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 111
    More: Obvious, Texas Instruments  
•       •       •

23010 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:59 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-22 12:07:46 PM
8 votes:

State_College_Arsonist: So, what, you want them to spend money on businesses that lose money?


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.

But that's not what Jesus would do, so no.
2014-01-22 12:43:18 PM
7 votes:

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.
2014-01-22 12:09:42 PM
7 votes:
So where are the job creators? All I see are profit hungry rich corporations making some record profits who pay less to their employees (or don't give raises) and laying off some of them despite the earnings.

Now the reality probably is that those 1100 terminations will be the longer employed folks who are at a higher pay rate than the newbies who will be replacing them.

/The only company I've good things about that I can recall is Costco.
2014-01-22 12:19:30 PM
6 votes:
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.
2014-01-22 01:32:24 PM
5 votes:
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 01:23:17 PM
5 votes:
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 01:01:45 PM
5 votes:
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.  TI can't find any other more profitable projects for these skilled folks to work on?  Retraining?  Moving expenses?  You can't tell me they can't afford it, there's just no human compassion there.  Profit is too often an excuse.  If a venture, large or small, requires human beings to provide skill, labor, or both in order to create profit, then it needs to consider real human needs, not pretend people are inanimate resources.

As far as the supposition that this loss represents a lack of hiring, for the first part we can't know if that's really the case, however likely it may be.  Second, it's only slightly better; they've effectively cut the salaries of everyone involved by increasing their workload without compensation.  Not endangerment like I said, but still exploitative behavior where the owners foist all the risk and fallout onto workers while they profit on top of profit.
2014-01-22 12:06:28 PM
5 votes:
www.quickmeme.com
3.bp.blogspot.com
2014-01-22 12:04:03 PM
5 votes:
But I thought corporations were a magical machine that turned profit into jobs. You mean to say that businesses somtimes don't automatically hire new people when they make money? What kind of socialist country is this!
2014-01-22 12:03:08 PM
5 votes:
Clearly we need to lower corporate taxes and elect more republicans.
2014-01-22 02:07:16 PM
4 votes:
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 01:52:35 PM
4 votes:
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 12:30:13 PM
4 votes:
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.
2014-01-22 12:20:26 PM
4 votes:
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.
2014-01-22 02:15:41 PM
3 votes:

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 02:02:21 PM
3 votes:

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 01:36:34 PM
3 votes:
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 01:08:25 PM
3 votes:

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.
2014-01-22 12:58:12 PM
3 votes:
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.
2014-01-22 12:54:50 PM
3 votes:

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.


A buggy whip manufacturer has the supply chain and manufacturing facilities to produce other leather goods.

TI has the supply chain and manufacturing facilities to produce other electronics.

An employee can't build things he's not told to.
2014-01-22 12:43:19 PM
3 votes:
I work in the DFW area.

TI has a horrible reputation around here as an employer. One thing that is typical of their behavior is right before you hit 20 years you suddenly get hit with a bunch of negative job reviews and are laid off.
m00
2014-01-22 12:31:29 PM
3 votes:
This sort of thing is the systemic failure of Wall Street.

Large corporations cut workers amidst profits to boost revenue lines on graphs so investors value the stock. Market capitalization has become more important than net worth when determining future outlook. The problem is that Wall Street gets to decide who wins and who loses in the market (as opposed to consumers), and they do it with share price, so that has become the only important thing. Because all businesses have some outstanding debt (you're not maximizing your profits unless you do), and the debt-holders which typically are on Wall Street care more about share price than earnings.
2014-01-22 12:23:33 PM
3 votes:

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.
2014-01-22 12:06:19 PM
3 votes:
imgs.xkcd.com
I hope crappy-calculator-guy isn't one of those 1,100.
2014-01-22 02:36:53 PM
2 votes:

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 02:33:47 PM
2 votes:
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 02:09:55 PM
2 votes:
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?
kab
2014-01-22 02:09:25 PM
2 votes:

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 02:05:33 PM
2 votes:
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 02:04:10 PM
2 votes:

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 02:02:43 PM
2 votes:

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 01:36:26 PM
2 votes:

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 01:34:33 PM
2 votes:

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 01:04:31 PM
2 votes:

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
2014-01-22 12:50:34 PM
2 votes:

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.


So how's the job search going?
2014-01-22 12:08:27 PM
2 votes:
We had the home office fire nearly all the software developers to "increase the profits."   This was the same management that said they liked software sales because they made $4MM on one product and it wasn't costing them anything.   I pointed out that I had spent $600K two years earlier developing that product but they don't have any concept of things that go beyond the quarterly report.
2014-01-22 12:03:00 PM
2 votes:
In a way those 1,100 employees will now be partially responsible for the 1,000,000,000 mark so they should feel good about that.

/team players all of them
2014-01-23 12:26:01 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: Lastly before I quit this post for good


Before you do, can you post that CBO graph again? That's like your own personal "potato!" card. It really encapsulates, in visual poetry, how stubborn and resistant you are to any new information. That your ego is so entrenched that you cannot stand being challenged on any topic, and that your immediate reaction is to fall back on something you found a long time ago on a WeathNOW! economic endtimes blog.

HeadLever: Especially when you have to change the context of the argument from what you actually quoted to another unrelated post


I did not. I showed you this already.

Here is your post: #c88857367
Here is my reply, linking to it in the first line: http://www.fark.com/comments/8110851/88857367#c88857367

So you're wrong. Objectively and factually wrong. I've proven you wrong. Over and over again. I don't know how much clearer I can make that. I know you can't admit when you're wrong (unlike me. I have admitted when I'm wrong even in arguments with you), but you're going to have to eat this one. Relax. Lick your wounds move on with your life. No one's keeping score here. It's not that important in the grand scheme of things.
2014-01-23 11:36:44 AM
1 votes:

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Suppose you have a business that has 1,000 employees and it's making a profit.  But an assessment is done and it's found that with some rearranging of how to do things, 900 employees can do the work that needs to be done without them being overworked.  Why should you have to keep 100 employees on the payroll that really aren't needed just because you're making a profit?


Because I am a decent human being who would care about my employees, and would feel terrible for having to let anyone go that didn't deserve to be let go?

If I was still making profit (ie. did not need to cut costs to stay in the black / green) I'd find some way to not fire 10% of my workforce, or at the least ensure I was able to give sufficient severance packages and early retirements and such.
2014-01-23 04:24:29 AM
1 votes:

Ishkur: HeadLever: wrong. The purpose of a company is to make a living for its owner

You misread my argument. I know what a company's purpose is, I'm arguing from an ought imperative, not an is.

HeadLever: When you only look at profit and ignore the rest of the business, you are not going to be in business very long

That does seem to be the modus operandi of most business owners these days (especially publicly traded corps). No one's interested in long term sustainable growth. fark that -- ain't nobody got time for dat. It's all about the quick payoff now. Get in, spike the punch bowl, rev up indexes for a few quarters, then cash out. Leave a crater of unemployment and human misery where ever you go, use your profits to raid the next corp. Rinse. Repeat.

I call this behavior Vampire Capitalism, for obvious reasons.


They learned this behavior from the banksters that are plundering entire national economies at the moment.  Check out the new nuclear power plants being built in england...the chinese and french own em and the prices are being fixed to double the rate payer's bill so the french and chinese get the desired rate of return.  Meanwhile england gets in exchange...the ability to export pig jizz to china.  China also gets majority stakes in future power plant deals...they have a minority stake in the current one.

/banksters!
2014-01-22 10:48:35 PM
1 votes:

Mobutu: 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?

Uh, because my 401k lost 20% through 2012 (as in, it was up above $20k total, and then dropped to less than $16k in a year...) and then I had to cash it in to survive while job-hunting when the merger resulted in my being fired with no severance, denied unemployment, only to now have a lower-paying job as a contractor with no paid vacation, barely any insurance, and no 401k?  All while the cost of living has increased?


I went through something similar when the dot com boom went bust.  Lost my job along with a million other techies in the region.  Couldn't get anything but shiat jobs for over a year.  My (ex)wife biatching at me because I wasn't bringing home the big bucks.  So I cashed in my 401k, which got us more money than my wife made in a year, but she still biatched about me not making any money and I wasn't trying hard enough to find a job.  I at least got unemployment for a while.

On the other hand, I'm now making more money with excellent benefits and so much vacation time that I can't seem to use it fast enough.   Unloading that excess baggage of the biatch wife and her drug crazed daughter was a bonus.
2014-01-22 07:46:29 PM
1 votes:

Sergeant Grumbles: Loreweaver: After having myself and my brother-in-law downsized from or jobs, only to find out we were immediately replaced by people working for a portion of our salaries, YES I DO have a hatred of corporations. I've already cited what happened to my BiL, so let me tell you what happened to me:

I used to have a job making cell phone interface and technical support software. We got a new VP who took one look at the balance sheet and laid off the entire department before I finished my morning coffee. We were sent out the door so fast I didn't have time to grab my lunch, still in the break room fridge. Sent the whole gig to Hungary, or so I was told by the survivors, a few luckless souls kept on as underpaid contractors to finish up the loose ends.

Turns out Hungary wasn't such a hot idea. The work started trickling back, but instead of full time positions, almost the entirety of the work was done by part-time interns making <$10/hr.

And I know I'm hardly unique. It may not happen all at once, but this shared experience is really going to bite the capitalist class/corporations in the ass. Look at what it's done here. Even if this was a legitimate business decision done with the best possible intentions for employees and the company, WE WON'T BELIEVE IT. We've been getting burned so many farking times it's all we're expecting out of the fire, and the corporate class just keeps turning up the heat. If it's anything Millenials are guilty of, it's not laziness, it's apathy. Why continue working hard when every experience you've ever had has told you that extra effort is going straight into someone else's pocket, you will be discarded afterwards, and replaced with someone cheaper who hasn't gotten the message yet?


I have to very much agree with the last paragraph.

Work just hard enough not to get fired. Working more than that is pointless, unless you get some extra benefit, like if you're the owner, or on commission.
2014-01-22 06:24:12 PM
1 votes:

Loreweaver: After having myself and my brother-in-law downsized from or jobs, only to find out we were immediately replaced by people working for a portion of our salaries, YES I DO have a hatred of corporations. I've already cited what happened to my BiL, so let me tell you what happened to me:


I used to have a job making cell phone interface and technical support software. We got a new VP who took one look at the balance sheet and laid off the entire department before I finished my morning coffee. We were sent out the door so fast I didn't have time to grab my lunch, still in the break room fridge. Sent the whole gig to Hungary, or so I was told by the survivors, a few luckless souls kept on as underpaid contractors to finish up the loose ends.

Turns out Hungary wasn't such a hot idea. The work started trickling back, but instead of full time positions, almost the entirety of the work was done by part-time interns making <$10/hr.

And I know I'm hardly unique. It may not happen all at once, but this shared experience is really going to bite the capitalist class/corporations in the ass. Look at what it's done here. Even if this was a legitimate business decision done with the best possible intentions for employees and the company, WE WON'T BELIEVE IT. We've been getting burned so many farking times it's all we're expecting out of the fire, and the corporate class just keeps turning up the heat. If it's anything Millenials are guilty of, it's not laziness, it's apathy. Why continue working hard when every experience you've ever had has told you that extra effort is going straight into someone else's pocket, you will be discarded afterwards, and replaced with someone cheaper who hasn't gotten the message yet?
2014-01-22 05:59:27 PM
1 votes:

Nutsac_Jim: 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.


After having myself and my brother-in-law downsized from or jobs, only to find out we were immediately replaced by people working for a portion of our salaries, YES I DO have a hatred of corporations. I've already cited what happened to my BiL, so let me tell you what happened to me:

Back in 2001, I had been working in the IT department of a company for 5 years as a software developer (and DB admin, and Systems Integrator). My signature creation was a suite of self-recovering real-time business transaction software. It was basically designed so that it could recover from any kind of failure, without loss of data, and without needing human intervention. This software *had* to be bullet-proof, because it was responsible for handling and tracking $millions each month in sales, inventory and shipping control, and filling orders for their dealerships and contractors.

So good was this software at its job of self-maintenance, that they felt they no longer needed someone like me to maintain it. Spending $40k/yr to maintain and expand a system that flawlessly handled millions in sales each month, was just too pricey  for them. It was cheaper to hire some fresh-out-of-college kid, with no actual programming skills, to monitor the software for $7/hr.

I managed to get only a small amount of revenge on them, by charging them 5x my former hourly rate, whenever they needed me to come in as an "independent contractor" to add features to the software, or replace aging hardware.
2014-01-22 05:14:39 PM
1 votes:

mangeybear: jst3p: mangeybear: So you're suggesting that we unionize everyone, right?

Is it easier to trying and counter points you pretended people said?

I'm just trying to get you to clarify:  if negotiations between parties with unequal resources is the "evil" that we we control with laws and unions (am I misrepresenting you?), then you have to apply laws and unions everywhere, right?


Laws yes, unions not so much. I made it pretty clear that there is greater need for protection for unskilled labor. And I don't think they are a requirement but there are groups that discourage their existence and those people should stop.
2014-01-22 05:07:53 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: Carn: You can look at that chart and say "welfare is too high" or you can say "wages are too low".

The wages are accounted for on the X-axis and is the independent variable.  They can be whatever you want it to be.


I'm talking about wage suppression and raising the minimum wage to a living wage.  If you think that there are people who think about things in terms of "well I can earn this much or I can earn a lot less and get lots of tasty welfare and thus earn more in total" then you can very easily encourage people to work by providing better wages in general.
2014-01-22 04:54:41 PM
1 votes:

oh_please: Greylight: A willingness to sell out your neighbor and preserve your lifestyle because times are tough is not the basis for an economic system, maaan!

Who's selling out their neighbors in this scenario? I'm confused.


Those who would treat buisness profit as a priority over a healthy and sustainable society. Not specifically pointing out any individual or even this article as an example, but contributing to the overall conversation about sustainable economic systems. To paraphrase, profit is neutral, putting the importance of profits at too high of a value looses sight of the goal of our social contract in the first place.

When buisnesses start their own countries, they can have their own social contracts. Until then they must always take a back seat to the interests of citizens, who alone are equals in our social contract.

/now hush before I get needlessly wordy some more
2014-01-22 04:30:43 PM
1 votes:

BMFPitt: That's the point. The entire basis of your argument that business owners bring nothing to the table relies on ignoring this fact.


My assertion is that the working class can survive and forge a new society without a capitalist class.  A capitalist class cannot survive without a working class.
2014-01-22 04:27:12 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: But that is not currently the case, is it. Therefore, you assertion that you need to work to eat is bunk.


That's a great graph.  But how many people do you know that do not work one single job and rely solely on the social safety net (let's leave off the disable, and others who really cannot work).  Show me that statistic, show me how many leeches we have on the dole. You still have to work.  The only people that have completely emancipated themselves from having to work is the capitalist class.

You're advocating for a society that benefits the exception, I advocate for a society that benefits the rule, i.e. the working class
2014-01-22 04:20:15 PM
1 votes:

WhyKnot: FarkedOver: WhyKnot: did the employer bring a gun and force people to work? Didn't think so. The boss had the idea, the initiative to make it happen, and the risk associated with payroll if money ran out. if the employer ran out of money, would the employee have forgone a paycheck, of course not, they would have sued the employer personally. So essentially the employee got the bargin he/she was looking for; that was until said employee learned that the boss was going to make more, then everything became 'unfair'. that being said, I am a moral creature, if the employer made millions slugging it out in the trenches with other employees, maybe he should have broken off a piece. That being said, morality doesn't mean he was legally required (which I see you acknowledge). Your argument about the Constitution is silly...maybe even completely backwards...in a free market where actors are free to act or not, if two people agree on certain services for a certain wage, well then that is each party's right. To go back after the fact and try to require the employer to give more to the employees beyond the original agreement, well then that is being dishonest by the employee.

This whole paragraph is based on the assumption that work is voluntary in a capitalist society.  This does not happen to be true.  In any society you can choose not to work.  If you do not work you will not eat unless you resort to crime or rely on charity.  This statement is true in a free market economy as well. 
Now this brings up the point that since there is no other real alternative to having to work, having the "choice" (barring many other factors, as we all know it is always not a matter of our choosing) is merely an illusion of freedom. The entire human condition is based on the labor of mankind.  Man is defined by how he labors to change nature to his will.  You will always work, paid or unpaid in any society capitalist or otherwise.

what are you talking about?  each of these employees could have been innovative and started their own business...right?   i mean, according to your logic the employer is no more responsible for his/her success than the employees...thus the employees can just as easy stop their current employment and become the employer.


Damn, dude.

I've read the entire thread and have yet to see you post anything remotely true, or display any shred of reason.

Think, man, think.

As for the topic at hand, the question comes down to a fundamental moral decision;

Should companies exist solely to make profit at the expense of employment and livelihood, or, should companies exist for the employment and livelihood of society, at the expense of profits.

I'm for the latter, and will simply not agree with the former, which is, unfortunately, what we currently live with.
2014-01-22 04:20:09 PM
1 votes:

Girl Sailor: 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?


If anything, the employees take on more risk. If the company fails, they lose their livelihood. The CEOs will just bail with a sweet multi-million dollar golden parachute *coughEnroncough*
2014-01-22 04:14:42 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: FarkedOver: In any society you can choose not to work.  If you do not work you will not eat unless you resort to crime or rely on charity.

Never heard of social welfare, I take it?


I have and conservatives are doing their best to destroy the social safety net.  There's actually an interesting study out there from the UK that says if you just give homeless people money they are actually a lot more productive than if they rely on the safety net.  I will try to find a link if you're interested :)
2014-01-22 03:47:21 PM
1 votes:

oh_please: MayoSlather: oh_please: Holy crap, just about every post on this thread should end with "YEAHHH, MAAAANNN"

Yeah, well you know dissent should be automatically labeled and associated with something fatuous so everyone can readily dismiss it as nonsense.

I'm all for dissent when it's warranted, but a corp that is laying off .03% of it's workforce to cut unprofitable divisions...well, all the outrage here just seems like a circlejerk.

YEAHHH, MAAAAAAANNN!


Well, continue believing that if you enjoy watching the middle class erode. It's wonderful corporations get to act like cold machines when laying people off while collecting record profits as a whole, and subsequently like hippies when regulations are passed, decrying "Don't tread on us, mannnn!"
2014-01-22 03:24:56 PM
1 votes:

Rex Kramer - Danger Seeker: Uh, because my 401k lost 20% through 2012 (as in, it was up above $20k total, and then dropped to less than $16k in a year...) and then I had to cash it in to survive while job-hunting when the merger resulted in my being fired with no severance, denied unemployment, only to now have a lower-paying job as a contractor with no paid vacation, barely any insurance, and no 401k?  All while the cost of living has increased?

You were laid off after a merger and they denied unemployment?


I survived the lay-off, then they tripled my work-load and began harping on me for every little thing until able to fire me some 6 months after the main lay-offs.  Then they denied unemployment and I had to cash in my life's savings.

All this after 10 years as, per my bosses - not my words - been "an example and model for all other support personnel."

Note that the company is involved in the for-profit prison BS and had gone from family-owned and a few million dollars annual income around 2004 to completely corporate and 1.2 billion annual by 2012.
2014-01-22 03:09:59 PM
1 votes:

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.


It's not about being special or not, or even who took the bigger risk - the boss in this example didn't work alone, and owes his business success to his employees. This just highlights inherent unfairness of capitalism, where those who are owners make all the money while those who aren't owners do the majority of the labor, and are compensated, but at the lowest wage possible (as determined by the market) so the owner can maximize his take-home. The boss was not legally responsible to pay the employees more than their salary, but to say that someone is not owned or entitled to anything denies even the fundamental rights in the constitution. Outside of the constitution, some would say that the boss was ethically responsible to share his wealth with those who helped him earn it, and that receiving a fair, equal portion of the return from your work is an inalienable right. Saying otherwise means that there is no inherent value in work, only in the capital gained, which is another way of saying the ends justify the means. A criticism of capitalism is that the means - the work put in by people, and their subsequent quality of life - are much more important than the ends - increased returns for the owners.
2014-01-22 03:01:33 PM
1 votes:

oh_please: Holy crap, just about every post on this thread should end with "YEAHHH, MAAAANNN"


Yeah, well you know dissent should be automatically labeled and associated with something fatuous so everyone can readily dismiss it as nonsense.
2014-01-22 02:58:06 PM
1 votes:

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?


Uh, because my 401k lost 20% through 2012 (as in, it was up above $20k total, and then dropped to less than $16k in a year...) and then I had to cash it in to survive while job-hunting when the merger resulted in my being fired with no severance, denied unemployment, only to now have a lower-paying job as a contractor with no paid vacation, barely any insurance, and no 401k?  All while the cost of living has increased?
2014-01-22 02:55:47 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: HeadLever: You are cherry picking a bad year for them.

2.3%?

Your link doesn't exactly vindicate your argument.


And that rate's only on profit.

Could you imagine if we proles only paid 2.3% taxes, let alone 2.3% on what's left over after housing, food, transportation, utilities, etc.?
2014-01-22 02:47:12 PM
1 votes:

MayoSlather: 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.


lol. Nice!
2014-01-22 02:47:12 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: You are cherry picking a bad year for them.


2.3%?

Your link doesn't exactly vindicate your argument.
2014-01-22 02:43:20 PM
1 votes:

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 02:42:03 PM
1 votes:

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 02:26:45 PM
1 votes:

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 02:25:01 PM
1 votes:

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 02:17:38 PM
1 votes:

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 02:15:36 PM
1 votes:

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 02:09:09 PM
1 votes:

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."
2014-01-22 02:03:21 PM
1 votes:

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 01:54:05 PM
1 votes:

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
2014-01-22 01:53:00 PM
1 votes:

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 01:50:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:49:41 PM
1 votes:
"Fire one million."

i.imgur.com
2014-01-22 01:47:24 PM
1 votes:

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 01:42:41 PM
1 votes:

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 01:36:32 PM
1 votes:

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 01:32:58 PM
1 votes:
A business headline next fiscal quarter: "TI announces new Chinese factory that will employ 5000 workers."

Suck it Americans!
2014-01-22 01:31:57 PM
1 votes:

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 01:29:56 PM
1 votes:

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 01:27:13 PM
1 votes:
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 01:26:23 PM
1 votes:
Thank for getting us here! Now fark off.
2014-01-22 01:24:20 PM
1 votes:

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 01:23:03 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:36 PM
1 votes:

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 01:18:28 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: wrong. The purpose of a company is to make a living for its owner


You misread my argument. I know what a company's purpose is, I'm arguing from an ought imperative, not an is.

HeadLever: When you only look at profit and ignore the rest of the business, you are not going to be in business very long


That does seem to be the modus operandi of most business owners these days (especially publicly traded corps). No one's interested in long term sustainable growth. fark that -- ain't nobody got time for dat. It's all about the quick payoff now. Get in, spike the punch bowl, rev up indexes for a few quarters, then cash out. Leave a crater of unemployment and human misery where ever you go, use your profits to raid the next corp. Rinse. Repeat.

I call this behavior Vampire Capitalism, for obvious reasons.
2014-01-22 01:02:27 PM
1 votes:
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.
2014-01-22 12:59:32 PM
1 votes:
The problem here is not the workers.  The problem here is the overall capitalistic nature of work.  Workers are becoming too specialized.  For instance from the conception of a product to the completion of the product capitalism and the capitalist has promoted the division of labor and divorced the worker from the product by having the worker maybe only turn 2 screws before handing it off to the next person in line to tighten a bolt (for example).  In this quest for efficiency, the capitalist has dumbed down the workforce.  The worker has no interest in the final product, the worker may not even know or understand what the final product is.

Now, I'm not saying that one worker should create one product.  I am saying the worker should have a basic understanding of what he/she creates.  I believe the worker should create a product in the spirit of cooperation rather than in the spirit of I just need a pay check (this is a much deeper subject)....
2014-01-22 12:54:13 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: 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.


You're so cute.
2014-01-22 12:53:28 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-22 12:50:23 PM
1 votes:

Ishkur: Yeah, we need to get out of this mindset.


So if we are not going to work for money, what are we going to work for?

The purpose of a company is to provide a useful product, service or benefit to humanity.

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.

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.

When you only look at profit and ignore the rest of the business, you are not going to be in business very long.To be a successful company, you are going to need to be able to discern where you company is doing good and where it is lacking.  That analysis is independent of current profit.
2014-01-22 12:49:57 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: tricycleracer: Well, it shows that management was too farking stupid to utilize the skills of 1100 people to create money, so there's that.

Yep, because those managers in the buggy whip sector were too stupid to manage the employee skills in a way to create money.


They had poor product development.  That's a management failure.
2014-01-22 12:48:23 PM
1 votes:

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?
2014-01-22 12:39:18 PM
1 votes:
I thought all they made was calculators.
2014-01-22 12:36:55 PM
1 votes:
When I think of Texas Instruments, I think of:

upload.wikimedia.org
2014-01-22 12:36:44 PM
1 votes:

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!


Well, it shows that management was too farking stupid to utilize the skills of 1100 people to create money, so there's that.
2014-01-22 12:33:10 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: oh_please: Which has nothing to do with Texas Instruments.

Oops, got the name wrong, but my point is the same.  TI's Profit margin is about 16%.  The area of concern that they have is sales and income growth is decreasing.


I know you goofed, just had to call it.

According to the limited info in TFA, they're actually trying to look forward for the long term. If they didn't and subsequently went under, these same Farkers who are wringing their hands over this would be smugly saying, "dumbass company, kept betting on buggy whips ha ha"
2014-01-22 12:25:32 PM
1 votes:

MeSoHomely: That seriously sucks, but the consequences of saving those employees vs. reducing profitability (and pissing off the stockholders) are not pretty.


Or maybe getting rid of crappy divisions before they drag your company down and put everyone out of work once the IPad stuff stops generating insane revenue
2014-01-22 12:22:48 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: What's the percentage? For a global company that big maybe that size profit is missing the mark.

HP has a pretty decent profit margin, currently.  It sounds like the issue with them is a somewhat bleak outlook for income in 2014.


Which has nothing to do with Texas Instruments.
2014-01-22 12:20:20 PM
1 votes:
So you would prefer they expend money on employees they don't need, so they can run out of money faster and take down the company so EVERYBODY loses their job...

I swear Libtards are like spoiled children. "I wanna pony!" "We don't have any place to keep it"

"I DON'T CARE! I WANNA PONY!!"
2014-01-22 12:20:05 PM
1 votes:
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!
2014-01-22 12:19:56 PM
1 votes:
Were these folks told "If you like your job you can keep it, period?"
2014-01-22 12:12:08 PM
1 votes:
Meh, athletes get cut after helping win championships too. Im sure this will disolve into one of those threads where some of you tell people what they should be doing with their own money.
2014-01-22 12:10:53 PM
1 votes:
Clearly since the CEO bears the most responsibility and risk, he was the first to go?
2014-01-22 12:09:23 PM
1 votes:
Why would they get out of mobile phone chipsets?  You can sell the same (or similar) chips every 2 years to the same people.
2014-01-22 12:06:24 PM
1 votes:
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.
2014-01-22 12:05:52 PM
1 votes:
Meh... I'm normally anti-corporation, but it's 1,100 jobs world wide. It's not like when my previous employer turned into a sinking ship and they were eliminating 1,000 jobs every other week at 1 location until they sank a year later and went under.
2014-01-22 12:05:16 PM
1 votes:
Greedheads.
2014-01-22 12:04:37 PM
1 votes:

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.
2014-01-22 12:03:17 PM
1 votes:
Free market nirvana
2014-01-22 12:02:36 PM
1 votes:
The employees need to get ready with those bootstraps!
2014-01-22 12:01:31 PM
1 votes:
I blame regulations and taxes.
2014-01-22 12:01:29 PM
1 votes:
So, what, you want them to spend money on businesses that lose money?
 
Displayed 111 of 111 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report