

CujoQuarrel: HeadLever: Ishkur: Yeah, we need to get out of this mindset.
...
wrong.  The purpose of a company is to make a living for its owner and-by extension-its employees.  They typically do that by filling a niche of providing goods and services to those that want it.

...

Nope. Just the owners.

If you could do it with no employees you would


They are, robots for automation are on the rise, there are going to be less and and less jobs. Learn math and electronics kids if you want eat because they will need people to fix the robots and those people will be the only humans in the factories. You will probably also need a robot body guard, to protect you from being eaten by the poors on your way home from work.
 
2014-01-22 01:19:36 PM  

Ritley: Not saying it's the case with TI, but companies absolutely do not look at the long term when making decisions. CEOs move the company in a direction that will maximize profit over the next few years, then leave with the obscene amount of money they made while the company flounders due to the unsustainable direction it took.


You misspelled "quarter".
 
2014-01-22 01:22:44 PM  
Well just make sure on your way out you get enough office and cleaning supplies.
 
2014-01-22 01:23:03 PM  

Lollipop165: I work for a small company (5 people) that recently made a huge profit. I was promised, promised, promised that once the deal was done I'd be getting a huge bonus after 6 years of stagnant wages. I literally waited the deal out before looking for a new job thinking I'd come into a big bonus.

Yep, nothing.

The owner now wants to sell the company and needs my help and says "well, this time we will get it in writing" regarding the bonus. But then when he talks to me about my future with the company, he makes threats like "No one is hiring", and "If you leave, you can never come back",  and "I pay you so much, you can't make more at another job" and yada yada. SO he can't let me leave (which I know since I basically keep the ground work running) but you don't want to give me more money even though you, personally, just made millions of dollars.

I have no idea WHY he thinks I'll stay. I mean, I like the guy personally. But there's no reason for me to stay.


Leave.  This trust will kill again.  The two times I've been laid off, they've gone on and on about what a great guy I was but this was just business.  He's not a nice guy and they don't care what a great person you are.  Find a new job while you work there, write your resignation letter.  Twenty bucks says he'll offer you something to not leave that you should be getting in the first place.  Leave anyways.
 
2014-01-22 01:23:17 PM  
Onkel Buck:

I watched my boss at an old job pocket TENS of MILLS after he sold the company, then turn around and fire 4 of his longest term employees. You know, the people who helped him build the company. No bonuses, no thanks, just "later dudes". So tell me again how it is that we who don't make big piles of cash feel, I love hearing it. We're just worthless crybabies right?

You said it I didnt. You are not owed or entitled to anything and neither am I. You need to stop thinking you're special, your mother lied to you.


Wha... where does this attitude come from?  "All's fair in love and war", "Nature red in tooth and claw", "It's always been this way".  Why does that make cruelty, greed, disdain, and inhumanity somehow tolerable?  Why is it considered weakness to want individuals and our species as a whole to treat ourselves better, to hold ourselves to a higher standard than "Fark you, I've got mine"?  If you and another man are alone in a room, and he shoots you, is it somehow just "ok" because he has a gun and you do not?

I doubt you're inclined, but I'd love to hear why you think that a lack of "fairness" in nature excuses and in fact justifies any form of cruelty or exploitation of innocent people, as the absurdly one-sided contract we call "employment" in the predominantly-pseudo-capitalist West seems to be lately.
 
2014-01-22 01:23:18 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I would disagree. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize utility for it's owners


As I previously explained, I was arguing from an ought imperative, not an is. I wrote it poorly and people are misinterpreting it.
 
2014-01-22 01:24:20 PM  

Onkel Buck: They are, robots for automation are on the rise, there are going to be less and and less jobs. Learn math and electronics kids if you want eat because they will need people to fix the robots and those people will be the only humans in the factories. You will probably also need a robot body guard, to protect you from being eaten by the poors on your way home from work.


This is the problem I have with automation and robotics.  I am no Luddite, but the way we utilize our technological prowess should be for easing the workload for all and not for maximizing the profits of a few (which is what we deal with on a day to day basis).  There needs to be a radical shift in the thinking of the working class.  Change will not come until they demand it and fight for it.
 
2014-01-22 01:24:29 PM  

Ishkur: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I would disagree. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize utility for it's owners

As I previously explained, I was arguing from an ought imperative, not an is. I wrote it poorly and people are misinterpreting it.


Well, I'm lazy at work and refuse to read the entire thread... so there!

/Refreshed the page and found it, my mistake
 
2014-01-22 01:25:11 PM  
So these people are losing their jobs because Wall Street analysts are bad guessers?
 
2014-01-22 01:25:20 PM  

Onkel Buck: oh_please: It sounds to me like TI is being a smart company, ditching declining products before they become unprofitable and concentrating on long-term growth.

But that's no fun, so OH NOES EBIL CORPORATIONS REPUBLICANS TRICKLE DOWN PROLETARIAT DYSTOPIA!

profit = greed to a lot people around here. They think you should just do things out of the goodness of your heart until your money runs out then someone else can return the favor to you unitl their money runs out and so on.


There is a difference between profit and greed. There was a story a few days ago about a company that was upset it ONLY made 2 billion dollars in profit. Not income but profit. And they weren't happy with it
 
2014-01-22 01:25:51 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: Why would they get out of mobile phone chipsets?  You can sell the same (or similar) chips every 2 years to the same people.


There are a lot of Galaxy S2 and Galaxy Nexus owners that think TI can go DIAF.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/31/google-galaxy-nexus-kitkat/
 
2014-01-22 01:26:23 PM  
Thank for getting us here! Now fark off.
 
2014-01-22 01:26:58 PM  
Stupid bloody infantile filter.
 
2014-01-22 01:27:07 PM  

r1niceboy: Diogenes: I blame regulations and taxes.

My dog shat in the hallway yesterday, I obviously blamed Obama. He might have been responsible for me losing my keys last week, but I'm more inclined to think it was either aliens or the Knights Templar.


We had nothing to do with your keys.
The shiat though....that was us.

The Knights
 
2014-01-22 01:27:13 PM  
The company's fourth quarter profit rose 94 percent from a year ago to $511 million. Its full-year profit was $2.2 billion, up 23 percent.

/yes, i can see why you can't afford not to fark over those 1,100 people that have worked so hard for you. You poor, poor, penniless dears. What will you do to survive? Oh, yes....fark over your employees and reap more profit for yourselves. Guess i wont be buying anything from this company antime soon. If ever.
 
2014-01-22 01:27:37 PM  

TheOtherGuy: HeadLever:

I see that you did not read TFA.    The jobs are being cut in areas where they are not making a profit or that are unsustainable.  Companies are not there to only hire and employ folks.  They are there to make money.  Maybe these folks can move to a part of the company that is making profits.

What's the point in allowing enormous, all-devouring multinational corporations to exist if they can't re-home some of these people to divisions that are making a profit and need help?  We're not talking about closing a slow sandwich shop here


Maybe you are maybe you arent.  If you have a slow sandwich shop, you might be able to move some workers, if they are not saying 'no I will not commute to the shop that needs workers, open another shop where I live' or they say
'no, I only slice eggs, not pickles'

You are welcome to start up your own company that will pay people to lose money.  Let us know how it goes.
 
2014-01-22 01:29:18 PM  

HeadLever: Sure there is. In this case, the 'needs' of the many (all the company's current employees) outweigh the 'needs' of the few (those being let go). In order to maintain employment (compassion) for the many, it is within the company's best interest to say as fiscally healthy as possible by divesting of ill-performing sectors and investing in growth sectors.


Only that's not what's happening here.

Your argument only applies if the company is losing money or is fiscally treading water. But it's not. It's making money. It's making A LOT of money. It's making money hand over fist. So if a company is making tons of money, is fiscally sound and solvent, has no debts or creditors banging down its door and has no problems finding money for bonuses, pensions, payroll or expenses, by what metric can you claim it needs to fire its workforce?
 
2014-01-22 01:29:43 PM  
Everyone knows if your company makes money you're not allowed to lay people off. They're given permanent lifetime contracts and you have to employ them forever.
 
2014-01-22 01:29:56 PM  

surewewang: Lollipop165: I work for a small company (5 people) that recently made a huge profit. I was promised, promised, promised that once the deal was done I'd be getting a huge bonus after 6 years of stagnant wages. I literally waited the deal out before looking for a new job thinking I'd come into a big bonus.

Yep, nothing.

The owner now wants to sell the company and needs my help and says "well, this time we will get it in writing" regarding the bonus. But then when he talks to me about my future with the company, he makes threats like "No one is hiring", and "If you leave, you can never come back",  and "I pay you so much, you can't make more at another job" and yada yada. SO he can't let me leave (which I know since I basically keep the ground work running) but you don't want to give me more money even though you, personally, just made millions of dollars.

I have no idea WHY he thinks I'll stay. I mean, I like the guy personally. But there's no reason for me to stay.

Leave.  This trust will kill again.  The two times I've been laid off, they've gone on and on about what a great guy I was but this was just business.  He's not a nice guy and they don't care what a great person you are.  Find a new job while you work there, write your resignation letter.  Twenty bucks says he'll offer you something to not leave that you should be getting in the first place.  Leave anyways.


Another vote for getting out.

He's screwed you over in the past.

What makes you think he won't screw you over in the future?

The way business works, you've got to look out for yourself. Loyalty to a company is for suckers.
 
2014-01-22 01:30:16 PM  

Carn: Fine, eliminate the 1100 but we still cut executive compensation as I've suggested.  After all, that is also unsustainable and will increase shareholder returns just as much so it must be right!


Yeah, I am not going to argue against the issues inherent with excessive CEO pay.  But when you have Fed Policy that feeds 'free' cash into these corporations and possible trouble on the horizon with respect to pensions healthcare, and general demographic trends, what do you expect?

Here is a pretty good article on some of these issues
 
2014-01-22 01:30:35 PM  

Dellirium: r1niceboy: Diogenes: I blame regulations and taxes.

My dog shat in the hallway yesterday, I obviously blamed Obama. He might have been responsible for me losing my keys last week, but I'm more inclined to think it was either aliens or the Knights Templar.

We had nothing to do with your keys.
The shiat though....that was us.

The Knights


At the very least, they didn't set it on fire.
 
2014-01-22 01:31:57 PM  

TheOtherGuy: I know this is somewhat of an oversimplification, but how can we continue to live in a world where the math of this is not criminal in some way?  That profit is enough to pay those workers almost a half-million dollars each for the next year.  Or, much more realistically, $40k each would kill about 10% of that profit, and put each of these workers at or above median pay for most regions of the US.

So, literally, this company refuses to take a 10% profit (not revenue; their expenses and reinvestment are covered) cut in order to not endanger the livelihoods of the people who made the profit possible.  Yes, I'm equating unemployment with criminal negligence here.  Making someone unemployed in this economy (in the US anyway) amounts to endangerment at this point, it's gotten that bad.

We need to find a way to criminalize this greedy, sociopathic behavior, immediately.  Profit itself isn't criminal, no.  But when "enough is never, ever enough", you can justify everything and anything you want, sooner or later.  Just because an extra dollar can be made, does not meet it  should be made, or we should allow it to be made in that manner.


We once taxed them - both the big corps, their wealthy owners and their CEOs.  But some bright spark thought taxing the rich was bad and that corporates should pay minimal taxes, oh and never forget that captial gains receive less tax and losses are tax deductable ... etc, etc.  Every dollar you earn over (say) $500k should be taxed at 50%, every dollar you earn over $1mil should be taxed at 60%, every dollar over $10 mil well lets make it 80%, and you can feel proud that every few days your tax pays for another teacher...
 
2014-01-22 01:32:24 PM  
Here's an idea.... any company that make a HUGE FARKING PROFIT but lays off hundreds of workers get that profit taxed to cover the amount of social assistance those workers will now from government programs from having no job.

In fact, make it DOUBLE the amount in taxes.

And on the flipside, if a company make a lot or even a little profit, and they hire a buttload of workers, then the company gets a TAX BREAK, with the exception they didn't fire a buttload of workers beforehand.

More people working in the economy, more money for people to buy stuff, more profits for company, less money needed to support unemployed, money better spent on other things to make country better.... see where this is going?
 
2014-01-22 01:32:58 PM  
A business headline next fiscal quarter: "TI announces new Chinese factory that will employ 5000 workers."

Suck it Americans!
 
2014-01-22 01:33:06 PM  
Relax - they won't fire the 1.1k that were awesome at their job and helped the company make money.  They'll fire the 1.1k that suck.
 
2014-01-22 01:33:11 PM  

tricycleracer: Cutting workforce to "enter new markets" isn't a good sign.


I thought that was your suggested path for the buggy whip manager.  You cut the workforce for the old market and hopefully you can rehire them for the new one.  Sometimes you can, sometimes the fit is not good.

Of course it is not a good sign as it is a sector that is in trouble.  However, do you want to go down with the sinking ship or enter the new one that is still afloat?  Pretty simple choice really.
 
2014-01-22 01:34:23 PM  

Ishkur: No one's interested in long term sustainable growth.


I have already referenced GE's history above.  Pretty sure they are 'someone'.
 
2014-01-22 01:34:33 PM  

oukewldave: Just last week, my company announced we made 700,000$ profit in December.  The same day we got an email saying to stop working overtime (we are hourly) but keep doing the same amount of work.


Over the holidays, my company announced that we were turning a huge profit, and all the new schemes and products they picked up last year are doing well, much better than anticipated. But, not better ENOUGH. So in this customer service-driven industry they told all managers to immediately make massive cuts to labor hours, which were already stretched thin. Put everything on sale, get rid of as much product as possible before end of quarter. Oh, but do all of this while meeting the same sales goals and customer quotas, which are already ridiculously high. People who run businesses aren't paid to make smart business decisions, theyre paid to print out papers with fancy happy numbers on it.
 
2014-01-22 01:34:43 PM  

Girl Sailor: Onkel Buck: oh_please: It sounds to me like TI is being a smart company, ditching declining products before they become unprofitable and concentrating on long-term growth.

But that's no fun, so OH NOES EBIL CORPORATIONS REPUBLICANS TRICKLE DOWN PROLETARIAT DYSTOPIA!

profit = greed to a lot people around here. They think you should just do things out of the goodness of your heart until your money runs out then someone else can return the favor to you unitl their money runs out and so on.

I watched my boss at an old job pocket TENS of MILLS after he sold the company, then turn around and fire 4 of his longest term employees. You know, the people who helped him build the company. No bonuses, no thanks, just "later dudes". So tell me again how it is that we who don't make big piles of cash feel, I love hearing it. We're just worthless crybabies right?


Those are people who worked for him.  If they wanted part of that payout, then they needed to get a mortgage on their house just like the owner did.   Oh wait, they didn't risk anything?
When times were tight, did they take ZERO salary until the company righted itself?  No?  You mean they wanted to be paid for doing work?
 
2014-01-22 01:36:26 PM  

HeadLever: John the Magnificent: Oh, I dunno.  Hows about they take a little of the 2.2 BILLION DOLLAR PROFIT and invest it in some new growth areas, instead of paying out humongous CEO bonuses and sucking Wall Street's balls.

That is what they are doing.  The jobs that are being cut are in sectors/areas where there is trouble.  Per TFA: "The company is not exiting any markets or discontinuing any existing products but will reduce investments in markets that do not offer sustainable growth and returns,"

If you can't make a positive rate of return or if you know the growth in said area is unsustainable, then it makes sense to let these go.  That does not mean that they will stop looking for investment in new growth areas.


So, why is a profitable company laying off workers that could be easily and cheaply re-trained to work in other sectors that ARE profitable? Could it be that the company does give a shiat about its workers, and will simply hire new, inexperienced people for half the average wage of the fired workers? Or maybe evne hire back the SAME people, but at reduced wages.

My brother-in-law worked for a company that did that. They laid-off the entire shop, then 1 week later, offered everyone their old jobs back, to work in the SAME SHOP, for half their previous pay. Anyone that refused the job offer was reported to the Unemployment Office, and lost their benefits.

This is the true face of Corporate America.
 
2014-01-22 01:36:32 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Ishkur: HeadLever: Companies are not there to only hire and employ folks. They are there to make money.

Yeah, we need to get out of this mindset. It is absolutely poisonous to capitalism and it is threatening to human life, and I like to think that we can build a better economic system than something that is so utterly amoral and inhumane. We are not sociopaths. Why do we want to live in a system that makes us act like them?

The purpose of a company is to provide a useful product, service or benefit to humanity. Of course it must make money doing it, but when it pulls in $500 million profit and it thinks the best way to serve its employees and humanity at large is to cut jobs so it can clear more profit, there is something seriously broken there.

I would disagree. The purpose of a corporation is to maximize utility for it's owners, just like the purpose of a union. In the field of capital, utility is profit for risk. A corporation trying to maximize it's profit is exactly what it is supposed to be doing. Where society comes in is the point where corporate utility infringes upon collective need (like dumping toxic waste, not paying workers enough to survive, or actively encouraging workplace accidents to kill off the sick).

If Coca-Cola thought they could exit the soft drink industry and produce cruise liners for a greater return, they would do so. If they could get away with paying workers a dollar an hour, they would do so. And if they thought that throwing small woodland creatures into a giant shredder would increase net utility, they would do so.

A corporation is a soulless legal entity that should have limited civil rights in exchange for diminished liability of ownership - just like a union. Expecting them to act like sociopaths would be a step in the right direction as far as regulation is concerned.



Even if we clean up your garbled words ("utility is profit for risk"- hahahahahaha), and say something along the lines of what you want to say, that is, a company should be interested in maximizing shareholder value, even if we did that you would be wrong. That's just a simplifying assumption (an assumption that didn't really take off until the 70s) economists make so that they can develop mathematical models of firms. The absurdity of flipping that over, and saying that real firms should behave like the model firms is mind boggling.
 
2014-01-22 01:36:34 PM  
Companies do not exist in a bubble. They exist in a society that allows them to exist. If society gets no benefit from it then society has no reason to allow them to continue to exist
 
2014-01-22 01:38:40 PM  

Ishkur: Your argument only applies if the company is losing money or is fiscally treading water. But it's not. It's making money.


The company as a whole yes.  However, not the sectors that are being cut.  If you allow the sectors that are losing you money to thrive and flourish and incorporate that as you business model only because your corporate headquarters is showing an overall company wide profit, you are doing all of your employees that are engaged in profitable parts a disservice.

A willingness to tolerate underperformance is never a good thing in a business model.
 
2014-01-22 01:39:18 PM  

Onkel Buck: Girl Sailor: Onkel Buck: oh_please: It sounds to me like TI is being a smart company, ditching declining products before they become unprofitable and concentrating on long-term growth.

But that's no fun, so OH NOES EBIL CORPORATIONS REPUBLICANS TRICKLE DOWN PROLETARIAT DYSTOPIA!

profit = greed to a lot people around here. They think you should just do things out of the goodness of your heart until your money runs out then someone else can return the favor to you unitl their money runs out and so on.

I watched my boss at an old job pocket TENS of MILLS after he sold the company, then turn around and fire 4 of his longest term employees. You know, the people who helped him build the company. No bonuses, no thanks, just "later dudes". So tell me again how it is that we who don't make big piles of cash feel, I love hearing it. We're just worthless crybabies right?

You said it I didnt. You are not owed or entitled to anything and neither am I. You need to stop thinking you're special, your mother lied to you.


Thank you for your insightful analysis.
 
2014-01-22 01:39:39 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Relax - they won't fire the 1.1k that were awesome at their job and helped the company make money.  They'll fire the 1.1k that suck.


Layoffs are the new way to get rid of deadwood, while not opening yourself up to litigation.  Why fire someone only to have them turn around and accuse you of not helping them get help with their drug/alcohol problem?
 
2014-01-22 01:40:17 PM  

real_headhoncho: Here's an idea.... any company that make a HUGE FARKING PROFIT but lays off hundreds of workers get that profit taxed to cover the amount of social assistance those workers will now from government programs from having no job.

In fact, make it DOUBLE the amount in taxes.

And on the flipside, if a company make a lot or even a little profit, and they hire a buttload of workers, then the company gets a TAX BREAK, with the exception they didn't fire a buttload of workers beforehand.

More people working in the economy, more money for people to buy stuff, more profits for company, less money needed to support unemployed, money better spent on other things to make country better.... see where this is going?


So, as an employee, all I need to do is get hired at some large corporation and spend my days surfing Fark knowing that unless I demonstrate gross incompetence I won't be fired.

I'm already amazed at how hard it is for companies to get rid of people.  I don't see it as a good thing.

If the company you work for believes it can make more money by firing you; they should be able to.  If you believe you can make more money by quitting, you should be able to.
 
2014-01-22 01:42:41 PM  

Semper IvXx: Everyone knows if your company makes money you're not allowed to lay people off. They're given permanent lifetime contracts and you have to employ them forever.


I know you're being sarcastic, and I can't speak of labor laws in other places, but in British Columbia it's actually illegal to lay off any workforce exceeding more than 50 employees per 90 days. The penalty is usually heavy fines commensurate with the EI windfall the government has to pay out to an entire division of newly unemployed workers (It hates doing that).
 
2014-01-22 01:43:16 PM  

Loreweaver: So, why is a profitable company laying off workers that could be easily and cheaply re-trained to work in other sectors that ARE profitable?


They very well could be.  Per TFA: "The savings will reflect the elimination of about 1,100 jobs worldwide."

This does not mean that the employees will necessarily be eliminated, but only the current jobs.  They very well may be retrained or transferred to other sectors.  However, for a company like this, the sectors that have additional jobs could be thousands of miles away or they may have a completely different skillset.  As I mentioned earlier, it is typically within a company's best interest to hire internally, but there are circumstances where this is really not feasible.
 
2014-01-22 01:45:04 PM  

HeadLever: Carn: Tada, we just saved the same in labor, still didn't touch profit, and nobody got laid off.  Oh and the lowest paid exec still makes over 100 times what the average shlub does.

Except for the part where you ignore that they are in a sector that is unsustainable and will continue to cause income erosion to the company as a whole.  Can you come up with a good reason why the company should continue to pay for employees in a sector that will cause them to lose money for the foreseeable future?


Buggy Whips.

/Seems to work for you, it's all you've been saying this thread.
 
2014-01-22 01:45:46 PM  

HeadLever: I have already referenced GE's history above. Pretty sure they are 'someone'.


The exception doesn't prove the rule.

Besides, GE isn't going anywhere so long as they don't pay any taxes.
 
2014-01-22 01:45:46 PM  

real_headhoncho: Here's an idea.... any company that make a HUGE FARKING PROFIT but lays off hundreds of workers get that profit taxed to cover the amount of social assistance those workers will now from government programs from having no job.

In fact, make it DOUBLE the amount in taxes.


I know you know this and all, because I can feel the business knowledge emanating from your login name, and you are just posting retarded statements in an effort to troll others,
but when a business lays people off, the company taxes go up, simply because it sends more employees to unemployment lines.

That is how it works.  Companies that pay employees have low rates.  Companies that let workers go have to pay higher rates.
 
2014-01-22 01:47:24 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: real_headhoncho: Here's an idea.... any company that make a HUGE FARKING PROFIT but lays off hundreds of workers get that profit taxed to cover the amount of social assistance those workers will now from government programs from having no job.

In fact, make it DOUBLE the amount in taxes.

And on the flipside, if a company make a lot or even a little profit, and they hire a buttload of workers, then the company gets a TAX BREAK, with the exception they didn't fire a buttload of workers beforehand.

More people working in the economy, more money for people to buy stuff, more profits for company, less money needed to support unemployed, money better spent on other things to make country better.... see where this is going?

So, as an employee, all I need to do is get hired at some large corporation and spend my days surfing Fark knowing that unless I demonstrate gross incompetence I won't be fired.

I'm already amazed at how hard it is for companies to get rid of people.  I don't see it as a good thing.

If the company you work for believes it can make more money by firing you; they should be able to.  If you believe you can make more money by quitting, you should be able to.


I agree. Non compete agreements should be illegal. If an employee feels they can get a better deal at another company their current company shouldn't be able to interfere

Your philosophy works both ways. The employee should have rights to seek employment from anyone willing to hire them
 
2014-01-22 01:47:35 PM  
Laying people off...in Japan.

Glad I'm not over there right now.  1,100 people jumping in front of JR trains over the next few months = nobody getting to work on time.

/What?  You farkers thought they could just get another job?
 
2014-01-22 01:48:45 PM  

Loreweaver: My brother-in-law worked for a company that did that. They laid-off the entire shop, then 1 week later, offered everyone their old jobs back, to work in the SAME SHOP, for half their previous pay. Anyone that refused the job offer was reported to the Unemployment Office, and lost their benefits.


That is not the 'true face of corporate america' as companies that do this typically does not stay in business very long.  Screwing employees over may be good in the short term if conditions are just right, but they typically don't work out very well in the long run. Your business model is typically most effective when you have motivated employees that want to do a good job.
 
2014-01-22 01:49:41 PM  
"Fire one million."

i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-22 01:49:49 PM  

MajorTubeSteak: Dellirium: r1niceboy: Diogenes: I blame regulations and taxes.

My dog shat in the hallway yesterday, I obviously blamed Obama. He might have been responsible for me losing my keys last week, but I'm more inclined to think it was either aliens or the Knights Templar.

We had nothing to do with your keys.
The shiat though....that was us.

The Knights

At the very least, they didn't set it on fire.


Obscure?
s28.postimg.org
 
2014-01-22 01:50:08 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: So, as an employee, all I need to do is get hired at some large corporation and spend my days surfing Fark knowing that unless I demonstrate gross incompetence I won't be fired.

I'm already amazed at how hard it is for companies to get rid of people. I don't see it as a good thing.

If the company you work for believes it can make more money by firing you; they should be able to. If you believe you can make more money by quitting, you should be able to.


Lay off ≠ being fired for gross incompetence.

If your company is failing and you need to lay off people to survive, then that is understandable.  If your company is thriving and you lay off people to make even more money, then the government should adjust the taxes of that company to reflect the loss of income taxes from those fired employees, and the burden on society (usually paid for by taxes) those now unemployed people will place on it.
 
2014-01-22 01:52:35 PM  
I had a job a few years back... working for a corporate level ISP.  Not a big name.  Anyways, every year, we'd all pile into a conference room, fire up the conference phone, and company wide there'd be an all-hands meetings.   Well, the last year I was there, the meeting went like this:

(CEO):  "Great job, people.  Our sales have never been higher.  Our stock price is up, and we've beaten every income goal we've had this year.  A banner year for our company.  Oh, by the way.... no raises or bonuses for anyone this year.  Times are hard."

The same CEO that got a 200k a year raise that year.  Needless to say, everyone was outraged.  After the conference call, we all started arguing with the office manager.  We told him, "You haven't hired people to fill the empty seats, all of us are wearing three or four different hats, and just why are we out there, killing ourselves, when you're not willing to give us so much as the ten cent raises we got last year?"  "At least you get the satisfaction of a job well done."   A couple of people noted that satisfaction didn't pay bills.  And he wrapped it up by saying, "If you don't like it?  Leave."

Ah, the pleasures of working in a right-to-work state.  Needless to say, I pulled the ejection lever on that fail bus so hard I probably broke the farking thing in half on the way out.
 
2014-01-22 01:53:00 PM  

Ishkur: The exception doesn't prove the rule.


So GE is the only one?  How about Ford, PG, Remington, Citigroup, Hartford, Colgate, DuPont, Jim Bean, (this list could go on for miles) .......?  Are they all exceptions as well?

If you business model is to stay in business and make money over an extended period of time, why would you want to sabotage that by short term thinking?  That really does not make sense.
 
2014-01-22 01:54:05 PM  

HeadLever: Loreweaver: My brother-in-law worked for a company that did that. They laid-off the entire shop, then 1 week later, offered everyone their old jobs back, to work in the SAME SHOP, for half their previous pay. Anyone that refused the job offer was reported to the Unemployment Office, and lost their benefits.

That is not the 'true face of corporate america' as companies that do this typically does not stay in business very long.  Screwing employees over may be good in the short term if conditions are just right, but they typically don't work out very well in the long run. Your business model is typically most effective when you have motivated employees that want to do a good job.


Doesnt matter the CEO is going to be out of there with the increased profits his shares have given him before the thing collapses. Then the companies issues are some other guys problem. This is the issue with our current economic system
 
Displayed 50 of 358 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report