Alcatel and Lucent to Merge

Cappella writes "It is confirmed. Alcatel and Lucent are combining to form a USD $25 billion entity. This marks a new wave of telecommunications company consolidation in the next few months to come." They first tried to work out a merger five years ago, but finally, at long last, it's come to fruition.

Comments

AT&T

[HoosierPeschke]

Soooooooo will they rename themselves Western Electric and merge with AT&T?

Re:AT&T

[fm6]

Since the new company will be headquartered in Paris, it would have to be French Electric.

Re:AT&T

[Espectr0]

Since the new company will be headquartered in Paris, it would have to be French Electric.

Don't worry. The US branch would be called Freedom Electric.

Re:AT&T

[ScottCooperDotNet]

France is in the "West."

Is this another AFD prank?

Re:AT&T

[blincoln]

Since the new company will be headquartered in Paris, it would have to be French Electric.

If you ever go to Harbor Freight Tools, take a look at the brands sometime. Everything is from China, but they're all named things like "Chicago Power Tools" or "American Air Compressors."

Re:AT&T

[fm6]

It's not in the same "west" as Western Electric was.

Re:AT&T

[Rocky]

Western Electric already exists - it's called Agere Systems.

Re:AT&T

[big tex]

That's a little different.
Chicago Power Tools is a 'store-branding' of Chicago Pneumatic, a maker of some very good air tools. I would go so far to say that I'll only buy CP breakers and rivet guns, and their impact wrenches give IR a run for the money.

CP was bought by Atlas Copco, a Swedish company.

Besides, if you buy anything at Harbor Freight anticipating a serious tool purchase, you deserve to be duped by misleading names.

Re:AT&T

[HoosierPeschke]

which came from Lucent which came from AT&T Technologies which came from Western Electric which came from AT&T. So we're both right.

Re:AT&T

[some guy I know]

if you buy anything at Harbor Freight anticipating a serious tool purchase, you deserve to be duped by misleading names.

That depends on what you mean by "serious tool".
I bought a drill press (Chicago brand) that that seems to be fine for home use.
I've bought chisels, router bits, a street-legal utility trailer, a dremmel-like tool, a wheelchair, and more there, and they all seem to be working fine.
Now, if you're talking about heavy-duty commercial equipment, then you may have a point, but for oridinary everyday users, Harbor Freight is all right.

Re:AT&T

[HermanAB]

The US wing will be called Freedom Electric...

Re:AT&T

[fm6]

But getting back to the naming issue: does "Harbor Freight" have anything to do with harbors or freight?

Re:AT&T

[Eunuchswear]

The wheelchair was for after you'd injured yourself with the other tools?

Think I'll stay away from that place.

How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

will Wall St. be happy when there is 1 company in the whole world that owns everything ? what happens then ? do we start the economy from scratch again ?

seems like we are on a 1 way road to nowhere, its not a matter of if but when, unless of course unlimited growth and profits has managed to beat infinity

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you could ask that one company for free tuition to an English grammar school.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[chill]

Lucent is a shadow of what it was. They've laid off over 100,000 people in the past couple of years, and are now looking at another 9,000 or so with this merger. Those aren't exactly "world domination" figures.

  -Charles

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

They've laid off over 100,000 people in the past couple of years, and are now looking at another 9,000 or so with this merger.

Oh yeah. Now that's free market capitalism at it's best! What? No, that's what "free market" means: shit all over the wage earners.

Now they can start figuring out ways to fuck over customers.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[kimvette]

re: Now they can start figuring out ways to fuck over customers.

They've been doing that for years, hence projects like asterisk and ser

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[thePig]

Yep. But think about AT&T ..
If any company had anything resembling world domination, it was them.

The irony is that at that time Govt. broke the company up to 7 segments, and now they are trying to survive by merging.

Fall from grace, indeed.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[DrSkwid]

With any luck, he'll have $ left over for you.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[JerLasVegas]

Depends on how long we keep electing idiots like Bush

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[williamyf]

Because of the interference from national governments, there will always be a handful of companies per sector, and wall street does not favor the Chabeol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol concept, and we will have one oligopoly per sector.

But, due to the advances of technology, slowly the incumbents will be displaced, and new firms will take teir place. Therefore, wall street will be happy when there is an oligopoly per area.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"will Wall St. be happy when there is 1 company in the whole world that owns everything ? what happens then ? do we start the economy from scratch again ?"

You can bet the Libertarians will be.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

Actually, I think it's "allocate workers and resources in the most efficient manner". Apparently Lucent isn't an efficient place to allocate workers to, thus the market has moved them elsewhere.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[Firehed]

Now they can start figuring out ways to fuck over customers.

I think I just heard Sony's phone ring.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

Actually, I think it's "allocate workers and resources in the most efficient manner"

Efficient:

Workers: Out on their ass

Resources: In some hairpiece's pocket.

Allocated.

Apparently Lucent isn't an efficient place to allocate workers to, thus the market has moved them elsewhere.

According to the people who are firing 9,000 workers for no reason.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beware the coming of Everything Except Shoes.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

No wait!

I know! They got FIRED because they don't have any marketable skills! Right?! Why'd they get hired in the first place? WHY DO THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO FIRE PEOPLE AND FUCK UP THEIR LIVES??

I think there should be a law: if a company that is not in Chapter 7 fires anyone without cause, they should become instantly liable for all of their debts. We'll call it the "Lying Rat Fuck Sphincter Clutch Act" Oh, and it's perfectly fair. Look up "breach of contract." See how many fucking layoff parties happen after that.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[bezza]

Nobody would hire anybody then dickhead.

God I hate protectionists

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[obarel]

Chicken and egg: what brings profits to the company?

According to some, it's the employees who work hard and produce value.
According to others, it's the customers who pay for goods and services.
Maybe both.

But the merging companies shit on both - employees are fired and customers will not get a better deal (why would they? A dominating company can provide cheaper, worse services, without being afraid of competition - legally they would have to do that, to keep the share holders happy).

The share holders do NOT bring profits to the company - they TAKE the profits, and are still considered number one in the business. That's because they own the business without lifting a finger. So the whole framework is screwed, not just a single business.

A company that controls 90% of the market, after mergers, will NOT provide better service to its customers. It's only competition that is good for the customers. Mergers are ANTI-COMPETITON and are BAD for the market, for the customers, and for the employees.

Talk about protectionism - mergers ARE protectionism, they protect the interests of the share holders and the directors, but not much else.

If a single company owned everything, but employed only 1% of the population, they'd have huge profits and the share holders would be extremely happy, but don't you think the economy would then collapse?

Thinking of employees as customers in other companies makes it slightly clearer - you must make sure that people earn money (and do not depend on charity) for a healthy economy. In a competitive market, it means that people have to work hard to earn their cash, but they CAN do it (i.e., it makes sense to start new businesses and employ people, because you can compete). In a non-competitive market, it can either mean that everybody works, but the market is not efficient (communism as was practiced in the USSR), or that only a small fraction of the population works and the rest are either rich (the "owners" of everything) or they have to resort to begging or stealing (capitalism as practiced in Africa).

Mergers make the market non-competitive. I wonder if you really want the country you live in to be like either of these examples.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

You know, the left claims to be the side that embraces change. In this case, the market in which Lucent participates has changed. There is less of a need for workers at Lucent now than when those workers were hired. Keeping unecessary staff on isn't just bad for Lucent, it's bad for the entire economy. Why keep someone around doing nothing when they could take part in real production elsewhere?

If you're such a fan of compulsory employment, take a look at how that's working out for the French.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

You know, the left claims to be the side that embraces change.

You know, the reason everything is so fucked up is because all arguments become "the left" and "the conservatives" and the whatever. Meanwhile, it's perfectly alright for 9,000 people to have their lives rammed into a toilet for doing nothing other than a good job.

There is less of a need for workers at Lucent now than when those workers were hired.

Is there less of a need for house payments?

Why keep someone around doing nothing when they could take part in real production elsewhere?

And the brilliant managers can't come up with something for these people to build? Oh, they have no problem at ALL writing a $25 billion check to buy the place, but they can't seem to pay their employees. Nah. Much easier to just fire everyone and pocket their paychecks. If they can't afford to pay the employees, why are they buying the place?

If you're such a fan of compulsory employment

Please point out the words "compulsory employment" in anything written here?

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

Nobody would hire anybody

People get hired now? Where?

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[rikkards]

If you're such a fan of compulsory employment, take a look at how that's working out for the French.
Funny how you say that when Alcatel is French. (mind you I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying)
Now let's do something about this housing bubble, I want to buy a house...

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

You know, the reason everything is so fucked up is because all arguments become "the left" and "the conservatives" and the whatever. Meanwhile, it's perfectly alright for 9,000 people to have their lives rammed into a toilet for doing nothing other than a good job.

The reason that everything is so "fucked up" is that the world is subject to change. Things aren't nearly stable enough for you to expect to be able to sit in the same place doing the same thing for 40-50 years. At some point, either the place you're sitting or the thing you're doing is going to change or go away. By the same token, things you're not doing might change in a way that you're needed to do them, or something you can do that didn't even exist before comes into existance. Most of the pony express riders did a very good job, but I don't see anyone arguing for them to be kept on in an age of electronic telecommunications.

Is there less of a need for house payments?

Your employer isn't responsible for your house payments, you are. The employer is, however, responsible for keeping their business running. If they think that profits will increase by reducing staff, then that is what should be done. You don't feel compelled to keep paying your cable bill if you don't want to watch cable any more, do you?

And the brilliant managers can't come up with something for these people to build? Oh, they have no problem at ALL writing a $25 billion check to buy the place, but they can't seem to pay their employees. Nah. Much easier to just fire everyone and pocket their paychecks. If they can't afford to pay the employees, why are they buying the place?

You've got two companies in similar markets here. They both have a lot of people doing very similar things. In an integrated company, there is bound to be some overlap. You don't expect to keep paying for full utilities if you move in with a roomate, do you?

Please point out the words "compulsory employment" in anything written here?

I think it was the bit about the "Lying Rat Fuck Sphincter Clutch Act". The part where I have to keep on all of my employees, even if they aren't making me money, just because I'm such a nice guy.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[bezza]

I agree. Mergers are bad for the enconomy if they produce a monopoly. Most mergers that do produce a monopoly are frequently denied (well in Australia anyway) by the government.

Some mergers however can cause two small companies to better rival a large more dominant one. In this case a merger is beneficial! What happens when a big company crushes two smaller ones through competition. What happens to ALL the employees in the small companies then?

The shareholders are the owners of the company. They do what they want to do with their company. Most good companies realise that most value is drawn from good employees. They try hard to keep the good ones. If you start introducing protectionist laws to stop people from getting fired, all you would do is discourage companies from taking risks in new ventures, stop hiring risky employees (like young people), and all in all raise the prices of their products (as the price of employees will have gone up substantially. Oh also you are forcing companies to go and look overseas for employees. Nobody wants that.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[ncc74656]

I think there should be a law: if a company that is not in Chapter 7 fires anyone without cause, they should become instantly liable for all of their debts. We'll call it the "Lying Rat Fuck Sphincter Clutch Act" Oh, and it's perfectly fair. Look up "breach of contract."

france has such laws on the books. Look how well it's working for them...can you say "20%+ unemployment," boys and girls? If you make it impossible to fire potentially shiftless/lazy employees, you make it much more attractive to sidestep that problem by simply not hiring them in the first place.

The employment contract you signed most likely has an at-will clause in it. They're not in breach of contract if they (or you) choose to exercise that clause.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[jnelson4765]

Yeah - we've got an empty Lucent factory sitting in the east end of Richmond. Tore hell out of the economy, too - it shut down in the mid-late 90s, and nobody has bought it since.

Bastards.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[chill]

Lucent did it to itself. There was a point in the late 90s where Lucent was the 2nd largest extender of credit in the world, after Bank of Japan. They "sold" billions of $$ in equipment, financed it 100%, to any jerk with a business plan written on a napkin.

When it all crashed, they were left with a crapload of never used, but used equipment. Cisco was smart -- they bought all theirs up and warehoused it. Lucent liquidated it, which totally decimated their new equipment sales. Why buy new when used is $0.30 on the dollar and the equipment has never been touched?

Those wage earners (of which I was one) had great benefits and excellent salaries. "Field engineers", aka the grunts in the field, could easily make $80 - 100,000 / year plus options, discounted ESPP and pension. People with 10+ years in ended up with severence packages that were in the high 5-figures if not 6. Hell, after just 2 years I had over $15,000 in pension, IRA-rollover and stock waiting for me.

As long as those workers didn't have their heads totally up their ass and invested SOMETHING, they came out fine. Hop on unemployment, tighten the belt, look for more work and you have more than enough to survive.

If they went up to their eyeballs in debt (new, bigger house; new car; new computers; etc.) then they paid the piper.

Personal responsibility does have some play, you know.

  -Charles

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

The reason that everything is so "fucked up" is that the world is subject to change. Things aren't nearly stable enough for you to expect to be able to sit in the same place doing the same thing for 40-50 years.

Oh horseshit. Our entire society is set up for people to have a "career" until they retire. Only reason they don't is because business seems to think firing people every 18 months is "good for the economy" which is a euphemism for "good for management."

Most of the pony express riders did a very good job, but I don't see anyone arguing for them to be kept on in an age of electronic telecommunications.

Ever heard of Federal Express?

If they think that profits will increase by reducing staff, then that is what should be done.

Yep. Fire 'em all. Why not cause hard working people to lose their job, home and marriage? Management "thinks" it will increase profits. Increased profits are worth a destroyed home or two, right? Drive that hard-working, college-educated, ambitious guy into alcoholism, financial ruin and divorce. Leave the kids with no family. Uproot entire neighborhoods. Ruin the educations of thousands. Cause all kinds of screaming arguments, hysterical fear and strife. Why not? Hey, it might increase profits! And as we all know, the only important thing in all the wide wide world is profit.

You've got two companies in similar markets here. They both have a lot of people doing very similar things. In an integrated company, there is bound to be some overlap.

So why not train those hard-working, qualified, highly skilled, highly educated employees to do something that DOESN'T overlap? Why is the first option always to FIRE EVERYONE? I know why, of course. It's so management can have a workforce of powerless, hungry, indebted, fearful, easily controlled slaves.

The part where I have to keep on all of my employees, even if they aren't making me money, just because I'm such a nice guy.

Nah. Don't have to keep the employees. Just pay off their debts. Or allow those employees to walk away from their debts as easily as employers walk away from their employment agreements. Anything else is unfair by definition.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

can you say "20%+ unemployment,"

Fifty percent of working-age adults in the U.S. are not employed in full-time "permanent" jobs.

Fifty.

Percent.

If you make it impossible to fire potentially shiftless/lazy employees

Shiftless/lazy employee: Anyone who is not a powerless, hungry, indebted, fearful, easily controlled slave.

to sidestep that problem by simply not hiring them in the first place.

Yep. Employers get the guarantees. Employees get the debts. Unfair.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

discourage companies from taking risks in new ventures, stop hiring risky employees (like young people), and all in all raise the prices of their products (as the price of employees will have gone up substantially. Oh also you are forcing companies to go and look overseas for employees.

All of that is happening now.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

Oh horseshit. Our entire society is set up for people to have a "career" until they retire. Only reason they don't is because business seems to think firing people every 18 months is "good for the economy" which is a euphemism for "good for management."

Firing people isn't good or bad for the economy, it is a product of the current state of a company's market. Demand does not stay constant, and thus the production level of a firm does not remain constant. This persecution complex about management acting solely to screw you is absurd. Yes they want money, money that only you, their employee, can make them.

Ever heard of Federal Express?

Yep. Federal Express does not have any long-haul horsemen or stable hands on its payroll.

Yep. Fire 'em all. Why not cause hard working people to lose their job, home and marriage? Management "thinks" it will increase profits. Increased profits are worth a destroyed home or two, right? Drive that hard-working, college-educated, ambitious guy into alcoholism, financial ruin and divorce. Leave the kids with no family. Uproot entire neighborhoods. Ruin the educations of thousands. Cause all kinds of screaming arguments, hysterical fear and strife. Why not? Hey, it might increase profits! And as we all know, the only important thing in all the wide wide world is profit.

If you are a hard working, college educated person, and haven't been able to establish a big enough safety net to make it to the next job without becoming destitute, it says something about your lack of fiscal responsibility. The same sort of lack of fiscal responsibility that says a company should drive itself into the ground (resulting in everyone losing their job anyway) rather than downsize to an efficient level.

So why not train those hard-working, qualified, highly skilled, highly educated employees to do something that DOESN'T overlap? Why is the first option always to FIRE EVERYONE? I know why, of course. It's so management can have a workforce of powerless, hungry, indebted, fearful, easily controlled slaves.

Not everyone is being fired. Let's count down you list of attributes of these 'wage slaves':

Powerless: It is only by the employees' effort that the firm makes money. They can stop working any time.
Hungry: They do pay them, you know.
Indebted: Not the company's problem. If you can't keep your own books balanced, I don't want you talking about how I should balance mine.
Fearful: In a choice between two employees, the hard-working pro-active one will get kept. If you're really this model employee, you should have nothing to fear. Only people leeching from the company feel fear when management comes looking.
Easily Controlled: What's there to control? You can come work, or you can not come work, its up to you.

Nah. Don't have to keep the employees. Just pay off their debts. Or allow those employees to walk away from their debts as easily as employers walk away from their employment agreements. Anything else is unfair by definition.

You keep talking about a major corporation like they can keep paying out money forever. Just because the numbers involved are big doesn't mean that can happen. And the debts. Why are these smart, hard-working people putting themselves into debt? Most smart, well-educated people I know keep a rainy day fund, not a debt to the bank. As for walking away from employment agreements, if there is actually an agreement somewhere that says the company will keep the worker on until age 65, then they have to follow it. If you didn't get it in writing, its not their problem.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[OwnedByTwoCats]

In 1983, AT&T and the government agreed to divide into eight pieces, the "new AT&T" and the seven "Baby Bells", because the long distance business was subsidizing the local business, and the local business was locking out competitors to the long distance business.

Of the seven "Baby Bells", Bell Atlantic gobbled up NYNEX and then merged with GTE to form Cingular. Southwestern Bell renamed itself SBC and gobbled up Pacific Telesys and then Ameritech, U S WEST got bought by QWEST, and now SBC has gobbled up the husk of AT&T and is making a play for BellSouth.

And the cell phone revolution happened.

AT&T, after divestiture, bought NCR, got indigestion, and then spun back out the New NCR and Lucent.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fifty percent of working-age adults in the U.S. are not employed in full-time "permanent" jobs.

First of all, nobody should believe this number until you cite a source for it. Secondly, it is a meaningless number even if it is true, because it doesn't represent the definition of unemployment. A person is only counted as "unemployed" if they are working-age adults and *desire* to be employed. You ignore people who choose to stay at home (e.g., housewives), which is a significant number.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[ncc74656]

can you say "20%+ unemployment,"

Fifty percent of working-age adults in the U.S. are not employed in full-time "permanent" jobs.

As the AC said, where's your source? As of February 2006, unemployment was at 4.8%. My source is here. Put up or shut up.

If you make it impossible to fire potentially shiftless/lazy employees

Shiftless/lazy employee: Anyone who is not a powerless, hungry, indebted, fearful, easily controlled slave.

Are you sure that chip on your shoulder isn't what's keeping you out of work? If I were in a position to have any say in the matter, I wouldn't hire someone with your lousy attitude.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[ncc74656]

Nobody would hire anybody

People get hired now? Where?

190k people got hired last month. That brings the total for the quarter to 603k new hires.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[Eunuchswear]

can you say "20%+ unemployment," boys and girls?

I certainly could, but it'd have nothing to do with France, which has a little bit less than 10% unemployment.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

Federal Express does not have any long-haul horsemen or stable hands on its payroll.

Hey, way to patronize. If you'll look waaaaaaaay up at about 40,000 feet, perhaps you'll see the point.

If you are a hard working, college educated person, and haven't been able to establish a big enough safety net to make it to the next job without becoming destitute, it says something about your lack of fiscal responsibility.

Yep. Management never has to justify. Management never has to give a reason. Management is free to fire and steal and ruin careers at their whim while the employee is blamed for being broke.

It is only by the employees' effort that the firm makes money.

If they fire people, they make money.

They do pay them, you know.

Not enough. Wage growth has been stagnant for 30 years.

Not the company's problem.

People wouldn't be buried in debt if they weren't underpaid.

a choice between two employees, the hard-working pro-active one will get kept.

No. They'll both get fired. If you like, I can recite the Disney example again, which perfectly annihilates any and all arguments against the fact that management fires people for no reason at all.

What's there to control?

Every part of an employee's life. From where they live all the way to what development tools they are allowed to use at work.

You keep talking about a major corporation like they can keep paying out money forever.

You talk about employees the same way. This whole discussion is about a $25 billion merger. How many people can $25 billion employ? Now, how many people are getting fired again?

Why are these smart, hard-working people putting themselves into debt?

Because they are underpaid. Major expenses go on the credit card because they can't save anything. They pay confiscatory interest on the credit card (and confiscatory rents, car payments, health insurance and utilities) which exacerbates the problem. Then they GET FIRED EVERY SIX MONTHS which means another several months of no pay. Understand yet, or should I draw a map?

As for walking away from employment agreements, if there is actually an agreement somewhere that says the company will keep the worker on until age 65, then they have to follow it.

No they don't. Pension agreements are being ignored. Why would it bother a company to spend a few years litigating an employment agreement?

If you didn't get it in writing, its not their problem.

You actually think a business is going to obligate themselves to their employees in this economy?

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

where's your source?

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

NEXT!

As of February 2006, unemployment was at 4.8%.

Meaning 4.8% of the workforce is drawing unemployment benefits. That statistic says nothing about people who have exhausted their benefits, are working part-time, or as temps, or are self-employed but not drawing a paycheck or have given up entirely.

Notice "unemployment" has been at or around 5% for about 300 years? It's a meaningless number. Utterly meaningless.

If I were in a position to have any say in the matter, I wouldn't hire someone with your lousy attitude.

Of course not. Employment isn't about marketable skills. It's about who has the best "attitude." Attitude is measured by how many weekends the new employee plans to work for no pay.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

A person is only counted as "unemployed" if they are working-age adults and *desire* to be employed.

Uh huh. That's convenient. So now we can dismiss all of the unfairly fucked over former employees by saying "hey, you must not want a job, because this number says you don't."

Pure, fragrant bullshit.

You ignore people who choose to stay at home

The number includes:

1. Part-time workers
2. Temporary workers
3. Self-employed
4. Out of the work force entirely

And it is an accurate number. Fifty percent are non-full-time workers. Believe it. Don't believe it. I could give a fuck.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

That brings the total for the quarter to 603k new hires.

Good. That should about cover the people who were fired last quarter. (Note the only actual employer mentioned was Kia, a non-U.S. company) What about wage growth?

Oops! Article doesn't mention that. Back to you, Bob!

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

The core problem with your argument is that is operates under the assumption that what someone is doing is worth a particular amount of money to the company. Wages too low? Maybe, but more likely the work just isn't worth more than that. Furthermore, firing people does not "make them money". It might increase overall profits if the person's work wasn't worth as much as their salary, but firing someone who's work is actually worth something will actually lose you money.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[ncc74656]

where's your source?

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Where's your URL? Are you too lazy to google for it, or are we supposed to just take you at your word? Besides, my own cite (also from BLS) said otherwise.

YOU FAIL IT.

As of February 2006, unemployment was at 4.8%.

Meaning 4.8% of the workforce is drawing unemployment benefits.

If your mindset wasn't of the glass-half-empty variety, you would see that as 95.2% of the working-age population is gainfully employed. There's almost always some number of people between jobs (career changes or whatever), and then there are jobsworths like you who wonder why they can't keep a job for any length of time.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

Wages too low? Maybe, but more likely the work just isn't worth more than that.

Says management.

It might increase overall profits if the person's work wasn't worth as much as their salary, but firing someone who's work is actually worth something will actually lose you money.

And management cares because?

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

Where's your URL?

Uh, there's no URL for this one, Sparky. It requires people to think.

or are we supposed to just take you at your word?

I don't give a fuck what you do.

If your mindset wasn't of the glass-half-empty variety, you would see that as 95.2% of the working-age population is gainfully employed.

No. I would see that 95.2% of the working-age population is not drawing unemployment benefits. At least read the statistics. It helps a lot.

and then there are jobsworths like you who wonder why they can't keep a job for any length of time.

I don't wonder. I know exactly why. It's because of lying rat fuck bastard phone-flipping blowdried cheat hairpiece unwiped asscracks in middle management who get paid to talk about golf and fire people. They don't have the stones to employ talented smart people and bring products to market. It's not really that complicated.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

Management cares if firing someone will lose them money because ... get this ... it will lose them money. The one thing that we both seem to agree on is that management's goal is to maximize the bottom line, and if not firing someone is the way to do that, I don't see why they wouldn't (outside that persecution complex mentioned earlier).

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

They don't have the stones to employ talented smart people and bring products to market. It's not really that complicated.

Every successful business hires talented, smart people. These people are not you.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

Management cares if firing someone will lose them money because ... get this ... it will lose them money.

No they don't. They don't care if they lose money. They don't care about anything except control. They want controlled slaves. They don't want employees, because that would require responsibility. They want infinite profits at zero risk and they don't want competent employees. The merger story is proof.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

Every successful business hires talented, smart people.

Every business fires talented, smart people.

These people are not you.

Good. I don't have a lying phone-flipping rat fuck asscrack manager, so I don't have to worry about being laid off the week after I sign a mortgage. And I can do the work of ten dockers-wearing air-conditioned fuckwads under budget and under schedule before Corn Flakes. Face it. Donut-stuffing middle management doesn't have the huevos to bring products to market and employ people any more. It's really pretty sad.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

If it's so easy to get rid of employees at will, as you suggest, what is the risk in keeping someone on as long as they make you money? Is it about the money, or is it about, as you seem to suggest, sadistic glee at firing people? I also fail to see where a merger indicates a preference for incompetant employees.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

I get the feeling that your poor relationship with managers is somewhat personal. While I can't help but agree that a large portion of middle management doesn't add a lot of value to the equation, they are also not the sadistic trolls you seem to think they are. There's no joy in letting someone go, unless that someone is dragging down your organization.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

If it's so easy to get rid of employees at will, as you suggest, what is the risk in keeping someone on as long as they make you money?

Good question. Maybe the managers that are laying of 9000 people for no reason have an answer.

Oh, and congratulations. You just made my point.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

Good question. Maybe the managers that are laying of 9000 people for no reason have an answer.

You keep saying that the layoffs are happening for no reason. My argument here is that there is a reason: the benefits of employing those 9000 people do not outweigh the cost of keeping them employed. Just because the company *could* hold onto the workers (you seem to suggest that management should take a pay cut) does not mean that the company *should* hold onto the workers. Whether the money surfaces to pay them or not, there is still nothing for them to do at Lucent. There are, however, plenty of other places that they can work that *do* need hard-working, smart people. This is my original argument, oh so many posts ago, that the free market is reallocating the workers to somewhere where they can actually produce. Lucent is not that place, and trying to force it to be only hurts everyone.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

You keep saying that the layoffs are happening for no reason.

They are. If the seperate companies found those employees to "make them money" (since it seems sooooo important that every single person in the company be shoveling cash into the company account), then there is no reason that those employees can't make the combined companies money.

But management will put zero effort into retaining those people. They'll just throw them out on their asses before the ink dries on the merger paperwork, because firing people is the top priority.

My argument here is that there is a reason

Says management. Management is usually wrong. In fact, management is wrong unless proven otherwise. Fastest way to become a multi-zillionaire is to find out what middle managers think, then do the exact opposite as fast as possible.

Whether the money surfaces to pay them or not

Companies had it before the merger. $25 billion dollars buys a lot of hours. There was no reason for these people to lose their jobs until the companies merged. "Redundant" is another word for "incompetent management." Middle management doesn't want to have to think, so they just fire everyone.

there is still nothing for them to do at Lucent

Says management. See above. See, if there's nothing for employees to do, that's management's fault. Management is responsible. Management is incompetent. Management is wrong. Not the employees.

Middle managers do not have the stones to employ people and bring products to market. Face it.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[TheGavster]

You, sir, are quite possibly the most bitter and narrow-minded person I have ever come into contact with.

Re:How long can this consolidation go on for ?

[cubicledrone]

are quite possibly the most bitter and narrow-minded person

Because I don't automatically agree that middle management knows best. Everyone's happy as long as people are being fired. Anyone who complains that those people are being treated like dogshit is "bitter and narrow-minded."

Whatever.

Bets On The New Name

[Draegonis]

I was thinking "Lucatel". What else we got?

Re:Bets On The New Name

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcent.

Re:Bets On The New Name

[C.A. Nony Mouse]

Accident.

Re:Bets On The New Name

[fm6]

Since Alcatel is already an abbreviation (for Alsacienne de Cables et de Telephones), they're not likely to abbreviate it further. Given the fact that Alcatel is basically bailing Lucent out, they'll probably just drop the Lucent name.

Re:Bets On The New Name

[jozi]

Lucifer?

Re:Bets On The New Name

[stox]

Lucatania, a perfect target for the Germans.

Re:Bets On The New Name

[cloudofstrife]

I've heard Lucratel. Hopefully it won't set the expectations for the new company too high.

Re:Bets On The New Name

[Efg�]

Alcent? It has a good sound to it.

And http://www.alcent.com/ says 403 Forbidden.

Re:Bets On The New Name

[sg3000]

> Given the fact that Alcatel is basically bailing Lucent out, they'll probably just drop the
> Lucent name.

You're right about Alcatel being an abbreviation of an older name, but I believe they're planning on changing the name. According to publicly available information, at their conference call, they will provide more details, but they said

New company name to be determined at a later date

Re:Bets On The New Name

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Luci for the missing "LINK"

bahahaha

Re:Bets On The New Name

[fm6]

New company name to be determined at a later date

Which just means there's been no official decision.

Re:Bets On The New Name

[Vulcann]

How about "Freedom Lucent"

*ducks*

So maybe my LU stock will finally rise???

[Anonymous Coward]

So maybe my LU stock will finally rise???

Would you call this fruition?!

[quadra23]

Cappella: They first tried to work out a merger five years ago, but finally, at long last, it's come to fruition.

From article: Close to 9,000 jobs, or about 10% of the companies' workforce will lose their jobs as a result of the merger.

If I was a marketing person I would definitely try to side-step this fact, unless I sugar-coated it by saying how this makes the company more efficient.

Re:Would you call this fruition?!

[HoosierPeschke]

My guess is most of those losses will be on the US side of the merger.

Re:Would you call this fruition?!

[cubicledrone]

Close to 9,000 jobs, or about 10% of the companies' workforce will lose their jobs as a result of the merger.

Any MOTHER FUCKING QUESTIONS?

Thank you.

Re:Would you call this fruition?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's hard to lay off people in France. It's much easier in the US.

LU has about 30K people left. Of course less than 9K actually know how to create anything. Most are just middle managers who know how to go to meetings. The ratio of managers to workers is isane. But the middle managers will be the ones who decide who should be layed off, so...

(From an LU peon.)

Re:Would you call this fruition?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Close to 9,000 jobs, or about 10% of the companies' workforce will lose their jobs as a result of the merger.

If I was a marketing person I would definitely try to side-step this fact, unless I sugar-coated it by saying how this makes the company more efficient.

They're not marketing to would-be employees. They're marketing to would-be investors, so lay-offs are always good. :(

sort of like Homer's catdog

[Anonymous Coward]

loyalty of a cat + the cleanliness of a dog

Re:sort of like Homer's catdog

[creepynut]

Actually, that was Bart.

Now Lucent is a foreign company

[the_humeister]

Alcatel and Lucent had tried to merge five years ago, but talks collapsed.

This time round they had to overcome concerns about security because Lucent does work for the US government.

To smooth the merger's path, Lucent will set up a separate US company to deal with sensitive government contracts.

Well, I guess we can't trust the French either. I wonder why there isn't a bigger issue made out of this considering the Dubai Ports World deal last month.

Re:Now Lucent is a foreign company

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess we can't trust the French either.

Yeah, I guess we can't trust 'em, cuz them Frenchies is always goin' around lyin to the world about casus belli and startin' unjust and illegal wars. Oh, wait ...

Re:Now Lucent is a foreign company

[Valdrax]

Actually, this is not unusual for companies that have defense contracts, even with very friendly countries. There are laws stating that companies that deal with classified material and classified projects must be American. As a result, foreign-owned companies create American shell companies to handle all the details that the parent company is not allowed to work with.

My previous employer got bought out by the Swiss, and our Defense Team became a separate corporation owned by the parent company. It's standard operating procedure.

Re:Now Lucent is a foreign company

[droopycom]

Geez... Alcatel is French allright, but what does that really means ?

CGE/Alcatel is not a Government Owned Company since 1987. (http://www.alcatel.com/apropos/history/index.htm)

This is a Public Company. Grantrd the board of director seems mainly French, but if you want to now who really owns or control a multinational like that, you need to be a financial detective.

France used to rely on Governement Owned Company for critical infrastructure and defense industries, because thats the only way to keep control. The US has never done that (except maybe during FDR's New Deal) so why should it be more worried now ?

Once we start assuming that a company is a person, things get confused.
A company is like a person, whose mind is controlled by real people. The nationality of the company doesnt really matter, mostly what you should be worried about is the intentions of the people owning the company.

Do you really think the intentions of a French Capitalist are so different that the intention of an American one ?

Re:Now Lucent is a foreign company

[sg3000]

> foreign-owned companies create American shell companies to handle all the details
> that the parent company is not allowed to work with

I'm not sure about "shell company", but Alcatel has a U.S.-based subsidiary that is set up to handle sensitive items like this called Alcatel Government Solutions

Re:Now Lucent is a foreign company

[TuballoyThunder]

Actually, it wasn't just the US that had national security concerns.

The Thales deal, designed to answer French government concerns over sensitive military technologies, hit a snag when European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. intervened -- with the reported backing of French President Jacques Chirac -- to demand that its own Astrium satellite unit be included in the operation.

Associated Press

Re:Now Lucent is a foreign company

[wyohman]

Alcatel and Lucent had tried to merge five years ago, but talks collapsed.

But then someone learned there's no such thing as a merger. One company wins, one company loses!

Cheers.

Screw the French

[fred911]

So it's ok for them to play in our economy but gor forbid we play in theirs! FTF I bet this deal gets squashed.

Re:Screw the French

[zestymonkey]

There is a precedent. Alcatel was allowed to buy and completely decimate DSC Communication Corp about eight years ago. Granted, that company was smaller than Lucent, but it was based in the U.S.

Boy, am I glad I fled from telecom years ago.

Re:Screw the French

[zestymonkey]

How is my comment Flamebait while others that are far more vitroilic considered Insightful? Oh, yeah, because I'm one of the BMOCs of Slashdot. Here's some flamebait...

Geeks are bigger egomaniacs and elistists than jocks.

Old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard about this days ago... when it was news... in the Wall Street Journal.

Re:Old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a link to the free to the public commentary section for the article in question, over to the WSJ?

Slashdot is a commentary site devoted to recent/and or interesting news for nerds. It is not designed to be an up to the second strict "news" page. It is the commentary that is important here. Just because some article is a few days old means absolutely nothing, there is no way in hell they could have every single breaking news article out there and keep it up, even the humongous news associations have a hard time with that, and it takes hundreds of employees to pull off.

Re:Old news?

[gtwilliams]

Actually, that article was reporting on rumors. The actual announcement came out today in the WSJ.

wtf?

[Beuno]

fruition???
Common... you're really going to say "fruition"?

Naperville

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know what this means for jobs in Lucent's Naperville location?

Re:Naperville

[Limburgher]

Could set off a ripple effect in the tech job market in greater Chicagoland, if they close it or cut it enough. Let's hope for all our sakes they leave it alone. Frankly, I hope so for "Lucatel"'s sake, too. It's generally ill-advised to fire those staff members who actually bring in revenue.

Re:Naperville

[Anonymous Coward]

Every worker will be given a crepe and a copy of jerry lewis's greatest hits. Every job title will change to "cheese eating surrender monkey" and all starbucks in naperville will be stocked with rude frenchman instead of rude teenagers. Everyone will be forced to grow curly mustaches and say "hambourger" instead of "hamburger". All workers will have to call all americans fat and lazy and stupid. Besides that, it will all be the exact same boring, monotonous work that you have grown accustomed to.

Re:Naperville

[Tanamo]

> It's generally ill-advised to fire those staff members who actually
> bring in revenue.

It's never stopped Lucent before, why do you think the share price hasn't been over $5 for the last 5 years!

AT LAST!!

[Anonymous Coward]

ALCATEL 's years of secret toil have at long last paid off! -- finally, preparations for PHASE 2 of their nefarious plans are complete! Soon...yes, very soon now, the whole world will recall the name ALCATEL and tremble!!

[To be continued...]

Oh goody!

[cubicledrone]

$25 billion? That should be good for at least ten thousand layoffs. Middle managers are right now compliing lists of people who just bought homes or just re-financed. Hey, Bob over there just got a new car! Oh yeah, he's out with the first group.

Layoffs for all! Bonuses and parties for the rest! THERE'S CAKE IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM!

Re:Oh goody!

[kryten_nl]

THERE'S CAKE IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM

It's a full blown buffet actually. But you'll never know...

Re:Oh goody!

[polymorpheus]

Middle managers will be the first to go. That's where the problems are.

Re:Oh goody!

[MadUndergrad]

Middle managers should be the first to go. That's where the problems are.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Oh goody!

[cubicledrone]

Middle managers will be the first to go.

Bullshit. Recent mortgages will be the first to go. There's nothing some asscrack lying rat fuck loves more than yanking the paycheck out from under a picket fence. They're fucking over everyone and people actually sit here and say "oh it's the free market."

Free market my crotch.

Re:Oh goody!

[Cutting_Crew]

you have to ask yourself... "Is This Good For The Company?"

We sure hope they "get" plan9

[DrSkwid]

After all, Glenda is drawn by Renee French.

"Plan 9 from Bell Labs" the only OMG!!! Ponies OS.

Seriously, we (the plan9 community - there could be up to 100 of us!) sure hope they "get" plan9.

Re:We sure hope they "get" plan9

[polymorpheus]

There's nothing left to get. Plan9 died a few years ago at the labs when everybody went to google.

Re:We sure hope they "get" plan9

[DrSkwid]

That's not quite true. There are more users than ever.

But we do live in fear for when the oxygen supply runs out.

We worry about what crappy place we will end up in, where Windows & Linux is the only choice for your new hardware.

Re:We sure hope they "get" plan9

[polymorpheus]

There may be more users than ever, but no more development of Plan9 at the labs and very very few users if any. Plan9 is dead for Bell Labs and hence Lucatel.

Re:We sure hope they "get" plan9

[ronaldgminnich]

No more development eh? You don't know what you are talking about. DOE is funding more Plan 9 development. As of this year, we have a new Plan 9 C compiler for the 64-bit Opteron, we have the first-ever 64-bit Plan 9 kernel, for Opteron, and we got all the kernel cleanup that it required.

Lucent, I am told, uses Plan 9 quite a bit in embedded work. It makes money. It's not just a research OS. I expect development will continue.

thanks

ron

Re:We sure hope they "get" plan9

[polymorpheus]

sorry, but DOE isn't Lucent. I was saying that Lucent isn't putting any research R/D dollars into Plan9, who knows what DOE, NSA, ETC is doing. In fact, the whole group that had Kernighan and those guys was disbanded---most left for Google and others went their merry way inside and outside of Lucent.

Re:We sure hope they "get" plan9

[CrazyWingman]

Did you mean this to be funny?

Worrying about Oxygen running out, and the Inferno dying with Plan 9. Am I the only one laughing?

...yes, I know I am - I'm the one with shares of stock that I didn't sell while Lucent was at $80+. The laughter is the cure to melancholy. Maybe they'll be worth more than $3 sometime soon. :P

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's ok for them to play in our economy but gor forbid we play in theirs!

Cite some supporting facts, because right now you come across as just another right-wing big-mouth jerk-off who licks his own ass for lunch and gets all his "thinkin' points" from neocons and rednecks so he knows "who we's gonna be hatin' this week".

Re:Why?

[mce]

You'd be better of tracking worldwide economic/political news before you decide to flame people. Check out Suez for the most recent example. Ok, so that one doesn't involve the US, but that's irrelevant because it's only one example of many and most of all because it is very much in line with general French policies and attitudes. They are very nationalistic/protectionistic in general and in terms of economy in particular.

Re:Why?

[fred911]

The french government is as protectionist has it gets. The only level field they play on is one slanted twards themselves. I surely didn't intend to sound redneck. Read more here:

http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/djh/ 200603241445DOWJONESDJONLINE000969.htm
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id =5476736
http://www.e-nough.hmdnsgroup.com/archives/001024. html

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pepsi takeover of Danone is one example. oui oui.

Re:Why?

[gerbouille]

Yeah ... Of course, the US never does that !

Re:Why?

[Leon_Trotsky]

I thought only the USA was allowed to be protectionist, antagonist, and non-competitive... Who allowed this?
It must be stopped.

Re:Bets On The New Name (Stating the Obvious)

[kzinti]

Alcatelucent.

Try Alcacent sir

[zappepcs]

The cure for all your telecommunications heartburn or upset stomach ???

Alcatel and Lucent to Merge, form Voltron

[Gothmolly]

Massive blackhole of suckitude to form, news at 11.

Lets see, what do these guys do...
make "winmodems"
produce crappy PBX hardware
offer "services" ...
3) lose money!

Re: Alcatel and Lucent to Merge, form Voltron

[timbrown]

You forgot "make exceptionally good high end routers". Service routers that can work at layers 2 and 3, excellent HA capabilities that are ideal for building large MPLS clouds. Having had the pleasure of testing these babies, they rock! And they sell pretty well too.

Re: Alcatel and Lucent to Merge, form Voltron

[jonathan_the_ninja]

Not all of their modems suck; I myself have a "56K" non winmodem that worked very nice on Linux. The nicest thing is that it would commonly connec at 115 kbps when it's only supposed to be 56k.

Re: Alcatel and Lucent to Merge, form Voltron

[SirDaShadow]

commonly connec at 115 kbps when it's only supposed to be 56k.

no, no, NO. Why people are so stupid to realize that 1) in the USA, the MAXIMUM speed of a modem is 53kbps, so you will NEVER see a link connection faster than this and 2) don't know the difference between carrier speed and terminal speed?

ok, your computer communicates to the modem at a "fixed" rate, the fastest is 115200 bps (terminal speed). However the carrier speed on a 56k modem could be anything from 300~53000 bps(carrier speed). Why the need for a higher terminal speed? The answer: Compression. Data can be compressed 4:1 (and in some cases like the newest modem standards up to 6:1) and therefore throughtput can be maximized to the terminal speed. However if data doesn't compress well (like jpgs or zips) you are limited to the carrier speed. Text in a web page does compress well, so it's a toss up. But you NEVER connect to 115kbps on POTS.

Saves on incest costs..

[Mowie_X]

The whole industry is very incestuous. It will save a lot of money from both companies kitty used to lure employees from the other. Don't count this as minor savings either. It was not uncommon at all for Lucent to fly Cisco/Nortel employees from Can to US for an interview at the spur of the moment -- including putting them up in hotel, costs, etc...

I do suspect this will lead to a lot of layoffs however. Do they really need 2 wireless divisions doing exactly the same thing?

Re:Saves on incest costs..

[ectospasm]

It was not uncommon at all for Lucent to fly Cisco/Nortel employees from Can to US for an interview at the spur of the moment -- including putting them up in hotel, costs, etc...

It's not uncommon for that to happen to anyone in a tech position. I was flown to a location, put up in a hotel, and given cab fare just for an interview. A lot of companies do this...

Too bad I didn't get the job, but I got a free trip out of it!

Re:Saves on incest costs..

[Anonymous Coward]

This merger is just the beginning of a slow death of the telecom industry as we know it. Various factors have contributed to it.

1) Commoditization of hardware: Increasing reliability of COTS, and standardization of the backplanes (e.g, ATCA - http://www.atca.org/)has led to many telecom equipment manufacturers to reduce costs by outsourcing.

2) Emergence of stable, embedded Open Source OS: The emergence of linux as a viable alternative to the millions of RTOSs has helped telecom manufacturers standardize on the OS interface (e.g. POSIX). This in turn has helped the growth of telecom applications.

3) Convergence on IP as the transport mechanism: This will effectively reduce the telecom providers to bitpipe providers, and help in moving the intelligence into the edge of the network. Thus, imagine if all the mobiles and phone have an IP connection - they could simply use Google Talk, or any other IM..

      The implications of the above 3 factors are that the core competency of any telecom equipment manufacturer (TEM) is the ability to create/deploy services at a much faster rate than today. This points to the likes of Google, ...

Re:Bets On The New Name!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

un. télécommunications de la France deux. télécommunications de Paris trois. nouvelles télécommunications de la France

my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent

[ilove2bscrewed]

Alcatel is making a move that may bite them in the ass. Lucent is not worth what they are paying for it, the entire company is worth maybe 1/2 of that price TOPS. As part of the deal I hope that Alcatel gets to execute Patrica Russo by a great french method of 'off with her head'. The first thing that Alcatel needs to do post merger is sack the entire BOD and any other worthless manager still left on the payroll.

If were a cartoonist, this is the cartoon I would draw.

Frame #1: A fat PHB with the Red lucent symbol on his back, he is screwing an employee with the caption of "It's just business"
Frame #2: A french executive from Alcatel is screwing the fat PHB from the first frame with the caption of "How do you like it?"

The red lucent symbol will always remind me of how my ass felt after the management had their way with me. No romance, no dinner, no flowers, just a royal pounding in the ASCII chart!

Re:my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent

[cabinetsoft]

Reply to: my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent
my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent
(Score:1)
by ilove2bscrewed (965561) on Sunday April 02, @11:55PM (#15046776)

The red lucent symbol will always remind me of how my ass felt after the
management had their way with me. No romance, no dinner, no flowers,
just a royal pounding in the ASCII chart!

That must really have hurt you. Judging just by the effort to make up such a username and register only to be able to post that comment.

Re:my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent

[jrp2]

"The red lucent symbol will always remind me of ..."

I believe that is properly referred to as "The coffee stain of quality".

Re:my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent

[Anonymous Coward]

You deserved to have your ass fired, freak.

=)

Re:my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent

[stox]

You're being generous, I always heard it as "The bleeding sphincter of quality."

Re:my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent

[Anonymous Coward]

As fate would have it... http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx? type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-04-03T033819Z_01_ NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-243350-1.xml

Re:my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh yes.........Another stock I will sell short and make a ton of money on. Russo did squat for Lucent, now she'll take this merged comapny down too.......Cha-Ching!!!!

Re:my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent

[AFCArchvile]

First Carly Fiorna, and then Patricia Russo. Lucent has had some true witches at the helm over the past 10 years, haven't they?

Re:my $0.02 Worth from a former employee of Lucent

[nizo]

Ahh, but everyone complained about the AT&T deathstar too. I was a contractor at Lucent when they split into bits, and I vividly remember the complaints about the new "red sphincter" logo :-)

Another fish to be fried

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucent and Nortel used to be the big rivals. Nowadays, they're both a fraction of what they once were. The rumour says that Nortel is up for grabs as well. Perhaps Huawei will take ownership. That way they can get some real R&D instead of S&D (Steal and Development).

Whoever put the whocares tag

[Paralizer]

watch the stock monday (LU). The people who make 10% in one day care...

Re:Whoever put the whocares tag

[Drakonian]

Or the 8800 people losing their jobs! Some of whom I'm sure are Slashdot geeks.

NOT exactly the same thing!

[williamyf]

Lucent Droped their GSM product line a long time ago. And alcatel has no CDMA2000 1xrtt or EV-DO products. Therefore, the two wireless division are not doing EXACTLY the same thing...

          With the rest of the product line, where the products overlap, they will do the usual:

          Decide on a surviving product (based on market share, technology, costs, future potential and other reasons), decide on a product map which highlights the life of the disapearing products and migration paths, and finaly, brace for impact.

Re:NOT exactly the same thing!

[rikkards]

Decide on a surviving product (based on market share, technology, costs, future potential and other reasons), decide on a product map which highlights the life of the disapearing products and migration paths, and finaly, brace for impact

Talking to people I used to work with at Newbridge before Alcatel bought them out, Lucent should expect practically everything to be shelved, anything that is good will be moved over to Alcatel's existing workers and layoffs for the Lucent types.

Sounds like Alcatel is 1 small step from shutting down what was Newbridge's main HQ.

Re:NOT exactly the same thing!

[timbrown]

Funny, I've met folks from Newbridge who now work for Alcatel who seemed fairly happy with the arrangements. Also, when they took TiMetra and their product became the base for Alcatel's 7750 SR range, Basil Alwan, the CEO of TiMetra ended up heading Alcatel's IP division.

Steal and Development?

[williamyf]

Check the Specs for TD-SCDMA and we talk

Yes there was A LOT of S&D. And yes, there is still some S&D going on (possibly you were thinking about the CISCO source code), but each day, less and less S&D. And if they join with India, they will not need S&D anymore, so, grow up man!

Re:Steal and Development?

[Anonymous Coward]

hauwei and nortel made a deal.
nortel will be the only company to sell the gear in the USA.
we are the only CLEC who made a deal to buy before the deal.
great sonet gear.

later.

Confirmed?

[autophile]

It ain't confirmed until Netcraft confirms it!

--Rob

"Lucent surrenders to French company"

[Anonymous Coward]

ha ha. Ca va faire pleurer plus d'un americain. Papa Bush, a l'aide!

Does Bush know?

[tootlemonde]

Back at the beginning of Clinton's first term, lobbyists from Western Electric alerted him that the White House switchboard was a product of Northern Telecom. NorTel is nominally a Canadian company but this particular switch was made by its Raleigh, N.C. plant that employed 20,000 American workers and was installed by an American company.

Clinton had the system ripped out and replaced by a good ole Western Electric product. Lucent is the successor company to Western Electric. Unless the something has changed in the intervening years, the French now control the White House telecom system.

Re:Does Bush know?

[NynexNinja]

It should also be pointed out that technically the French now control about 75% of every telephone switch in the United States (5ESS, 4ESS, etc). I can't wait till they start playing the man-in-the-middle games with our trunks ;)

All that is old is new again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wahoo! The flaming red asshole is buying up (yeah, merging/whatever) more stuff they can break. I remember when Lucent bought Ascend, killed the product lines, broke the workers, burned the assets to the ground, then stomped on the ashes that were left over. I wonder if they can manage to do the same to a company as big as Alcatel? So much for "increasing shareholder value."\

Lucent - They buy the things that make technology work, then they break them.

It's been nice knowing you , Alcatel.

Nexabit 64000

[thilmony]

Good, maybe they can get some Nexabit's out the door now!

The price will go down, not up

[mflaster]

Actually, Alcatel is giving Lucent shareholders $3.01 of Alcatel shares per LU share, whereas LU closed at $3.05 on Friday.

So unless Alcatel goes up a lot, LU will actually go down, not up. The stock had already risen in (over-)anticipation of the deal.

More Information Here

[Anonymous Coward]

The Register has posted this article with more information.

So much for the Lucent brand

[raju1kabir]

Hopefully for the company, this means it will now have the French government's lucrative preferential contracting support combined with Lucent's ability to sometimes make quality stuff, and not the other way around. Because the Alcatel gear is truly shitty in a level all to its own, at least with the PABXs etc that I have had to deal with.

another Eastland tragic top heavy toppling ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Soooooooo will they rename themselves Western Electric and merge with AT&T?

Sure like hte current BellSouth merger yielding San Antonio based l/c at&t ;-)/:-(

Soooooooo is this another Titanic top heavy Bell System toppling echoing the Western Electric close to shore Eastland picnic tragedy: 844+ excursioners perishing with 3 crew while one line was still fast to the river dock :-(

Don't Worry

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as Bush got in office, he had it ripped out and replaced by his friends in the Suadi Royal Family. Good Times!

Perhaps This is Why

[Wonka_Vision]

France has also been occupied 3 separate times within the last 130 some-odd years, and is therefore perhaps a little more closed off than you would like. Of course the United States has seen war and all, but has met with relatively little disaster on it's own front (I am not trying to undermine Sept. 11th). Americans seem to believe everything should be done their way and, despite their belligerence, are also fed this idea that bad things simply can't happen to them.
Many countries have faced tremendous hardship and, as a result, may seem to be a bit more defensive with regards to foreign affairs (economically and otherwise). It certainly is not done to upset anyone.
The French can be dicks and all, there's no doubt there, but they're certainly not unique in being so.

everybody's equipment is schytty

[swschrad]

just in different ways, and to different degrees. it's all full of bugs and nobody fixes them in a timely fashion, and that's the truth, pfffffttt.

The Sad Thing Is...

[ThankfulJosh]

they are expected to lay off 8,800 workers. Yikes.

Re: Wheelchairs

[some guy I know]

No, it was for my mother, who can't walk very far any more.

I'm very careful around tools, especially power tools, and as a result have never suffered more than the occasional nick, cut, bruise, scratch, eye injury, lung damage due to oil stain fume inhalation, amputation, house fire, flood, cheese byproducts, nuclear holocaust, and species extinction due to asteroid impact, and I think that some of these were from Sears-bought (Craftsman) tools, not Harbor Freight-bought tools.

But hey, the end table that I built looks great!

harbor freight

[LunaticTippy]

I grew up in California, and remember harbor freight before they were big.

I assumed it was because they were near the harbor, and sold freight that came off the boat.

Maybe I'm being too logical here, but it sorta makes sense.

Now, they're everywhere, so the colorado stores aren't so logically named.

Re: Western Electric

[markhb]

Gee... then who are these guys?

When the original AT&T / Lucent / NCR splitup happened, I spoke to my company's AT&T sales rep, asking why they didn't just use the Western Electric name for what was becoming Lucent. She said it was because, essentially, the existing associations of the name made it impossible. I am not sure now whether she meant it would violate some FTC rule, or if the bosses at AT&T wanted a very clean break with the past.