Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle Dumps PeopleSoft Employees

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the cleaning-house dept.

curtain writes "The first move in Oracle's dismantling of PeopleSoft has begun. The cuts will affect about 9% of the 55,000 staff of the combined companies. From the article: "We're mourning the passing of a great company," Peoplesoft worker David Ogden as saying. Other employees said they would rather be sacked than work for Oracle."

9 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by martinbogo · · Score: 4, Interesting


    When Oracle first made a bid for PeopleSoft in 2002, PeopleSoft froze all hiring, and completely halted their Linux initiatives.

    Ever since then, both companies have had "financial challenges," and the combination of both companies was bound to create a lot of redundancies. It's just a pity that the combined company believes that there are over 5,000 redundant jobs in the merged corporation.

    Of course, that also speaks -volumes- to both companies hiring policies. Oracle is famous for creating projects, pumping them with quick new hires, and then dumping the projects (and sometimes a hundred jobs).

    It's not surprising, but what it says about corporate culture and hiring practices is sad.

    --
    "Don't worry about the problems you have in mathematics, I assure you mine are much greater." - Einstein c.1919
    1. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by Flamefly · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The fact is, that the two companies merged. With any successful merger the outcome is that overall costs are cut, otherwise what is the point?

      When two similar companies merge you obviously get overlap, and this is where the initial savings can be made, there is zero point to keeping two teams of support staff (be it in IT, HR, Marketing etc) when there is only enough work to justify the single team.

      How really else can you expect it to work? Would you honestly invest in a company as a shareholder if that company had 5000+ people employeed who essentially had no job to do, just twiddling their thumbs?

      Any merger that *doesn't* cut jobs, surely at least, partially a failure. You may not embrace capitalism wholeheartedly, but look around you, it's not too bad.

    2. Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable by jafac · · Score: 5, Interesting

      he fact is, that the two companies merged. With any successful merger the outcome is that overall costs are cut, otherwise what is the point?

      Eliminate competition.

      A point that most "lazzez faire capitalists" seem to miss.

      A *SUCCESSFUL* merger is a purchase of a "good" company, with skilled employees. Such employees can adapt to the new corporate structure, via the guidance of competent management, to remain productive, and not redundant.
      Unfortunately, such companies are difficult to find, and they are not convenient merger targets, because, more likely than not, they're already doing well on their own thankyouverymuch. Layoffs after such mergers, are usually kept to a minimum.

      A *TAKEOVER* merger, is a purchase of another company, and dismantling of it's resources, purely to deprive the market of competition. It costs the buyer a lot of money up front, because they're usually buying an essentially worthless peice of junk, in order to euthanize it. Or, in cases where they're buying a company that's not totally worthless, it soon will be. The only benefit to the purchaser is the destruction of a competitor.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  2. Back in the 90's by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember hearing a news broadcast about People Soft when it was a new company. Just as the bubble started. Well PeopleSoft at the time was recognized for how well they treat their employees. There was a saying "If you don't like working for PeopleSoft then go to work for Oracle and really hate your job". I don't know how well PeopleSoft has been treating their employees since that report. But if they kept consistent switching to Oracle would probably make life miserable for a lot of people.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. How will this effect support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My company has a major project that uses PeopleSoft software. I wonder how this will effect customer support, and patching/upgrading?

  4. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by leathered · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another good reason for not using Oracle is because it sucks. We've found recent releases of their software to be buggy and a headache to install and configure.

    --
    For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
  5. Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable-Clash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The main thing that needs to be worried about is culture clash. Many a merger has been undone because of that. The other thing for customers to worry about is "lock-in". Has anyone seen a merger that's improved service to customers?

  6. Re:Larry may be good at business but... by cnkeller · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Another good reason for not using Oracle is because it sucks. We've found recent releases of their software to be buggy and a headache to install and configure.

    I can't decide if you are being funny or not. You must not have been using Oracle for very long if you've only recently discovered this. It's *always* been buggy and semi-difficult to install.

    --

    there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

  7. Re:Stupidity or... ? by MinotaurUK · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If Peoplesoft's "atmosphere" was so conducive, why aren't they taking over Oracle?

    The bottom line isn't the only (or even the best) way to judge the contribution of a company to society. Many of the places I've worked at have had a relaxed atmosphere, even if the actual rate of "work" or "productivity" was lower than in a competitor's more agressive business. I'd still rather work for the relaxed business. ;)