Slashdot Mirror
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.
Soooooooo will they rename themselves Western Electric and merge with AT&T?
Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
I was thinking "Lucatel". What else we got?
So maybe my LU stock will finally rise???
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.
loyalty of a cat + the cleanliness of a dog
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
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
fruition???
Common... you're really going to say "fruition"?
Does anyone know what this means for jobs in Lucent's Naperville location?
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...]
$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!
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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".
Alcatelucent.
The cure for all your telecommunications heartburn or upset stomach ???
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
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!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Actually, that article was reporting on rumors. The actual announcement came out today in the WSJ.
Garry Williams
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.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
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?
With any luck, he'll have $ left over for you.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
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!
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).
watch the stock monday (LU). The people who make 10% in one day care...
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.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
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.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
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!
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
God I hate protectionists
WARNING: This sig does not contain a joke
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.
Good, maybe they can get some Nexabit's out the door now!
YES, there is a McDonald's in Hanoi Square.
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
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?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Nobody would hire anybody
People get hired now? Where?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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...
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
WARNING: This sig does not contain a joke
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.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
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.
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
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
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
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.
they are expected to lay off 8,800 workers. Yikes.
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.
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.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
190k people got hired last month. That brings the total for the quarter to 603k new hires.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I certainly could, but it'd have nothing to do with France, which has a little bit less than 10% unemployment.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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!
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
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.
Man, you really need that seminar!
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?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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!
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
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.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
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?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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).
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
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.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
You, sir, are quite possibly the most bitter and narrow-minded person I have ever come into contact with.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.