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  
•       •       •

23019 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:59 AM (31 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 01:54:22 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?


That's what it is.  Company are laying people off and going to the expense of hiring new people, when they could just retrain existing workers.

Do you have such a hatred for companies that you think this really happens?  It is extremely expensive to hire people.  There is a buttload of new paperwork to file
as will as paperwork for the old employee to continue to file.  The new worker isn't going to really be effective for 6 months while he learns the intricacies of the job.
Then add in the gamble that you might find out the worker isn't really skilled enough to do the job, or is a drunk and needs to be replaced and you have to
start off searching for an employee AGAIN.
 
2014-01-22 01:57:48 PM

Carn: Let's play with some numbers.  Let's pull a number out for executive compensation oh I dunno $100 million for a company that big and let's say that's split among 10 uber execs.  Let's also assume that the people who were laid off on the whole were paid a fairly good wage on average, oh I dunno $80K loaded rate.  1100 x 80K = $88Million.  Now, 9 execs get $1million except the CEO who is special who gets $3million.  9 + 3 + 88 == 100 million.  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.


Haven't you heard? Four years of partying at an expensive school entitles you to a lifetime of exorbitant salaries, regardless of how well you actually do your job.
 
2014-01-22 02:01:21 PM

Ishkur: Besides, GE isn't going anywhere so long as they don't pay any taxes.


They pay some taxes, albeit a very small amount compared to their income.  If you want to change that, then get rid of the deductions they are eligible for.  However, be aware that tax policy is one of the government's favorite social engineering tools.  You give them tax breaks in exchange for them doing stuff you want.  You eliminate those tax breaks, you eliminate your control over them.
 
2014-01-22 02:02:21 PM

Nutsac_Jim: 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.


Is it enough to offset the loss of income taxes from the employees AND the cost of the social assistance (UI, Welfare) the people laid off will now have to draw on until they get another job... which is easy as tapping someone on the shoulder and asking if they have a job available, which of course they will [sarcasm].

"Companies" and "Corporations" have been getting too much of a free ride lately.  They know they can pay the lowest rates and reap the highest profits by keeping a high unemployment rate or just threatening to leave a go to a country where they can just pay slave-wages.  This short-term money grab is going to lead to a long-term economic disaster and even a social and political revolution.  Look at Iran when the Shah was in charge and what happened there!  And you can blame that squarely on Capitalism and BP.
 
2014-01-22 02:02:43 PM

GoldDude: Subby sounds like a union worker.
The company is profitable, they should be paying all the profits to their workers!
(And keep paying them even if the profit evaporates)

Successful companies look forward, not backwards at past results.
Just because the division producing iPads is doing well doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of the division producing buggy whips (or Zunes).



The contradiction being pointed at is this: the slide to zero taxes is justified by arguments like, "companies need to be more profitable so they can hire more workers."  Well in this case the company is profitable but they expect revenues to fall off (read: revenues haven't even fallen off yet) so they're firing workers.

So the idea that decreasing taxes will increase employment, in the face of this instance, doesn't hold up.  That's what everyone is getting at.
 
2014-01-22 02:03:21 PM

HeadLever: Ishkur: Besides, GE isn't going anywhere so long as they don't pay any taxes.

They pay some taxes, albeit a very small amount compared to their income.  If you want to change that, then get rid of the deductions they are eligible for.  However, be aware that tax policy is one of the government's favorite social engineering tools.  You give them tax breaks in exchange for them doing stuff you want.  You eliminate those tax breaks, you eliminate your control over them.


The government has an army and police with guns. Tax breaks aren't the only way to fix poor corporate behavior
 
2014-01-22 02:04:10 PM

HeadLever: The company as a whole yes. However, not the sectors that are being cut. If you allow the sectors that are losing you money


Do you know this for certain or are you just guessing? Because you're wrong.

It's more common, in fact, for very profitable companies to use the income from one sector to pay off the losses in another. And they don't feel the need to close down the other sector because even though it's losing money, it still provides a valuable service or product to a very important demographic. The entertainment and transportation industries live by this model. There are a lot of bus routes that don't make any money at all. Hell, most movie studios only make money on one or two films a year, but they make enough to compensate for all the losses from their smaller, independent and limited run releases.

If profit was truly the only reason for running a company, we wouldn't have so much diversity in food, music, cars, sports, television, software, etc... there'd be no point to creating a specific product for a niche audience. And yet here we are, because the people who start companies have a genuine passion for their fields and they want to be useful, they want to add value to society, they want to provide a worthy need for consumers and they want to make their customers happy and satisfied with their business. They would not get into it if they did not love what they're doing.

But as soon as a privately owned company becomes a publicly owned corporation, that care and quality is removed from the business mandate. The new owners are anonymous investors who, by and large, have no interest in what the company does, no sense of its history or philosophy, and are not interested in what utility it provides for society. They are only interested in the bottom line: Profits, black ink, dividends, and share values. To maximize these ends, they employ a wing of accountants, consultants, financial advisors and business keeners (let's call them "beancounters") to reorganize the company's objectives into a more profit-centric one.

This new class of beancounters come straight from the business sector and often treat the founders who built the company with contempt. They slash departments, cut corners, lay off employees, and stretch expenses and payroll tighter than a drum, all in the name of pleasing quarterly reports (which drives share values). As a result, the quality of the company declines, its service decreases, its products get worse, its customer support is marginalized, and everything else decays from within. But profits skyrocket for about two fiscal quarters (or more) and the beancounters are given hefty raises, bonuses, and pats on the back for strategically squeezing everything they can out of the company's infrastructure.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you own/run a business, there has to be a purpose to it. And no, I vehemently reject "making money" as a purpose, because it's not. Making money is a means, not an end.
 
2014-01-22 02:04:38 PM

Warlordtrooper: Doesnt matter the CEO is going to be out of there with the increased profits his shares have given him before the thing collapses.


If he would sacrifice short term profits for a long term success business, that is ultimately his decision, even if it makes little sense.  The dissatisfaction of the employees will likely hasten this process.

Sorry to hear that your BIL has to deal with such a crappy situation.  Hopefully, he can find something better and more sustainable soon.
 
2014-01-22 02:05:13 PM

Nutsac_Jim: 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?


So the ones who worked miserable hours through blizzards, who worked for a start up for less than ideal cash, who took the professional risk to work at a underling company instead of the Wall St.Journal? Those are the ones who didn't risk anything?

And the one who died from cancer, bankrupt from the cost of her treatments?
 
2014-01-22 02:05:33 PM
I'm guessing that a company like TI can lose 1100 people worldwide through retirements and normal attrition.  What they'll be doing is not so much laying off workers as they'll not be hiring new blood.  Long term, that's a horribly stupid idea that most smart business leaders are quickly learning to abandon.

Where I work there are a whole lot of 50-something engineers counting the days down to retirement, a slew of fresh-faced college graduates, and not a whole lot in between.  In another five years the organization is going to be royally screwed, and the company is just now starting to figure that out.

A productive and loyal workforce is not something you can go out and buy when labor is cheap, rather It is something that grows slowly and requires a fair amount of careful nuturing.  Some companies figure it out (Mullaly at Ford, for example) and others don't (the dopes at TI, apparently).
 
2014-01-22 02:06:40 PM

Cpl.D: 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.


Did you ever think of just ganging up on him, tying him to his chair with a electrical cord and then pushing him out a window?

I'm not advocating it, just asking if the thought ever crossed your mind....
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-01-22 02:06:41 PM

DubyaHater: Clearly we need to lower corporate taxes and elect more republicans.


0/10, too obvious
 
2014-01-22 02:07:16 PM
here's why Texas Instruments needs to crawl in a hole and die:

2020science.org
This is the TI-84 , it costs $115  it boasts
16-character, 8-line display
480KB flash memory, 24KB RAM
 and no those are not typos

It was introduced in 2004 and is a minor update on a calculator introduced in 1996 at which time it was ALSO about $120

By Contrast this is also about $115 bucks:
www.computershopper.com
but it has:
 a 1920 x 1280 ( 256 ppi )
16 GB of memory
Andrioid 4.2 OS running on a dual core, 1.5 ghz processor (ironically also made by TI)


so how the fark do they get away with charging that outrageous price for the calculator?

Well, see its the only  one allowed to be used by HS students on AP exam requiring calculators so Ti has a captive market that they mercilessly exploit giving zero shiats that the thing probably costs them less than $1/unit to make these days and they are pricing many poor kids out of participation in STEM career with that dick move
 
2014-01-22 02:08:35 PM

bigdanc: GoldDude: Subby sounds like a union worker.
The company is profitable, they should be paying all the profits to their workers!
(And keep paying them even if the profit evaporates)

Successful companies look forward, not backwards at past results.
Just because the division producing iPads is doing well doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of the division producing buggy whips (or Zunes).


The contradiction being pointed at is this: the slide to zero taxes is justified by arguments like, "companies need to be more profitable so they can hire more workers."  Well in this case the company is profitable but they expect revenues to fall off (read: revenues haven't even fallen off yet) so they're firing workers.

So the idea that decreasing taxes will increase employment, in the face of this instance, doesn't hold up.  That's what everyone is getting at.


You're banging your head against the wall with this one.
 
2014-01-22 02:09:09 PM

Ishkur: Do you know this for certain or are you just guessing? Because you're wrong.


Did you read TFA?

Damn, dude.  If you are going to say that I am wrong, you may-at a minimum-want to read the article to make sure that it is not explicitly stated.

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," he said.

"The savings will reflect the elimination of about 1,100 jobs worldwide."
 
kab
2014-01-22 02:09:25 PM

brantgoose: Serves them right. $511,000,000 in profit is not enough. You have to downsize a lot of employees or else the fickle stock market and speculators will bury you.


Shareholders being far more important than employees is a glaring flaw of capitalism.   Expect little different unless this behavior is changed.
 
2014-01-22 02:09:55 PM
Good to see people show up to irrationally white knight these actions.

It's like a slave getting beaten for not being productive enough, and the other slaves are quick to lament, well what's a slave owner to do, not beat the slaves?
 
2014-01-22 02:10:56 PM

HeadLever: tricycleracer: They had poor product development.  That's a management failure.

So the buggy whips should have had GPS?  Sorry dude, they are still buggy whips.  If you are in a dying sector, no matter what bells and whistles you design on your buggy whip, you are still headed for the trash bin of history.



False, after all... Ford managed to recover with the aide of bells and whistles


Nice try though
 
2014-01-22 02:11:19 PM

im14u2c: Disclosure:  I work the company.  I will not discuss any details. But I will weigh in on a couple minor things.

CeroX:  I guess i should expand... They are cutting in departments that aren't doing anything productive. [...]  If those departments are all sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and pulling $30k a year for it, then the fat is going to get trimmed.

Not quite.  Reducing investment in a product line is not an indictment of the engineers making the product, but rather management deciding they don't need to add to that product line any longer, or at least not as quickly.  The market can absorb new products only so quickly.  Don't confuse productivity with profitability.

If I'm a car company and I make 1,000,000 cars when the market only wants 500,000, I was incredibly productive and yet quite unprofitable.

brandent:  Probably just not hiring for the next few months and nobody really getting 'laid off'.

No, it's an actual lay off.  There's no reason to tell the world when we have a hiring freeze.


I was actually going to use the term profitable... But i work in IT, and IT is not a "profitable" division in any company. Most CFO's i've met hate the IT department because in their eyes the IT Dept is a black hole of money that they never see back on paper. I've been on the chopping block several times because companies want to raise the bottom line and the first place they make cuts is in IT.

But yes there is a difference between production and profit, I just didn't want to sound like the same CFO assholes I've had the displeasure of meeting. Mostly because when we meet with the CFO it means there's cuts to be made, either in budget or staffing, never the opposite.
 
2014-01-22 02:14:27 PM

Warlordtrooper: The government has an army and police with guns. Tax breaks aren't the only way to fix poor corporate behavior


The issue here is that what GE is doing is perfectly legal.  Or would you rather stop certain companies from taking advantage of tax breaks that you specifically added to the tax code?  Again, if so, you are losing your control over them.

I am assuming that you are not dumb enough to actually advocate militarily forcing a company to do you will as you see fit outside the boundaries of any legal requirements.
 
2014-01-22 02:15:01 PM

real_headhoncho: 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.


Dead weight is dead weight.  Whether or not the company is making money is irrelevant.

The company wouldn't layoff employees that were producing more value than they cost.


Imagine you own 5 stocks A,B,C,D and E.  Over the last year your returns are
A: 5%
B: 1%
C: 7%
D: -2%
E: 4%

Let's assume you want to make money and you believe the previous returns are likely to continue.  What do you do?  You sell stock D because it's a loser.  You aren't going to sell stock C because it makes you money.  If you though C were going to do good and you didn't mind additional risk you might sell D and B - so you can buy more C.  Even though B made money, it's not a lot of money and you think you can make more elsewhere.

I don't see why people should be any different.
 
2014-01-22 02:15:36 PM

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


First of all, you can't fire someone for no reason. Firing means the employee did something wrong which is grounds for termination. It is worse than being laid off, which is the company terminating employment for any reason it wants to make up (usually because the labor is no longer required). Employees don't collect UI when they are fired. They do when they are laid off. But the point is the employee should not be punished with no job or pay if they've done nothing wrong.

Now, if the company lays off an entire division of workers, that pisses the government right off because it has to pay out all that UI. So the government has a vested interest in keeping people employed which is why there are regulations against that sort of thing. The company can not just lay off everyone with no repercussions. And it's certainly not permitted to profit at the expense of society at large.
 
2014-01-22 02:15:41 PM

Lollipop165: 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.


Because you  have stayed, here to date.

Trust me, I'm in the same boat as you. I'm theoretically half-time, but constantly have X, Y, & Z to do, "why isn't this done", "you could be doing this from home" and guilt-trip city.  And, like you, I 'like the guy' personally (and my co-workers, etc).  But, at some point, 'like the guy' is Stockholm Syndrome, and just because I should have quit 5 years ago doesn't mean I shouldn't quit today.

/ maybe tomorrow
 
2014-01-22 02:17:38 PM

HeadLever: 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?


How many of those companies are recent?
 
2014-01-22 02:18:05 PM
Magorn, TI builds these hand-heald programmable technical calculators because there is a high demand for them by scientists, engineers, and architects. The HS and college kiddies wouldn't generate enough revenue to make them feasible. They do one thing and one thing very well: advanced mathematics. THey don't need to serve up the WSJ or Fark. And smart phone don't have calculator programs that would even come close. The calculator has so few resources because that is all it needs. But the programming has to be perfect and isn't written by script kiddies with a CS degree from the local community college.

But calculators is only a tiny part of TI's business. They make far more money building components for defense and space programs, industrial engineering, transportation, energy, and research.
 
2014-01-22 02:19:02 PM

Newfiesnowman: False, after all... Ford managed to recover with the aide of bells and whistles


Ford is not currently engaged in a dying sector (nor were they engaged in making buggy whips).  If they ever find themselves in that position, they will either adapt or be relegated to said dustbin.
 
2014-01-22 02:20:07 PM

HeadLever: They pay some taxes


no they don't. In fact, they actually get MORE money through subsidies so their tax rate is actually negative 76.6%
 
2014-01-22 02:23:13 PM

Ishkur: How many of those companies are recent?


Outside of GE (1889), Ford (1903), PG (1837) and Remington (1818), they are all 200 years and older.
 
2014-01-22 02:23:52 PM
I have a sink-full of dirty dishes to do when I get home.

Should I hire a full-time employee?
 
2014-01-22 02:25:01 PM

HeadLever: Did you read TFA?


We're no longer talking about the TFA, we're talking about what businesses do vs what they ought to do.
 
2014-01-22 02:25:16 PM

CeroX: I was actually going to use the term profitable... But i work in IT, and IT is not a "profitable" division in any company. Most CFO's i've met hate the IT department because in their eyes the IT Dept is a black hole of money that they never see back on paper. I've been on the chopping block several times because companies want to raise the bottom line and the first place they make cuts is in IT.

But yes there is a difference between production and profit, I just didn't want to sound like the same CFO assholes I've had the displeasure of meeting. Mostly because when we meet with the CFO it means there's cuts to be made, either in budget or staffing, never the opposite.


If your company has a substantial IT department that they lean on considerably, congratulations, you are an IT company.  To think that the IT dept is some necessary black hole of money is complete shortsightedness on the part of upper mgmt to properly integrate IT with overall company operations.

img.fark.net
 
2014-01-22 02:26:45 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Dead weight is dead weight.  Whether or not the company is making money is irrelevant.


Nah, it's pretty relevant. People dedicate their time and lives to these companies and only a small few take the bulk of the rewards for their success. Then the minute they're deemed not profitable they are discarded, coldly and cruelly.

Stop buying into these ideals of a world that doesn't work for the people. Try think beyond the status quo of the BS rhetoric of capitalism. Humanity is able to produce goods and services at a level unprecedented in history, meanwhile wealth inequality is also at all time highs while poverty grows, wages stay stagnant relative to inflation, and the social safety net is being chipped away.

F that noise. What this company did was shiatty, plain and simple.
 
2014-01-22 02:27:30 PM

CeroX: I was actually going to use the term profitable... But i work in IT, and IT is not a "profitable" division in any company. Most CFO's i've met hate the IT department because in their eyes the IT Dept is a black hole of money that they never see back on paper. I've been on the chopping block several times because companies want to raise the bottom line and the first place they make cuts is in IT.


Well, Customer Support first. Then IT. They at least recognize that the computer network needs to keep humming, but usually if they don't understand your job, they think you are useless.
 
2014-01-22 02:30:19 PM

Ishkur: no they don't. In fact, they actually get MORE money through subsidies so their tax rate is actually negative 76.6%


You are cherry picking a bad year for them.  Here is a more in depth look

But according to an analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice, the company's 2011 effective tax rate was just 11.3 percent. Even worse, over a 10-year period from 2002-2011, the company paid $1.9 billion in taxes on $81.2 billion in profits, giving it and effective tax rate of 2.3% for the decade.

While they don't pay much, they do pay.  And again, if you don't like it, advocate for a change in tax policy.  I'll be there with you.
 
2014-01-22 02:30:20 PM
um...i hope people realize that the executive don't put the profits in their pockets...they pay shareholders and reinvest the money.   Shareholders are me and you...our 401Ks...essentially when corporations do good, your retirement increases...why don't people understand that?
 
2014-01-22 02:31:27 PM
I'm glad that I work for an ngo. I don't think my conscience would let me work for a company that made life changes for employees based upon profit.
 
2014-01-22 02:33:47 PM
With that 20 percent increased profit, I would think it would be feasible to retain and retrain quite a few loyal employees, or even top off the retirement funds of the less productive senior people to get them to retire. TI still retains a ton of profit, gets rid of dead weight, and loyal hardworking people keep working, paying taxes, eating out, taking vacations, etc., which moves the economy along. The government needs to find a way to incentivize retention and increased employment and benefits fast, or this country is going to 3rd world status in 20 years, and there's too many Americans with guns to let that happen quietly.
 
2014-01-22 02:34:52 PM

WhyKnot: um...i hope people realize that the executive don't put the profits in their pockets...they pay shareholders and reinvest the money.   Shareholders are me and you...our 401Ks...essentially when corporations do good, your retirement increases...why don't people understand that?


You think they invest 100% of what they make back to the shareholders and into R&D?
 
2014-01-22 02:35:47 PM

Magorn: so how the fark do they get away with charging that outrageous price for the calculator?


Some math teachers demand the students get exactly the model calculator they like.  So even though TI calculators are generally shiat (and always have been), they have a captive market.  TI just needs to target their marketing drones at the math professors.  No need to spend money marketing towards students.

/HP all the way, biatch
 
2014-01-22 02:35:54 PM

Lawnchair: Lollipop165: 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.

Because you  have stayed, here to date.

Trust me, I'm in the same boat as you. I'm theoretically half-time, but constantly have X, Y, & Z to do, "why isn't this done", "you could be doing this from home" and guilt-trip city.  And, like you, I 'like the guy' personally (and my co-workers, etc).  But, at some point, 'like the guy' is Stockholm Syndrome, and just because I should have quit 5 years ago doesn't mean I shouldn't quit today.

/ maybe tomorrow


This is the first time in 4 years I'm getting a raise. (Thanks, Obama! No, really, he's my boss a dozen layers removed)

But the deal I have is nice enough that I haven't found anything else that's better. That might be different if I want tied to a house, but as of yet, only one person I know has left during the pay freeze. So it's hard to argue that doing it was a bad idea. How much longer that is sustainable is another question.
 
2014-01-22 02:36:18 PM

Ishkur: We're no longer talking about the TFA, we're talking about what businesses do vs what they ought to do.


BS.  You argument was in response to my assertion of "The Company" (meaning TI) did have a profit company-wide but wanted to cut underperforming sectors.  My context here was never about businesses in general.

You got caught and are now moving the goalpost.
 
2014-01-22 02:36:53 PM

Fark_Guy_Rob: Imagine you own 5 stocks A,B,C,D and E. Over the last year your returns are


I'm going to stop you right there.  TI made HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN PROFIT!  Do not try to misdirect with a strawman argument about stocks.  These are PEOPLE.  They worked for the company, they helped make that profit, now they are getting the big FU because the company thinks it won't make that much profit the next quarter.  If anything, that company should be trying to use its resources to expand and improve instead of just squeezing more money out of itself.  And the people that they are laying off are their resources.

Corporate mentality is psychotic.
 
2014-01-22 02:38:22 PM

real_headhoncho: These are PEOPLE.  They worked for the company, they helped make that profit


Actually, they didn't as they are employed in underperforming sectors of this company.
 
2014-01-22 02:38:40 PM
Greedy employees, wanting pay?!? Don't they know the job creators need new leather seats in their jets?!?
 
2014-01-22 02:39:19 PM

HeadLever: Newfiesnowman: False, after all... Ford managed to recover with the aide of bells and whistles

Ford is not currently engaged in a dying sector (nor were they engaged in making buggy whips).  If they ever find themselves in that position, they will either adapt or be relegated to said dustbin.



I'd consider the Fiesta a buggy whip. Couple that with the host of transmission issues they have been having with eco-boost and you would normally have a recipe for disaster. The automobile industry isn't dying by any means, but the sector which doesn't not include Bluetooth certainly will in the coming years.

What they did do which IMO has turned them around since 2007ish is focus on aesthetics. Somewhere along the line they realized people now a days don't really care so much if it's a reliable vehicle as long as it looks nice, has a touch screen and blue tooth.

I guess they serve as a point for both arguments. The adapting and the bells and whistle's on a buggy whip.


As for the whole Layoffs with profits bit, if the mantra is tax increases reduce profits and profits create jobs. Then how can profits lead to layoffs? That's how trickle down economics is supposed to work.

I heard that 2 years from now there's gonna be a wicked bad storm. I have a lot put aside but can't go on vacation this year because I need to build a kick arse shelter for a storm that may or may not come. Anyone care to give me a loan?
 
2014-01-22 02:40:11 PM

real_headhoncho: Fark_Guy_Rob: Imagine you own 5 stocks A,B,C,D and E. Over the last year your returns are

I'm going to stop you right there.  TI made HALF A BILLION DOLLARS IN PROFIT!  Do not try to misdirect with a strawman argument about stocks.  These are PEOPLE.  They worked for the company, they helped make that profit, now they are getting the big FU because the company thinks it won't make that much profit the next quarter.  If anything, that company should be trying to use its resources to expand and improve instead of just squeezing more money out of itself.  And the people that they are laying off are their resources.

Corporate mentality is psychotic.


What if, and I have no data to back this, these people worked in unprofitable divisions and cost the company profit? Because, that's what TI is saying.
 
2014-01-22 02:40:17 PM

surewewang: CeroX: I was actually going to use the term profitable... But i work in IT, and IT is not a "profitable" division in any company. Most CFO's i've met hate the IT department because in their eyes the IT Dept is a black hole of money that they never see back on paper. I've been on the chopping block several times because companies want to raise the bottom line and the first place they make cuts is in IT.

But yes there is a difference between production and profit, I just didn't want to sound like the same CFO assholes I've had the displeasure of meeting. Mostly because when we meet with the CFO it means there's cuts to be made, either in budget or staffing, never the opposite.

If your company has a substantial IT department that they lean on considerably, congratulations, you are an IT company.  To think that the IT dept is some necessary black hole of money is complete shortsightedness on the part of upper mgmt to properly integrate IT with overall company operations.

[img.fark.net image 300x369]


Preaching to the choir... But yes, I've stood before 3 CFO's while they drone on about cutting budgets and staffing in our dept. They seem to always show the company profitability, then go on to show the profitability of other departments, then shows IT at the bottom, usually below the "profitability line" and in the "negative". And there is no explaining to them that Windows XP is considered by the Dept of Homeland Security to be a risk to national security and the 3000 machines in the field need to be upgraded, for example, because to them all they see is "$100/license x 3000 machines = Less profit".

I'm glad i work for a company now that understands that IT is the grease that keeps the gears running smoothly...
 
2014-01-22 02:42:03 PM

WhyKnot: um...i hope people realize that the executive don't put the profits in their pockets...they pay shareholders and reinvest the money.   Shareholders are me and you...our 401Ks...essentially when corporations do good, your retirement increases...why don't people understand that?


They absolutely do, but you are still right.  Look for things like this:  http://investor.northropgrumman.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=112386&p=irol-new s Article&ID=1821306&highlight= .  The company is planning buy back a ton of stock.  The upper management has a huge incentive to increase stock price because they are paid in stock performance.  They buy back a ton, layoff a ton of workers and the stock price increases because there is a lower bottom line.  They cash in WAY more than the average worker because they own something like a quarter million stocks as opposed to each employee owning maybe a few hundred through their 401k?

Anyways, correct point, but there is a dark side to it imho.
 
2014-01-22 02:43:20 PM

HeadLever: real_headhoncho: These are PEOPLE.  They worked for the company, they helped make that profit

Actually, they didn't as they are employed in underperforming sectors of this company.


Great then I'm sure in turn they won't mind massively increasing the wages for employees in the profitable areas. Oh, that's not happening? Huh.
 
2014-01-22 02:43:44 PM
And I guess subby's fortune 500 company is just constantly hiring?
 
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