Slashdot Mirror
100 Best Companies To Work For
Misha writes "Fortune.com is publishing a list of 100 Best Companies to Work for. Quite a few tech companies, with a few semi-startups, like Xilinx, who 'protected its employees from a nasty downturn in the industry by refusing to abandon a no-layoff policy. Workers took a 6 percent pay cut, but the CEO led the way with a 20 percent cut.'"
You think that a union would mean the CEO wouldn't make orders of magnitude more than you? You'd just end up with incompetent programmers making as much as the competent ones.
Really? If programmers were unionized that wouldn't happen? So the CEO of General Motors doesn't make an 'order of magnitude' greater than the unionized auto workers who work for GM?
I would imagine if programmers unionized a lot of programming would be outsourced to places like India.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
I just don't get this bullshit about CEOs telling their employees to take a pay cut, and trying to convince them it's OK by cutting their own pay.
20% off of (say) $1 million still leaves $800K - whereas 6% off $50K leaves you with $47K. The CEO can still buy that beach house, but you'll have to cut back on essentials. Thanks for nothing.
Woo hoo. Dance, monkey-boy, dance.
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
5. Adobe Systems
After graduating from college (3 years ago), I sent my resume as a PDF to Adobe. They wrote back and asked for it in Word format because they didn't know how to read PDF files....
In the current economic climate, this is sort of like having a "100 Best Girls to Have Sex With" list. Yeah, Alyssa Milano might very well be on it but she's not hiring, so who cares?
My
Limekiller
Of course he still ended up making an order of magnitude more than the workers. This is the kind of thing we wouldn't have to worry about if programmers were unionized.
Huh? Ignoring the fact that union's suck, exactly how do unions influence what the CEO makes? Last I checked, the president of General Motors still makes orders of magnitude more than the "workers".
As an aside, I love that word 'workers' -- as if anyone above a certain income level (i.e., anything more than YOU make) don't actually work.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I couldn't get through to the site, but I'm pretty sure they forgot the best one: The Government.
What bothers me about this list is that anly 269 companies applied to be on the list. Making the top 100 out of 269 isn't really that impressive to me. About 40% of the companies who spend the maney and take the time to apply for this distinction make the list. This is definately not a very elite list. In fact, I think the only reason that you would apply for this list is if you feel that you have to have proof that your company treats its employees well. What ever happened to good old word of mouth? I guess it's easier to just buy your reputation by applying for these lists.
The supermarket chain lets workers take off to volunteer and to care for sick pets
How cool is that? I'll bet there aren't many companies that will give you time off to take care of your dog when it gets sick. Until it was law many didn't even offer maternity leave. Some companies just get it. Treat your employees well, and they'll be happier and treat the customers well.
Anyone else notice that glaringly absent from this poll is my employer Hewlett-Packard? Agilent Tech is on there, because they got spun off before the whole massive downslide. They still live the HP Way. Whereas the parent company, and developer of the damn thing, has totally abandoned it. Ask any employee who has been here for more than a few years and they'll tell you the same thing.
Carly is driving us directly into the ground... In my humble opinion. When I started 4 years ago everyone I told said "Oooo... I heard thats a good place to work!". I agreed. But it has slid down ever since.
*sigh*
Jason
He's totally creeping out the Great One, eh...
In this tech depression, a list of the 100 Worse may be more useful. They may be more forgiving of the fact that a resume only lists 30 buzzwords instead of the expected 50. (That is assuming they know of their ranking.)
Table-ized A.I.
And Hewlett-Packard Company, once the proud purveyors of the HPWay, are nowhere to be found in the top 100. This is an accurate reflection of the state of affairs, but sad.
Another employee-centric company culture falls prey to the narrow-minded concepts tought in today's business schools.
He was given a tour of the factory two weeks after he started, and picked it up while he was there.
I hear it the benefits really suck too :)
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Each of the companies employs >1000 people. I think it's best to work for a much smaller company, one when you know all coworkers and the CEO says hello to you everyday. I work for such a company and just smile at my friends telling horror stories from the Dilbert side of the reality.
On each of the pages, there are % Minorities and % Women for each company. Why?! Why should this matter. Is this not racist or sexist? Certainly if there was a % White, it would be considered so. Why should the color of a persons skin or their sex be considered over how well they perform their job?
-Vic
Isn't that happening now anyway?
Okay I work for a company on the list. And it's sorta rigged...well sort of. Okay, one thing they want to know is 'How much money is spent per capita at the employee store?'. The point is that companies that sell lot's of company-logo golf balls must be a great place to work. Well since every company know this is coming, they make departments buy like normal, everyday stuff like paper-clips and toner from the company store. This inflates the company store reciepts and no one is the wiser. This game is played over and over again to varying degrees in all aspects of this little adventure, like Enron with GAAP.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
I read an interesting article in the German "Spiegel" about this policy, applied by Lufthansa, Germany's flagship airline. We all know how 9-11 hit the airlines hard. Instead of cutting jobs, the CEO only stopped hiring new people, and asked everyone to work shorter hours per week (which results in them getting paid less). He also took a (I think 10%, can't remember) paycut.
Morale stayed high because no one's running around afraid of getting fired and when business started getting better, they still had enough people to handle the workload. Now that's how to run a business.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
I'm sorry, but I can't buy that for one moment. They have a long history of finding bright eyed yound programmers, exploiting them, under paying them, and then shit-canning them after they've abused them and turned them against the entire video gaming industry.
You don't believe me? Do a web-search. Nearly every Game-Industry Horror Story you're likely to find comes from someone who once worked for EA.
The intent of a union is to protect workers rights. In no industry are workers careers valued less than in engineering fields. Engineers / programmers design products that make companies money, but yet as soon as an economic downturn comes around they are let go. "We can always hire some recent grads later." As soon as engineers start getting paid well, they have to worry about being replaced by H1-b workers, or their job being exported to India. Furthermore, employers should be training their employees with new technologies, a union would help to define and dictate what proper training and qualifications are. Everyone complains about PHB managers, and the one way to combat these is to use a unions to your advantage. In some places, seniority can be a good thing. Not always, but sometimes. Unions get a bad rap due to frivolous strikes, and are considered blue coller, but I for one would be proud to join a programmers union that stood up for my rights, and gave me some job security.
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
or are "American Cast Iron Pipe" debt collectors?
http://jesus.everdense.com/
right, so we'll bow down and accept whatever fearing outsourcing ?
Unions are a way to participate to a company from a social point of view in a much more structured manner than a few unexperimented individuals could do.
Unions don't have to suck, but they definately have that ability and risk if not managed correctly. We often see the results of bad unions: inflated salaries, useless jobs, etc.
However, I am starting to think more and more that we need some sort of a union in the IT industry. How many of you all work for a company that has been contracted to inorder to fulfill some role in another company? Quite a few.
You go to work and help the parent company, but you don't get any of the benefits, or share in the profit you helped create. Most the the IT labor is now contracted out.
Unions would help employees be treated fairly, if done right. If done, wrong, they are usually a disaster. There is also a risk that if American IT workers unionized, would corporations farm out more and more work to India, Bulgaria, etc? I don't claim to know all the answers, but please jsut don't say a blind statement like "Unions are bad, period" because they are there to fulfill a need that was not met, and they were created for the betterment of the workers. There are some good unions, but we only hear about the bad ones, and should not throw a blanket statement over all of them.
If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
Microsoft's hiring process: .364% hiring rate, or one job for every 274 applicants, I'm not sure if I like my chances.
1,312 New Jobs this last year.
360,000 Applicants...
Uh, thats a
Also:
#63 LensCrafters, while not a tech company, this sounded pretty cool:
"Sunglass Hut, a new sister company, joined this year's Visionfest, where managers and execs donned white gloves, top hats, and bow ties to welcome employees, park their cars, and open doors. "
To be more accurate, over 1000 companies applied, and Fortune first chopped that list to 269.
p anies/artic les/0,15114,403820,00.html
This Top 100 is the final cut.
But don't take Carlos' word for it, see for yourself:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/bestcom
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
"Got Linux?"
Next time you read something about the principles behind the Fair Trade (anti-globalization) movement -- specifically, The Race to the Bottom *THIS* is exactly what they are talking about.
Labour rights (like not having to work 90 hours straight time, not having to put your hand in a drillpress, unions etc) are things that you will have to GIVE-UP if you intened to be employed in the future... remember, there is always someone more desperate than those in the west... and your Employer would happily exploit them instead of treating you with diginity and respect.
From the Xilinx corporate information page:
"Founded in 1984 and headquartered in San Jose, Calif., Xilinx employs approximately 2,600 people worldwide."
" Publicly traded on NASDAQ o Symbol: XLNX Fiscal Year 2002 revenues: $1.02 billion; net income, $52.2 million"
May I have some of whatever it is you're smoking?
Yikes... Rob and the boys must not have provided terribly high marks.
- DDT
So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
Maybe instead of calling it a "union", we should call it an "employee-owned labor contractor" to deal with all that right-wing anti-union propoganda that's been going around for the past 100 years. After all, in the areas where unions are strong (like the construction trades) that's basically what a union is -- an employee-owned labor contractor, where employers drop by the union hall and say "I need 50 bricklayers for a commercial building at 5th and Dunlap" and voila. The workers are trained by the union through an apprenticeship program, and often the worker's pensions and benefits are administered by the union in this kind of setup, making it seem even more like an employee-owned labor contract organization.
So someone correct me if I'm wrong -- can we just call it an "employee-owned labor contractor" and get around that whole "union label" thing ("unions are for blue-collar workers or incompetents") that keeps unions out of the IT industry?
Regarding outsourcing IT to India -- that's already being done, both via the H1B program and directly. Don't believe that refusing to join a union (err, "employee-owned labor contractor") will preserve your job. It won't. Your employer right now, as you read this message, is investigating outsourcing your job to India. You can bank on it, unless you happen to be your own boss.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Yeah, there are some dead beat CEOs out there, but some of them earn it.....
Our CEO has been working for minimum wage for 18 months (he only takes that so he can keep his insurance coverage). He's traveling 3.5 weeks a month and if we are a little short of cash at the end of the month will write a personal check. He also bought all the engineers new high end workstations on his personal credit card. He works way harder and longer hours than any engineer I've met in my 17 years in the biz.
If this company takes off, he deserves every penny and then some. When you say that you want a regular paycheck and to sleep in your own bed each night, you give up the right to complain about all those folks taking serious risks with both their $ and personal time.
Since almost 40% of the companies who try to get on this thing do, I really view it as "pay Fortune Magazine some money, and we'll give you a nice-sounding list we'll put you on that you can use as a recruiting bullet item."
And yes, oh yes, we DO use it as a selling point in recruiting. A LOT. We even have one of those nice velcro signs we stick onto the recruiting booth at career fairs for this thing.
Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
---outsourcing wouldn't happen (near as much) if corporations weren't given tax breaks up front to move offshore, and if the US leaders cared as much for their citizens as other nations care for theirs and instituted a little sane protectionism tariffs to protect still viable good industries in the US. "Programming" is not "buggywhip manufacturing" as critics like to say about protectionism in general. The root word "protect" is neither a swear word nor a word of derision, although some people seem to think it is. Perhaps a more unified programming/IT guild would have more political clout as an organization rather than as a collection of a million + individuals whom have little clout *as* individuals. There's a reason why coordinated organizations work better than groups of random individuals, else we wouldn't see organizations in any field or endeavor. At least agreeing on the basic premise that "jobs are good, let's keep them" would be hard to argue against.
--unemployed guy driving by walmart, knowing all this stuff is cheap and on sale. He thinks to himself, "uh huh, big deal, doesn't mean as much as it did when I still had a job".
To preface this, I live in Alameda, which is right across the bay from San Francisco.
I will grant that the rents are a little higher in SF proper than they are in some of the suburbs in other areas of the bay area, but rents aren't that bad, and have been going down par the economy (despite what we renters might think, owners are still keen on renting their spots out, even at reduced rates). For example, a 1000 sq ft apartment rents for about $850/mo here in Alameda. You could definitely afford that on $47k a year (if, as other posters mentioned, you don't spend a grand each month on uneccesary expendatures).
It's because you're unwilling to move outside
the I95 (or close to/outside of I495).
2 years ago, I had a very nice 1-BR apt within
public transporation from the city proper
(no commuter rail necessary) for $900.
Closer to the city, it gets to be $1300 or
thereabouts at least...
Considered harmful.
The big gorilla attracts bright people to its bucolic campus, which includes softball fields, a basketball court, and locker rooms with showers. Or if you prefer, get a paid membership in an off-site gym. .... the big gorilla attracts bright people to its bucolic campus... :)
sounds very scary indeed.
just wondering what that huge, hairy gorilla do with those poor people
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
The company cut its workforce by 33% last year and it's #34 on the list? Wow, I didn't realize just how crappy last year was.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Does anyone wonder why a previously #1 ranked company (Southwest Airlines) isn't even in the top 100 anymore? It's because the application process took so long and involved so many people (voluntarily) that they decided they would rather use those resources to do what they do best, serve their customers, not filling out "pat me on the back" applications.
We the Sheeple...
Nuf said.
What do you think would happen if a unionized trucking company decided it was going to hire 5.00 an hour people to drive trucks?
Truck driver would strike, and the flow of good would come close to halting.
Now imagine if every IT worker in America said "Stop hiring from overseas, or we will strike?"
Imagine what would happen in any company if they got no support, no code, Nno queries run, no reports... it would slow down the first dat, and be completly stopped by the end of the week.
really all we want is fair pay, seniority, and a globle umbrella to by are insurance and 401k from.
I'm not talking about not being able to fire someone incompetant, I'm talking about the need for proof, anf the company to be damn sure a person is incompetent.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So this CEO, who normally contributes 20 times as much
I do not buy into the assertion that because a CEO is earning 20x, he's contributing 20x. Nor would I buy into its converse (the assertion that he's getting 20x because he contributes 20x). CEOs are grossly overpaid, and the reason is simply that there's a good ol' boys network of MBAs networking their way to these obscene salaries, and company boards that are so lacking in vision that the boldest thing they can do is burn money by hiring the most expensive person possible for the ceo role. This is one of the most fundamentally wasteful and distasteful facets of US biz, and must change as a prerequisite to the average American deriving security and self respect from being in the workforce. As in may other cross sections of the workforce, some CEOs are visionaries while others are flat out idiots... but unlike most other sectors, there is virtually no correlation whatsoever between CEO salary and CEO merit. One obvious example is Fiorina but there are many others, and most aren't even high-profile in the media. Somewhere along the line people have somehow elevated CEOs to the status of gods, where they don't even think of questioning how value is truly being created and will simply go by the numbers. Sure, the CEO has the power to fire his workers... but you still won't find my nose up his rear end.
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I'll just point out that publically-chartered corporations are collectivist systems, whereby a large number of owners appoint a small number of board members to oversee their interests. It seems that you are engaged in more than a little hypocricy to blast one collectivist system without blasting the other. As Enron shows, the fact that it's called a "corporation" rather than a "labor contractor" or "union" does not render it immune to corruption -- any organization where a few people are selected to defend the interests of the many tends to turn into a system where those few people defend their own interests, and to [bleep] with the many.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Protectionism is a refuge of the selfish. Why should you deny Indians (or whoever else they decide to outsource programming to) jobs? Are they somehow inferior to the citizens of your own country?
If Microsoft decided to outsource half their workforce to India, what would happen? A few thousand programmers would go on the job market-- highly qualified programmers, whatever you say about Microsoft. The average programmer's wage would probably go down some, and, after a while, the numbers of new coders coming out of college would decrease to compensate. The programmers that lost their jobs would hardly be starving in the streets-- IT workers are generally adaptable people-- they could go back to school, become teachers, or something else that's needed.
However, for the 3rd world worker, an IT job seems far more important than to a (relatively) wealthy American. For them, a job programming could mean the difference between food on the table, and the gutter.
There are other, more tangible, disadvantages to protectionism. If the US is taxing Indian Software, India will probably return fire. Trade wars like these could be devastating to all sides.
Oh, and they ceased to be called 'Silicon Graphics' years ago. Since all the staff left there isn't actually anyone left at the company who knows any graphics.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I read in some other news piece about this that HP were excluded by Forbes because they went through a merger (as opposed I guess to a takeover) -- this is apparently a rule of the list.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
1)Varies states are making exception in there labor lwas for Saoftware people, purely for exploitation.
2)Seniority. Companies willo fire an older employee for 2 reasons
1)pay. however it has been my experience that the difference is slight in the IT field.
2)perception. Companies will percieve an older person as being 'behind the times'.
3)puttimg a large number of people under the same 'insurance umbrella' allows for cheaper insurance.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02dece
That list is an eye-opener!
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
Ok, so it is patting myself (and my company on the back), but Adobe is truly a great place to work. It is a challenging, highly ethical environment, which provides a great place to create fantastic products. I have been in the industry for 20+ years and worked for a number of "icon" companies, and I have to say Adobe is the best place at which i have worked.
As for being a semi-startup, I can say that is only in spirit. In terms of employees (almost 3K), revenues (1.2 billion, second largest desktop software company), longevity (20 years and counting), and presence("Everywhere you look", refers to the fact that every piece of media you see has been touched by one or more Adobe products), we are a well established company.
It is a great company and we owe that fact to the culture established by John and Chuck when they founded the company. Think about the kind of company that has someone like Bob Sedgewick on its Board of Directors.
I'm guessing that the article was written by the Fortune Magazine PR department. Friends of mine at Intel are routinely overworked, because Intel will not hire enough people.
Remember, Fortune is a "what the rich want you to think" company.
I think the poster has a valid point. Take a look at what you put in your statement.
"15k for car, including payments" If you are spending 15,000 a year for a car you are overspending and could downsize your life to get by a little easier. There's public transportation (~$30 per month), car pooling ($negligible), a $1000 used car, or SUPER-SIZE it and get a $7,000 car for $199 a month for two years.
People just don't think of VOLUNTARILY downsizing their lifestyles. Once they get to 40-50-60-75-100 k a year any regression means pain. It all has to get stripped away via reposession or bankruptcy. Which usually happens after they've lost their jobs and blew through their limite savings trying to find that next 'perfect' job. They never think: "I'll get something to fill that gap until I can something good comes along". Meanwhile people in bahrain work for 30-50 bucks a week and will travel hundreds of miles on foot to get jobs like that. People here complain about walking a quarter mile, they get in their damn SUV's to go two blocks to the store.
When a CEO takes a 20% pay cut so that employees don't have to take a 100% pay cut I think that's a big deal. Especially considering that most people could give a shit about what happens to their coworkers much less what happens to the below way below them on the corporate ladder.
When people get to a certain lifestyle they forget how to rewind and downsize to their previous lifestyle. They forget that they can go without that dinner out, those nice clothes, that 20+k SUV, that nice house. They forget that at one point they struggled in a $24k job and before that they struggle under a $14k job. They think they should just keep continuing to struggle under a $40 or $50k job. They forget that they once lived in a shithole with roaches and peeling walpaper and no cable. They forget that they worked flipped burgers or mopped floors. They forget working two jobs. They forget that they used to spend so much time with work and family and friends that the electricity bill for the month was the same as a dinner out. They forget that McDonald's is a convenience not a necessity. They forget that they could feed a family of 6 on ~$300 a month. They forget that they once didn't have a cell phone/pager or the internet. They forget that way back when wasn't really that bad.
People forget that their ancestors (voluntarily or otherwise) travelled thousands of miles in the worst conditions to make it somewhere for work. Again I'll say it, some people bitch about walking less than a mile to get somewhere.
It has a lot less to do with geography than it does with perspective. I'm sure that if you looked where you live you could find plenty of people nearby living on substantially LESS than what you make. Be thankful you have the OPTION of going from 50-40k instead of possibly being a $18-0k person.
People look at the CEO and say "BFD he's already overpaid so what if he takes a cut". The fact is that he didn't have to, he could have cut some employees, hell he could have done like most CEO's and jumped ship to another company, or just taken the 6% pay cut every other employee got. He could have just covered his own ass but he didn't. Think about how many people here would take a pay cut so that others could stay employed or a company succeed. How many people here would think "hmmm.... maybe it's time to start looking for something else" or "well if they just got rid of 'John' that's enough for people to not have to take a cut".
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
I know people who would kill for them if asked. They would literally eat fire for that company.
Training is one arena where a tech union might really make a diffence. Why?
1). For the most part, US employers no longer invest in training. They expect workers to be responsible for their own skills upgrades and maintenance.
2). 100% responsibility (freelance or FT employee) for your own training can be expensive, time-consuming, and (sometimes) almost obsolete before you finish it.
3). By banding together, workers can build their own training programs that are high-quality, evolve rapidly to meet industry demand, and are cheaper (for members) than similar offerings at a community college or university.
Case in point: WashTech/CWA in Seattle WA has built its own IT union training program from scratch. It now offers ASP.NET, XML, Java, Flash, Perl and more. Members get significant course discounts. No other local union in the country is offering such training. Member dues help to subsidize discounted training for everyone. If you take one WashTech class in the course of a year, the savings compared to non-members course fees can equal or surpass one year's dues.
Details:
http://www.washtech.org/wt/training/
--"protectionism IS selfish, as in "I sort of prefer keeping my income and job and home and making sure my immediate family and nieghbors and country keep theirs as well". And the deal is there's nothing wrong with this. Nothing at all. It is the nature of a marketplace to seek a profit-even an individual profit. It's also the nature of a "marketplace" to band together to "protect" itself from an "attack" from outside, be it economic or physical. You can be protective WITHOUT being predatory, and therein I think is where the confusion arises.
I own a home, I help to protect my home by firmly locking the door when I leave. I have the option of answering the door when someone knocks on it, or I can ignore the knock. That is my right and option. If I think in my judgement opening the door at that particular time is a "good idea", then I am free to do so. I hear a knock, there's a girl scout selling cookies. No probs, it's a "good deal" to me, I am happy with the trade. On the other hand I hear a knock and I see someone I don't wish to speak to-for any reason-it is my right to not answer the door and talk or do business. I am "protecting" myself based on my evolving analysis of "life".
There comes a time you have to make decisions on what is important not only for yourself personally, but for your family, your neighbors and neighborhood, and your nation as a whole. The US is now in a spiraling-->down deficit in economics and in good quality jobs(yes it's headed that dirtection), in diverse vertical manufacturing and agriculture and in informational technology, both hardware and software. We used to be great at that stuff, but now we seek others to do the work, but for short term profits for *some folks* here.
I am of the opinion that we would be more advised to "protect" these industries over the long haul rather then to trade them off for short term profits in the near term. That doesn't mean we can't trade, and it also doesn't mean we should just give away the store so that 1% of our population can get fabulously wealthier, and the other 99% enjoy cheaper stuff for a few years then go broke and out of work. What happens in the other nations is not completely our business, nor should it be. We can be friends, ewe can trade, but we aren't required to just give it away. We as a nation went through that development phase long ago, it just isn't our fault to ensure that rapid change takes place "over there" at our expense. We can pick and choose on it, and by and large we are a generous people. the world is changing though, and swiftly.
Anyone has to ask themselves, if a large nation basically gives away(sells off cheap) it's manufacturing base, then gives away (sells off cheap) it's informational services base, and gives away (sells off cheap) it's food production base..uhhh..what's left? Really, what's left?
If you follow our trends over the past two decades, then extrapolate them to any sort of logical conclusion, you will see that this "future" if followed as being done now would result in the US as primarily a two class society with WARFARE as it's only profit making export.
Think on it, see if that is correct. Take away eventually all the normal jobs the US middle class has, what is left over?
Now, ask yourself, you REALLY want to see that? If all we in the US have left for work in this nation is manufacturing weapons, manufacturing prisons, and that's it,throw in bread and circuses crap like hollywood and pro sports and videogames for grins, well, what do you think we'll be doing for a living here? Big hint-you won't like it.
I already don't like it and I live here. My momma didn't raise no son who couldn't learn from history.
"Protecting" my nation from that fate is a *good deal*. "Protecting" anyone else's "your" nation from that you should consider as an even "better" deal.
Lots of electrical engineering and non-technical companies. No pure software engineering once again. In fact I've never seen a software engineering firm listed in this study. Of the hardware/software companies, the reason they get on this list is probably their hardware side. I wonder why software is so hard to manage effectively. Is it because you don't have a reliable measurement of employee productivity? Is is because software is hard to modularize?
I'd rather cut my salary 12% and still keep that company alive. But history is not that we can turn back.
Less is more !
Case in point, unionized workers at GE are threatening to strike because they were asked to pick up ~$300 of the ~$2300 increase in health care costs.
Programmers really aren't affected by trade itself, except the procurement of cheaper equipment.
Globalization rapes programmers, no doubt, but trade and globalization are not the same.
I would imagine if programmers unionized a lot of programming would be outsourced to places like India.
What you are envisioning is already happening -- and it's one of the best arguments in favor of a tech workers' union. Not only is work being outsourced to second and third world countries, but tens of thousands of H1-B visas are being issued to allow companies to bring in foreign nationals to keep tech wages down in the U.S. (It's not like there is a shortage of unemployed Americans in the tech sector).
A union would give tech workers a much greater ability to resist such outsourcing. Right now, if an employer decides to start outsourcing software development, there's not much the individual software engineer can do about it. Now imagine a picket line in front of the company with unionized tech workers (software engineers, hardware engineers, system administrators, etc.) refusing to cross the picket line. Imagine television reporters interviewing them. Is the light bulb coming on yet?
What's with technology companies out of Canada, anyway?
A while back, I applied for a job at Optimal Robotics, another Canadian firm that seems pretty successful at selling robotic/automated checkout systems.
Not only was the pay pretty sub-par for an on-site service tech. job of that type (basically, you're on call 24 hours a day, just like a doctor - and you have to provide a 1 hour response time), but the recruiter informed me that it took them a LONG time to even agree to compensate people for mileage. He even commented that it was a "Canadian thing".
You go to work and help the parent company, but you don't get any of the benefits, or share in the profit you helped create. Most the the IT labor is now contracted out.
Come work for number 38. We have excellent performance-based benefits that are tied to both our individual and company performance. Its a sliding scale that starts out primarily based on the company's performance and moves towards your individual performance the higher up you go in the organization.
Intelligent Life on Earth
Why should you deny Indians (or whoever else they decide to outsource programming to) jobs? Are they somehow inferior to the citizens of your own country?
The important thing is that they are not citizens of my country. And the focus of the American government should be to promote the interests of U.S. citizens, not act as an employment agency for the third world.
A few thousand programmers would go on the job market-- highly qualified programmers, whatever you say about Microsoft.
"Go on the job market"? What bullshit-speak! Translation: A few thousand programmers would lose their jobs. Many would have trouble finding work. Some would lose their homes and cars after being unable to make the payments. Many would incur debts and financial troubles that would hound them for decades. Others would be forced to move far away from their families and friends to accept work elsewhere in the country. You don't dump a few thousand people out of work and then expect that they will be absorbed back into the job market within a few weeks.
The average programmer's wage would probably go down some, and, after a while, the numbers of new coders coming out of college would decrease to compensate.
So why should I be satisfied if my wages go down? Should it be okay by me if I can't live in as nice a home? Should I not mind having to save-up for things that I can easily buy now? Am I supposed to be happy to be forced to hold on to a car until it is no longer in good condition?
The programmers that lost their jobs would hardly be starving in the streets
I know qualified tech workers that have been out of work for many months. They are having trouble paying their mortgages, rent, car payments, and utility bills. One was reduced to cleaning people's houses so that she could pay her bills. Don't start your preachy shit about how it's okay for people to lose their jobs.
-- IT workers are generally adaptable people-- they could go back to school, become teachers, or something else that's needed.
How the hell am I supposed to give up a good income while I "go back to school"? Am I supposed to sell my house and tell my family to come live with me in a dorm? Become teachers? Have you even looked at how little pay the average teacher gets? Why not suggest that software engineers who lose their jobs apply at McDonalds, Walmart, and JC Penney?
However, for the 3rd world worker, an IT job seems far more important than to a (relatively) wealthy American. For them, a job programming could mean the difference between food on the table, and the gutter.
If you think that they need your job more than you do, then why don't you take a job at McDonalds so that some third world IT worker can have your job? Have you gone into your boss's office and tried to convince him to bring in a third-world worker to replace you? You seem to think it would be fine if it happened to "several thousand" people at Microsoft, but I don't see you volunteering to give up your job for the benefit of random strangers in third-world countries.
No, thats a bullshit thing. Trust me. You're getting strung along by either someone who doesn't have the capability to agree to your terms, or have permission to agree to them.
Its my experience that Canadians are every bit as competitive as their American counterparts, and have the advantage of having a dollar weaker then the US's.
Last Sunday I had dinner with an Intel employee. I told her I thought that one of the reasons Andy Grove (former Intel CEO) got cancer was because he worked too hard. She told me something surprising: She said she had heard that Mr. Grove thought that too.
Burning out employees is a recipe for disaster. It is not a way to make more money.
I guess you can class it as propoganda, but I term what I write as merely open promotion of a viewpoint,and I usually provide at least *some* background that leads to the reasoning. Best I'm gonna do on short internet forum posts.
---I "save and invest" but not in the usual manner, not really. Zero stocks or bonds, etc, none.Not even close to being classed as wealthy in any sort of traditional dollar figure way.
I "invest" in things differently, I always strive to eliminate middleman steps and costs for my goods and services, like I bought solar power, so I have a guaranteed minimum electric supply paid off now for years and years. Long term food,open pollinated heirloom seeds,etc, etc what is considered "normal" in the survival and preparedness community but not what is considered normal in "mainstream" joe six pack everything "just in time" community. All of my wealth is (well more or less) in tangibles assets of some form or another. As to money for money's sake, nope, never been a real high interest of mine, and yes, I know that's considered weird but other's opinions of that are not really my concern. Different strokes and all.
Umm, economically your data might need to be rechecked. Just a few thoughts here. We went from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in roughly 25 years. If that isn't considered "going down the crapper" I don't know what is. It's not all the way flushed yet, and the swirling around is contributing to the razzle dazzle, but she's been flushed. Check-just for a few-the top ten US banks derivatives exposure, the fortune 500 pension funds exposure, and re-run the social security ponzi scam projected numbers. Check population demographics in the US again. Just look at those, now add in true governmental borrowing/debt as opposed to them calling a reduction in spending once in awhile as a "surplus". Now look at international balance of trade figures. Now look at successful new business starts as opposed to closings and bankruptces and off-shore moves. If you want even more go back and uncook wall street historical indices by re-including the companies they pull off the bottom of the lists when they tank. That little *gem* of a misdirection is used to keep the numbers artifically inflated, it's a great shill.
I don't consider "accumulated debt combined with offers of more credit" to equate "produced accumulated wealth", although, again, I realise most people think they are the same or similar.
Now I don't think it's hopeless, but I do think that there seems to be an agenda or two out there to make things "bad" for awhile and to do it on purpose. You may ponder what that purpose might be for. I have some theories on it. I will term it a "controlled socio/economic implosion with some good plausible deniability" leading to yet another term which is "technofeudalism". Hope I'm wrong, not seeing a lot of evidence to dissuade me, look as I might.
Economically I'm a neo-bear right now if I can coin a term, socially for the US with politics as it is and some other factors I am a hardcore pessimist. Hardcore and not trying to dodge it whatsoever. I don't want to be but I am. The term used is "dragged kicking and screaming" to that position. I make provisions accordingly, and any friendly advice I give people is based on that, same as anyone else comes to conclusions and might offer a view or some advice. I know during the bubble I kept telling friends who were heavily "into" the market to take the profits while they could and not try to ride it to ridiculous heights that were so far out into implausible-land as to be laughable. Some did, some didn't, oh well. What I DO do is change my viewpoint occassionally based on new input and better data and changing current events,and I consider nothing man does as "carved in stone".
I know people who work at many of the companies listed, and with the exception of SAS Institute (which a few friends working there have told me is an outstanding company to work for) I have heard nothing but horror stories about every single one. My friends don't seem like cynics, but I wonder if it's human nature to complain more than praise?
Most $1000 used cars are far from reliable and badly overdue major repairs. 25 years ago, you could get decent $1000 dollar used cars. I have had the best value with cars under $5K with 40-60K miles. Most of those have seen regular oil changes and maitnance to qualify for the factory warrenty. After the warranty has expired, they tend to become a hand-me down car which gets abused by a starving student and others who neglect routine maitenance then ditch it when it becomes unrelaiable or won't pass emissions tests. My current car, bought used, got an engine rebuild at 100K miles and is now over 200K and going strong. A little care goes a long way.
When I sell it, it will be one of the worn out $1000 dollar wonders on the back lot. I will only continue to drive it as long as it remains reliable. Believe me, you won't want it. It will be due for major work. Since I've had it for 6 years, the cost including all repars has been under $500/ year. Now if I can figure how to get insurance cheaper than my car, I'll be doing well.
The truth shall set you free!
At least unions would guarantee a fairly predictable pay schedule that would be commesurate to ones experience as opposed to being blatantly based on 'networking' the way it is now.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
I'm under 30 FYI
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
We need a Lobby, or a PAC. The EFF, FSF, etc. are great for defending the rights of Joe User and his computer. But are seriously deficient when it comes to defending the common ITer. And maybe this is on purpose, I don't remember anywhere on the EFF site saying they exist to help the IT workers. So it's up to us.
It's obvious that money talks in Washington, and you need LOTS of money. You know why seniors are so listened to and placated by Washinton? (And they are, big time) Because the AARP has LOTS of money and they use it.
Here and Today I suggest and offer to form the IT Political Action Committee (PACIT) -- heh packet -- anyone want to join me?
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Where do I sign up??
... and then there were none
I really don't give a fuck where you're from as long as you pay taxes, just like me.
Let's reason through what will happen in your scenario. Someone lives in a third-world country where the average annual wage is less than the typical American makes while taking a dump at work. He seeks a job in the U.S. via the H1-B program. Company X sees that he will work for half of what they pay U.S. programmers, so they say, sure, we'll sponsor him. That means an American is out of work and instead of collecting taxes from that American, they collect half that much from the H1-B worker while paying unemployment to the displaced American worker.
So, who made more money? Company X, of course. But they won't pay taxes on it, because they have an entire staff of accountants and lawyers to make sure that they don't pay any taxes. In fact, despite the fact that they are a defense contractor, they'll probably figure out how to get farm subsidies for not growing alfalfa in the field that is now their parking lot.
Feed this, muther fucker
Sounds to me like he's doing something pretty damn wrong. If he's spent over 1.5 years working minimum wage, what's happening to the company? Are people getting paid on time? On one hand I kinda respect it, but on the other, I think, this guy is probably nearly legally retarded.
You'd think in 1.5 years time he could make some kind of turn around. Then again, the US economy is horrible.
This idea that the CEO is trying to be mister nice guy by taking a 20% pay cut is ridiculous.
A quick financial look shows that the Xilinx CEO Roelandts has over 4 million options worth $122 million. 20% of his $580k salary is NOTHING to him. What is important is stock price. A round of layoffs could deflate his options by $60 million or more if the stock price fell as a result.
Of course that the numbers do get a bit inflated, but living on 50K a year is harder in Seattle, Silicon Valley, Boston, or NYC than it is from where I live, in say Western Massachusetts. Companies that are in the gold rush areas have to pay people more so that they can live there.
For instance. Microsoft pays their employees more if they work in the Silicon Valley campus than they do on the Redmond campus. Why? Because in Silicon valley it's more expensive with less cheap suburbs to live in. This internal memo talks about the compensation differences being (at one point), as high as 25%. This is all because of the premium costs of programmer labor in that environment.
If you live in Western Mass, or the Dakotas or rural Pennsylvania where the cost of living is dirt low, then you're all set. Otherwise, making 50K stretch in Silicon Valley is just a bit tougher.
And yes, I understand XBoxes and the like aren't essential, and that there are many people with a lot less. No sense in not being grateful for when fortune smiles upon you.
--jaybonci
Wegmans is one of my local supermarkets. Many years ago they figured out that the secret to sucess in retail is to provide excellent customer service. They also figured out that it takes good workers to provide good customer service. The question was how to find these good workers.
Most supermarkets (around here, at least) hire a lot of high school students to fill part-time positions. One of their Wegman's secrets is to offer an incredibly good college schlarship program for their high school age employees. This program is so good that most of the top students in the local high schools want to work there. The result is that Wegmans can pick and choose who they hire for part-time jobs, and the ones that they do hire are motivated to do well on the job. It also gives Wegmans an opportunity to identify future high-potential candidates for management positions, well before these kids even enter college. It's a long term strategy that is definitely working.
It really surprises me that more retail companies, as well as firms in other industries, don't copy this practice.
On the contrary: witness Nortel, who pays their Ottawa-based engineers way less than those in North Carolina (which has a similar cost of living, with the reasonable assumption of currency exchange-at-par).
/electronics equipment is generally 1.5x more expensive in Canada due to exchange. My new Powerbook G4 17" laptop is going to be over CAD$6500, what would be (with sales tax) maybe USD$3600 in NYC.
Yet Roth, the CEO, in a widely publicized press statement, blamed the Canadian government's tax system for the brain drain. No, it's stupid pay policies that don't recognize NAFTA creates a "North American Employment Zone" through TN-1 visas. Anyone with a technical degree can jump ship.
(Here's my anecdote. I intend no offense to those unemployed, or affected by the economy, my financial pains are trivial compared to those down and out. I empathize.)
I happen to work in Toronto now at a significant paycut. I make 20% less per paycheck than my last job in NYC as a salaried consultant and trainer. The only reason I took this job is that it was a career move, the people I'm working with and what we're trying to accomplish will be a big resume bonus. But the pay & compensation really wasn't competitive for a senior-level technical lead in software development ("architect", whatever).
I'm still getting compensated significantly above average for a technical position in the area -- because my hiring VP basically gave me "senior manager" level pay, even though I have no subordinates. And she had to fight for that, hard. One quote was: "We don't have engineers, we have programmers." (shudder)
And U.S. computer
That's the general mentality of IT in Canada -- they still believe in paying "managers" more than "performers". A programmer is an interchangable unit of productivity, they never seemed to learn that 10:1 ratio nugget that I believe Capers Jones figured out 20 *YEARS* ago. Seniority and the peter principle rule.
Perhaps some companies are changing. My boss is keeping me satisified with conferences and educational opportunities (a budget she also had to fight for, "WTF do techies need training for?") Thankfully the CIO is on her side.
Wall Street, on the other hand, tends to give enormous compensation packages (even AT PAR, with NYC's cost of living difference) to technical leads that perform.
(std disclaimer, views expressed are mine alone)
-Stu
First off, who do we organize? All IT workers or just the programmers?
:-D
OK, say it's just the programmers. Do we go after the big "body shops"/consultant companies, the independent contractors, or the in-house programmers?
What about the guy who runs the servers and does a "little bit of programming on the side"? How about the guy in accounting who writes all of their spreadsheets? Is it more practical to organize the server rooms first (after all if THEY go on strike...)?
IT is just too amorphous a thing to try to organize it. Not to mention many people work with computers to avoid socializing.
Finally, what do you do with the open source movement? (After all if you're trying to stop code from being produced...)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
No, what you'd end up with is that in down times like these, the company would have to lay off the shortest-tenured programmers, not the incompetent ones. And there would be no such thing as "merit raises", "merit promotions" and "merit bonuses". Those would all be determined by how long you've been with the company.
I can't understand why Intel would even be in the top 1000. They're notorious for being horrid slave-masters.
However, I know a guy who works at Xylinx, and they do, indeed, tongue his ass.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You have my sympathy. One of my coworkers in Virginia was told that he had a choice: unemployment or work in Arizona. He's been in Arizona for months while his wife and kids try to maintain the family home and their lives. Moving is really not an option for his family for various reasons -- including the fact that the job in Arizona is just temporary.
"There's public transportation (~$30 per month), car pooling ($negligible), a $1000 used car"
Great. With that used car, you still have insurance (which in CA is a friggin rip-off) and maintenance, and $2 bridge tolls. ($5 if you take the Golden Gate Bridge. yes, FIVE DOLLARS to cross the BRIDGE)
$30/mo for public transportation? Please. I can't afford to buy a $700k condo in San Francisco, so I have to commute to work. BART raised fairs. It's now $3.75 *each WAY* for me to get to work. That's just BART. Then I have to pay $1 for MUNI and $2.25 for Caltrain. That's $7 each way. $14 round trip.
5 days a week.
Public transportation may be cheaper in some places, but chances are if you live where public transportation is going to be cheaper for you, then you're paying a hell of a lot more in rent.
It just ain't the case anymore. What really sucks is the fact that I can't save reciepts and use commuting/transportation expenses as a tax write-off. My company doesn't subscribe to "commuter check" or any similar program, because I work for a lame contracting company.
I'm just happy to have a job in this industry these days.
How about this for a comparison: how much is a star athlete worth? If he or she is the one who brings success to the enterprise, be it sports or traditional business, how much is that person worth? It comes down to supply and demand, and if you have a skill that few others have, you can command a very high salary. How many people can juggle the concept of running a multi-billion dollar international corporation? Not that many, which is why those who can are paid such huge sums of money.
Further, since you bring up the concept of pay being tied to contributing to the company, suppose the CEO is instrumental in securing a new account that brings $200 million in revenue. In large corporations the CEO is more of a salesperson than anything else, and their job is to use their persuasion skills, their contacts, and anything else they have to bring new business to the company. This is a vital role, as CEO's are the most visible appendage of a large company. Not to be rude or demeaning in any way, but much more business (and thus, revenue) is generated by a CEO than by the $60K/year coder toiling in the cubicle. TRUE, the CEO would have little to sell without the cubicle worker, but then the cubicle worker would have no job if the CEO wasn't out there winning new business.
You see, dammit, it's a symbiotic relationship. Many here, however, seem to think it's parasitic, with greedy, evil management living off the bones of the poor, righteous, downtrodden workers. Bullshit. Total absolute bullshit. If you think otherwise then why don't you go start your own company and try running it without any management at all. See just how far you get. It won't be very far, I can assure you.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky