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.
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
I couldn't get through to the site, but I'm pretty sure they forgot the best one: The Government.
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.
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?
Not that they necessarily would or should have made the list anyway, but from what I understand, they exclude companies that are undergoing mergers. We'll see whether HPaq returns next year.
Vote Quimby.
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/
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.
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.
---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".
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.
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
--"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.
I do not buy into the assertion that because a CEO is earning 20x, he's contributing 20x.
/. against anyone in the corporate management structure. For every corrupt, lying, stealing, cheating CEO out there there are hundreds of hardworking, dedicated, worth-every-penny CEO's that go to the mat for their company every day. If you don't think so then why don't you try going out and forming your own company and see how easy it is... ...just like I did. Anybody can complain about a situation. It takes someone with balls to actually do something about it.
Really? And what measurements did you make in order to come to that conclusion? A good CEO is worth every penny he or she is paid, while bad ones aren't worth a single penny or a single share of stock. Good CEO's can drive the company to new business, higher profits, and allow their employees to share in that wealth.
Further, before you denigrate all CEO's, what about the lowly guy (or group) that came up with an idea, marketed it, and formed a hugely successful business from it. It's their company; they risked a lot to make it, and worked very hard for it. Who are you to dictate to them what's "reasonable"?
I for one am a bit tired of the constant vitriol on
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
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?
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.