Slashdot Mirror


Corel Cuts 220 Jobs to Save $12M

Cecil writes "Just saw this story on the City of Ottawa's website: 'The Software maker Corel Corp. is cutting 220 jobs - more than a fifth of its workforce - in a bid to reduce costs and return to profitability amid weak technology spending.'" Of course, this stinks for those who are laid off, but hopefully Corel can turn things around.

18 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Understaffing by SexyKellyOsbourne · · Score: 0, Insightful

    At every job in America today, fewer workers are being used to work more hours -- often in states with no overtime laws, and/or under salaried pay -- simply for the sake of CEO's profits and short-term stock gains.

    Where does management think that, by understaffing every company, outsourcing every IT job to India, exporting entire factories to neo-colonial slave labor camps in China and Mexico, understaffing the jobs that actually remain, and so forth will save their company?

    They're killing the geese that lay their golden eggs by seeing wages as unnecessary expenses and firing every American worker in sight.

    The MBAs of Wharton and Harvard who run the country are going to have a lot of explaining to do once the economy truly crashes and burns, as they have gutted the entire American industrial base with their selfish management.

    1. Re:Understaffing by Auckerman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "The MBAs of Wharton and Harvard who run the country are going to have a lot of explaining to do once the economy truly crashes and burns, as they have gutted the entire American industrial base with their selfish management."

      I've always thought that an economic slump is the BEST time to agressive hire the best workers so that when the times change, they are in a great position by having the best on staff in place. People without money (cause they lost jobs) won't buy half ass products (due to having smaller staffs working on them). It's as simple as that. Times like this is when companies should be MORE aggressive and buy every good idea and worker, because they will sell for less and be more likely to be grateful when times turn around.

      Whatever, it's not like I studied economic theory...

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    2. Re:Understaffing by livio · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Welcome to globalization! :-)

      In a lot of third world or developing countries these kind of work conditions are very common. In Brazil, for example, a lot of our economically active people are not in a "legally" contracted.

      This is just recently hitting America and Europe and people there are starting to loose jobs and/or work for low salaries... but that's just the way capitalism and globalization works... the lowest price always gets the deal.

      The tendency to remove economic barriers between countries is becoming stronger, and these are the consequences... just be glad you weren't unlucky to be born in one America's/Europe's economic "colonies".

    3. Re:Understaffing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll play Devil's advocate here.

      American workers are expensive. Not only in wages, which are maybe a third of the total cost of an employee. Health benefits, unions, severance pay, etc: I'm not arguing against these things, but from an employer's standpoint, they add up quickly.

      Throw in the current structure of American law, which places enormous liabilities upon employers, which makes hiring employees like playing russian roulette. Many modern hiring practices (contractors, part-time workers) are only used to eliminate part of this risk.

      Which would you do?
      A) Employ 100 american workers. Be prepared for a potential lawsuit. Deal with union problems every 2-5 years.
      B) Employ 25 American workers to manage things + 150 overseas guys (@ 1/3 the price) and cut the risk of lawsuits by ~50%. Have the extreme gratitude of the overseas workers.

      I'm not choosing one over another, but the situation is certainly more open to debate than you make it out to be.

  2. Nothing new... by EverStoned · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I haven't heard of any Corel developments for a looonng time, it was inevitable that the company would start to go under, what with better, and often free, or even open source programs.

  3. Typical corporate stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They could've cut 12 executives and saved $24M.

  4. Good bye great Office Suite by pardasaniman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think that Corel's failure was the fact that people pirate MS Office, and don't care to try out less expensive office suites.

    In my opinion Corel Office was much more intuitive, yet, in my school, there is not one person excluding myself who doesn't pirate software. In fact teachers indirectly encourage students to get MS Office off Kazaa or "to borrow it from a friend"

    It is really really sick.

    We must stop piracy in the education system, it'll save good companies like Corel.

  5. Why the buyin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, this stinks for those who are laid off, but hopefully Corel can turn things around.

    Doesn't this stink for more than just the people who got laid off? Does the idea that a corporation can layoff dedicated workers not meet with challenge these days? The anti-union attitudes of /. editors is astouding sometimes.

    What ever happened to the idea that if you dedicate a major portion of your life to a company, you deserve something a little more than just money for 40 hrs/week--like job stability for example.

    The US has gone from a "right to work" country to a "right to get fired" country, almost within a few years. The focus on "keeping corporations profitable EVERY SINGLE YEAR" is absurd.

    1. Re:Why the buyin? by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Part of the problem is that all of the young hotshot twenty-somethings don't yet realize that they're on the block next.

      These kids went to school, got headhunted, got a $40k salary and got stock options just like that without ever really having to think about anything. Sure, they think they're working hard, but there's just no comparison, for example, to the much more grim and realistic world experienced by kids graduating from college during the Carter years (to chose an epoch at random). The economic slide hasn't hit the current group of young adults hard enough yet; they still believe it's the nature of existence to have cash in hand and food on table and they basically consider anyone who doesn't to be a lazy bum or an idiot. They have no connection whatsoever to the concept that one can be qualified, willing, and actively searching for work and yet still end up starving.

      Give it a few years. If this economic downturn starts to hit enough dotcom kids, you'll begin to hear Athese same anti-union love-Bush American kids begin to cry like babies and maybe even have some sympathy not only for laid off Americans but also for other peoples around the world, who even today in the first world are struggling much harder in many places.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    2. Re:Why the buyin? by Metrol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The anti-union attitudes of /. editors is astouding sometimes

      A company is not a social program. Once more, a company is not a social program.

      A company, any company, exists to provide a product or service that results in what most folks hope is a positive cash flow. If that is the result, it will grow. In that growth will certainly be newer jobs.

      The reverse is also true. If a company has proven that it cannot make money, it will shrink. In it's shrinking, fewer employment opportunities exist.

      No union, legislation, or any other happy thoughts can change this basic economic fact. When a company, like Corel, is no longer producing products that customers wish to buy, fewer jobs will result. How can you maintain staffing rates of old when you no longer have the cash to pay them?

      The US has gone from a "right to work" country to a "right to get fired" country, almost within a few years. The focus on "keeping corporations profitable EVERY SINGLE YEAR" is absurd.

      Nevermind the fact that we're actually talking about CANADA here. There has never been, in ANY nation a "right to work". Oh sure, there have been lofty attempts with subsequent failures, but the concept simply doesn't exist in the wild.

      First off, a "right" is not what someone does for you. A "right" is what the government can not do to you. Just as true in Canada as the US, or any other country for that matter. At most, something a government does for you could only be described as a "social program".

      Please refer to the beginning of this post... repeat as needed.

      --
      The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
    3. Re:Why the buyin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A company is not a social program. Once more, a company is not a social program.

      You are stating your opinion about what companies should be, not what they must be. Once more, you are stating your opinion about what companies should be, not what they must be.

      What is a company? A legal fiction of an individual? A registered organization that does business and is run by a set of bylaws on file the secretary of state? Is it more than that?

      A company is anything the legislature (state or federal) says it is. There's no inherent right of companies. By contrast, there are inherent rights that people posses. (Our founding documents called these "inalienable rights", meaning that we cannot by contract abrogate them. E.g., you cannot literally sell yourself into slavery even voluntarily, because the freedom you have is part of your humanity, and is not a mere interest or state in property.)

      Anyway, the elevation of companies to individual status is a long process, but nearly complete. You can be sued for slandering a company (and are more likely to than slandering an individual!). A company has rights to due process, often more than individuals who are poor.

      And now on /., we see the growing opinion that companies have the right to be left alone by the very state that gives them ANY life or existence.

      Well not on my watch. New flash: COMPANIES ARE CREATIONS OF THE STATE. They are fictions; they exist only so long as they do what the state tells them to do. They have no "inherent" rights to fuck over workers. When it comes to priorities, I place a greater priority on the rights, wellbeing and dignity of people, and less on the "rights" of companies to engage in sharp practices, screw over workers, pay outrageous bonuses to dishonest management, and fire the workers when, for a few years, things are not profitable.

      In our society, at one time, and perhaps once again someday, goverment serves the needs of the PEOPLE, and not the corporations that dominate donations and fund raising.

  6. Corel's problems... by markv242 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    IMHO, Corel has gotten itself into this rut because it has tried to create too much with too little.

    Draw, Wordperfect, Office, etc etc. All the while they're creating ports of .Net to FreeBSD (that won't generate any revenue) and other various frivolous projects. This is a little bit like the plight of Sonic Foundry; getting into video and creating five different audio suites really dilutes the manpower to create great applications.

    What Corel needs to do is concentrate on one product and make sure it's the best in the business. Go after Photoshop. Go after Office (well, on second thought, don't). But don't go after both at the same time.

  7. Re:Brain Drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Part of writing is to get the point across as clearly and succinctly as possible. Bad spelling and grammar obscure the point and make the post hard to understand.

    People may understand your point despite the fact that you write poorly, but if you write well, they will understand your point more easily. Given the same point made by a poster with good grammar and one with bad grammar, the poster who has good grammar is more likely to be taken seriously.

    If you have a problem with that, I suggest you spend your time teaching others proper grammar, so bad grammar becomes less prevalent, and corrections to that bad grammar become less prevalent as well.

  8. Re:Not surprising... by God!+Awful · · Score: 4, Insightful


    This is a prime example of a company getting into a business they really didn't understand (Corel),

    Getting into businesses they don't understand is the norm for Corel. In the last 10 years, they have jumped on every single bandwagon that has come along (and been burned every time):

    - WordPerfect (it's been through so many hands, it deserves its own bandwagon)
    - Java (e.g. the ill fated WP port)
    - Network Appliances (a.k.a. Internet Toaster)
    - Linux
    - The Silicon Valley lifestyle ($50 million company Christmas parties)

    I was offered a job there about 10 years ago. They bragged about the office suite strategy in the interview. I thought it sounded like a pipe dream.

    -a

  9. Re:Now would be the time for Apple to step in... by JudasBlue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And that would be about the time that Apple committed suicide.

    It is critical to Apple that MS keep making Office for the Mac. It isn't anywhere near as critical for MS to keep the Mac marketshare of Office. I have seen people argue (and I am not sure that I don't agree with them) that the x86 port of Darwin was simply to keep some leverage with MS on this one issue.

    While you might not like Office or MS (and don't look at me, I am exclusively Linux) from a business perspective Apple cannot afford to mess with this relationship.

    --

    7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

  10. Re:Now would be the time for Apple to step in... by JudasBlue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Debatable. The thing that keeps MS in their monopoly and Apple in the margins, the argument goes, is that Apple is a hardware company that happens to ship an OS. If Apple on the other hand decided they were going to start acting like an OS company, they might be able to give MS a run.

    Personally, I think there is some merit to this argument, but not much. However, I really do think that MS way doesn't want to even think about that right now. Linux is causing them enough trouble. Linux isn't taking over anything but the geekiest desktops right now, but they are eating into the back office space like beavers on meth, and the logic of free (as in beer) could put them on some more desktops in the very near future as soon a few issues get dealt with, and at the speed of Linux evolution over the last few years, I don't think Redmond is laughing at the threat. They think they can win it, but they are starting to take the idea seriously.

    In that light, I think they don't want any hassles with Apple. Even if you think you can win a fight, that doesn't mean you want to fight it.

    --

    7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

  11. Re:CHEAP jobs. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Factor in the exchange rate, and you're down to $35,000US a year.

    Or, if you go by the purchasing power parity, you get US$42.6K/year. Unless you want to buy all of your stuff, including food & housing, from the US. Then you'd pay the exchange rate.

  12. Corel and the rest by PegQuin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The biggest problem I see with the major software companies is that the majority of the high paid MBA types in those organizations don't have any working knowledge of the products they make. I deal with these companies day in and day out and have for more years than I care to divulge. Corel has some good product but if the executives don't have a solid grasp on how to use the software, professionally, how can they have any vision to foster the direction of the software into professional environments? What follows from the executive level is a trickle effect and it typically boils down to the person(s) who has the greatest working knowledge of any given application, or suite of applications, the person(s) who have the greatest potential for vision in the developemnt of those applications, they have the least amount of say in the matter. Adobe is the same as well as those other guys.

    --
    PegQuin--I've got a sneakin' suspicion