Volt Asks Temps To 'Vote" For Microsoft Pay Cut

theodp writes "In an email sent Friday evening to its Microsoft temp workers, Volt Workforce Solutions asked the techies to 'vote' to agree to a 10% pay cut. From the email: 'We want to support you in continuing your assignment at Microsoft and respectfully ask that you respond by going to the upper left hand corner of this email under the "Vote" response option and select, "Accept'" by close of business Tuesday, March 3, 2009. By accepting you agree to the [-10%] pay adjustment in your pay rate.' Microsoft managed to keep the Feb. 20 email detailing plans to slash rates from leaking while it pitched its Elevate America initiative at the 2009 Winter Meeting of the National Governors Association, touting Microsoft skills as just the ticket to economic recovery."

Comments

My kind of democracy

[mc1138]

You can vote anyway you want, the only catch is that there is only one choice.

Re:My kind of democracy

[pxlmusic]

wolves, chickens, and all that

Re:My kind of democracy

[plopez]

In Soviet Socialist Corporate America....

Or should that be "in Fascist Capitalist Corporate States of America" you are free to do as you are told.

Though with corporate bailouts and nationalization it's getting hard to tell them apart anymore.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Cally]

HP / EDS pulled the same stunt. Oh, except that the CEO's taking a 20% cut in his basic (but pulled a $40,000,000 bonus last year), and there's no vote involved.

http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/19/hp_pay_cuts/

Re:My kind of democracy

[commodore64_love]

>>>You can vote anyway you want, the only catch is that there is only one choice.

That's true. My company has not done this yet, but I've heard from a neighboring company that the temporary Contract workers were told they must take a $10 cut, otherwise next week would be their last. A few stubborn persons refused, and were asked to leave, but most are still working with a reduced pay.

This "Microsoft vote" is mere formality; if you don't take the cut you may as well pack-up your desk and take a long, unpaid vacation.

Re:My kind of democracy

[rod.chamberlin]

You can vote anyway you want, the only catch is that there is only one choice.

Strictly there are two choices:

"My way or the Highway"

The implication is that if you don't accept by the deadline you will be terminated.

The accept button is simplifying their paperwork.

I'm sure the way they have done it a number of people will refuse on principle meaning they can also reduce staff numbers - a double win!

Re:My kind of democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The choices should have been:

1) I do not accept a pay cut. I understand that Friday will be my last day of employment, however, I do not go out much and do not have many friends.

2) YES, please CUT MY PAY. Management at both Microsoft and Volt should be commended for their tough minded leadership during hard economic times. THANK YOU SIRS PLEASE GIVE ME ANOTHER!!!

Re:My kind of democracy

[Rudolf]

temporary Contract workers were told they must take a $10 cut

Ten dollars? How much are they getting paid that a $10 cut hurts?

Is that per-hour, per-week, or what?

Re:My kind of democracy

[linguizic]

Honestly, I think this was a better choice than a 10% FTE workforce reduction, and 50% contractor pool reduction like we had where I work. The layoffs we went through recently were really heartbreaking and since we're in CA, there's little chance of these folks getting a job soon. I would have gladly given up 10% of my pay to have kept some of these people on, ESPECIALLY since keeping them on would mean we were more competitive with the other company that shares our market space.

Re:My kind of democracy

[commodore64_love]

Contract workers get paid by the hour.

So that would be from $50 to $40 for me. Which I'm okay with that, because I'd still be making double what anyone else in my family makes. I'm not greedy. I just want a decent job with air conditioning & a chair to sit on.

Re:My kind of democracy

[msobkow]

I'm starting to think the economy is just an excuse for pay cuts. Last I'd heard Microsoft was still making a very healthy profit.

I've been through the forced reductions myself, but it was while I was contracting for JPMC, and our cuts were based on the post-Y2K "economy." The only ones who should have been hit with the cuts were the mainframe COBOL programmers who no longer had Y2K work to do, but everyone got hit. A couple contractors quit rather than take the pay cut, but they were by far in the minority. (JPMC was a good gig -- worth taking a few bucks cut compared to hellhole client sites.)

Re:My kind of democracy

[QuasiEvil]

FedEx did it too, about two months ago. CEO took a 20% cut, various levels of management took 7.5-10%, and everybody else (well, everybody salaried, aka me) took 5%. The bigger hurt was the suspension of the 401k match.

Still, honestly given the economy, I'd rather see this than layoffs. Not that there aren't people I'd like to see gone, but that needs to come as part of the normal, "You're a moron/sloth, go pursue other career opportunities" methods. Layoffs always seem to get 75% of those people, and another 25% that were invaluable but pissed off the wrong person.

The more layoffs we get, the further down the bottom of this thing is going to be. So, given that a company's options are lay some people off or just make everybody take a little pain for the collective good, I'll take the collective pain right now. I think it's better for the economy as a whole.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Blakey Rat]

Well, the choice is, I think:

"Vote for a 10% paycut on your current contract, and expect to get hired for another contract when it's over."

Or:

"Don't vote for the 10% paycut on your current contract, but also don't be surprised if it's terminated early and/or you're unable to get another contract."

So it's two choices, they just both suck.

Re:My kind of democracy

[mark-t]

Actually, it's probably slightly more than that.

If insufficient numbers of people vote for a pay-cut, they _will_ be in the position of having to do layoffs, and in all likelihood, the people who will get laid off in such a case are the people who the company best figures it can replace with a more cost efficient alternative (read as: new graduate willing to accept a lower rate of pay). They can get away with this quite legally as long as they pay adequate severance packages.

How a person votes would likely not affect whether or not they got laid off, should a mass layoff occur, and it would really bite for the individual who voted that they would take a pay cut to get laid off anyways because not enough people voted that way, but hey.... nobody ever said life was fair.

But by all rights, Microsoft _should_ be conducting this vote anonymously... so that they have no means of knowing which employees voted no and which voted yes, because if they don't and they only lay off people who voted "no", then they could be setting themselves up for a large number of constructive dismissal lawsuits... (and what's worse for them is that the employees would have an official paper trail to prove it!). Further, by conducting the vote anonymously, Microsoft would be publicly presenting the notion that they are genuinely trying to come up with methods of retaining their employees in hard economic times because they value them all, rather than simply terminating the ones who don't vote the way they want.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Maxo-Texas]

Same.

What I wish would happen is a 20% pay cut and only work 4 days a week as german companies have done.

Since 1980, our purchasing power has gone down.

Re:My kind of democracy

[rtb61]

In this case it is far worse. This is a 10% cut in the rate to the employment agency, so they have to cut the employees wage even further, on costs, insurance, profit etc, employees themselves are likely to get around double that cut.

I see that you have some problem with economics. Reduced pay for employees results in reduced spending, which generates lay-offs. A lot of people base their debt payments upon the salary level with out much gap between them. A 20% pay cut will often result in bankruptcy, as the employees can not just whip up a quick letter telling their creditors they will now be paying them 20% less and if they don't like it, they wont pay them anything.

Now is the pay cut to enable M$ to survive or is it to allow M$ to maintain it's current profit margin or even increase them. M$ has a history of having a total disregard for the costs of it's actions upon other people and companies as long their own profits keep increasing.

Re:My kind of democracy

[linguizic]

Unfortunately, that would decrease the pace of production 20% and that's a huge sacrifice when you're trying to keep up with the Goliath that we're competing with. If said Goliath and the entity I work for made a formal agreement to cut back 20% at the same time then it might happen.

Re:My kind of democracy

[NetwrkEngr]

Pay attention. Microsoft isn't asking anyone to vote. _Volt_ is asking their employees to accept the contract reduction via a vote.

Re:My kind of democracy

[MHolmesIV]

For one thing, it's not Microsoft sending the email, it's Volt.
And for another, there is no need for any severance packages. Washington is an "at will" state. You can fire, or lay off, anyone, for any reason (or no reason) with no notice, and with no severance, completely legally.

The other side of that is that any employee may quit at any time for any reason with no notice required.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Reduced pay for employees results in reduced spending, which generates lay-offs.

And zero pay for laid off employees results in? If the choice is unemployment vs. a pay cut, as long as the pay and benefits that are left afterwards beats unemployment and (hoping to get) medicaid, guess which one I'm taking?

Re:My kind of democracy

[Vellmont]

If insufficient numbers of people vote for a pay-cut, they _will_ be in the position of having to do layoffs,

Nowhere did I see that this was a binding vote. I'd say it's more of a straw poll for Volt to see if they can get away with this. For instance, where did they come up with 10%?

Hell, if enough people vote yes, why not increase the cut to 15%? From the other posters comments I'd guess Volt doesn't really care about their employees and will try to squeeze them as much as possible. The "vote" is merely a means to figure out how hard to squeeze.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Perf]

Though with corporate bailouts and nationalization it's getting hard to tell them apart anymore.

There is no difference.

The bottom line difference between Fascism and Communism is labels. Both are murderous tyrants. Bandits.

The historic clash between Communism and Fascists was about who would get credit for the creating a worldwide utopian society. Mostly it was over which set of elite get the power and money.

Contrast that to people like the Founding Fathers. George Washington could have been king, but gave up his power and wealth to create something greater. They never advocated a Utopian society. They just wanted a place where people were allowed to live a life without without tyranny.

Re:My kind of democracy

[glwtta]

A lot of people base their debt payments upon the salary level with out much gap between them.

If that's true, then a lot of people are complete idiots. It really doesn't seem logical that employers should factor in their employees' overspending when making these kinds of decisions.

Re:My kind of democracy

[marcello_dl]

The style's more like dogbert the evil HR director's, from http://dilbert.com/.
Only, he'd have labelled the vote button "Back to inbox"
purrr purrr

Re:My kind of democracy

[complete loony]

Bingo, I was going to post basically the same thing once I read the summary. Reducing salaries will not save jobs. We are in the beginning stages of a debt deflation cycle.

Everyone is trying to pay off their debts, so they are not spending as much as they used to, this started in early / mid 2008. As a result of that there is less money flowing around the economy. So there is less money to pay in salaries, and we started to see massive layoffs in late 2008 / early 2009. So employees will have less money to pay off their debts... and the cycle continues.

This leads to the paradox that the more everyone tries to pay off their debts, the higher the debt becomes in real terms (eg in relation to inflation / deflation adjusted incomes).

Re:My kind of democracy

[localman]

A lot of people base their debt payments upon the salary level with out much gap between them.

And there, my friend, is the problem. From individuals, to corps and banks, to the government itself.

People seem to love debt spending. People seem to think a cushion is waste. But it's insurance. It blows me away that this isn't usually figured into things.

Cheers.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Dayze!Confused]

... when you're trying to keep up with the Goliath that we're competing with.

But David won, right?

Re:My kind of democracy

[mark-t]

An employee can always completely legally leave or quit a job at any time they want without notice anyways, even in places that *do* have laws regarding severance (but the employee may forfeit their rights to severance when they do so, although they do not forfeit any actual owed pay for time already worked). You are probably right about Washington's employment laws though... I sometimes forget that labour laws aren't the same everywhere.

Regardless, I think it would be far more "cool" to have the vote done anonymously... to offer the impression that they are respecting the employees and genuinely endeavoring to come up with a beneficial solution for all of them, not just the ones who would rather take a pay cut than be fired. Even if it isn't true, at least on paper it would look that way.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

In this case it is far worse. This is a 10% cut in the rate to the employment agency, so they have to cut the employees wage even further, on costs, insurance, profit etc, employees themselves are likely to get around double that cut.

That's not how contract agencies like Volt usually work. Almost universally they take a percentage of the bill rate and pass the rest on as salary to the contractor. That percentage off the top is generally fixed - all contractors at the same client get the same percentage haircut regardless of base rate. So, unless something very unusual is going on here, 10% off the bill rate is going to directly translate into 10% off the salary too.

Obviously there comes a point where a bill rate can be too low for Volt, et al, to make a profit. Typically contract agencies will just opt not to handle contract employees with such a low bill rate and hand them off to other agencies (or in some cases, divisions within the same contract agency) that have a different billing structure to accommodate the different margins. For example, it is never the case that both the sanitation engineers and the software engineers at a particular client will work through the same agency divisions and usually they will be handled by completely different agencies.

Re:My kind of democracy

[fractoid]

If that's true, then a lot of people are complete idiots.

You must be new here, and by 'here' I don't mean /.

Re:My kind of democracy

[fractoid]

I always find it interesting when you have an ongoing agreement between a company and an employee, whereby the employee works X hours and gets paid $Y, and then the company decides it can simply ask the employee to work longer for less money. Usually it's couched as a temporary thing but frankly, once the employee has agreed to do more for less, why would the company ever go back to the original agreement?

Something similar happened at my (now ex-)work, they ran out of funding and told people to go home until they could pay us. Then a couple of weeks ago they sent out an email saying "hi folks, we really need to get working again to keep the company viable, no we don't have any money but you'll start work again Monday right?". To which the answer was "um, no" for me, but a surprising number of people said "oh, uh, ok then".

Re:My kind of democracy

[ps2os2]

Well now thats a big "maybe". Does it include not receiving *ANY* bonuses?

The big boy get most of their money from incentives and bonuses.

Re:My kind of democracy

[tomhudson]

This leads to the paradox that the more everyone tries to pay off their debts, the higher the debt becomes in real terms (eg in relation to inflation / deflation adjusted incomes).

Nope. The longer someone avoids paying off their debits, the bigger the debt becomes (thanks to the wonder of compound interest). Then, when their interest rate goes up (as it must, since rather than reduce debt, they've increased it and become a higher risk), you get a second whammy.

If nobody had debt, all earnings could be spent on direct consumption, without some (a lot, in many cases) being bled off by interest payments.

We've just come to the end of a very unnatural cycle - one where people not just continually rolled over debt, but also threw in additional debt with every roll-over, to the point where they were using new debt as their chief way of making debt payments (that's what average spending of 103% of income really means - people are using their credit cards to make payments on their cars and mortgages).

Deflation? After a decade of overinflated housing, we NEED a decade of housing deflation, just to get back to historic norms.

Bail-outs? Why bother - this just rewards the greedy, penalizes the prudent, and shows that nobody in government knows the meaning of "keep your powder dry". All the bailout money is not just a waste - it also carries the hidden cost of missed opportunities to both rationalize the car and banking industries, and to invest elsewhere. Every dollar spent out bailing crooks is a buck taken away from schools and infrastructure and retraining - money that could BUILD the economy.

For those who eschewed debt, delaying gratification, deflating prices back down to historic norms brings the reward of buying at proper value, not bubble prices. Call the bailouts what they are, a global "tax on stupdiity and greed."

Re:My kind of democracy

[xilmaril]

In this case it is far worse. This is a 10% cut in the rate to the employment agency, so they have to cut the employees wage even further, on costs, insurance, profit etc, employees themselves are likely to get around double that cut.

I see that you have some problem with economics. Reduced pay for employees results in reduced spending, which generates lay-offs. A lot of people base their debt payments upon the salary level with out much gap between them. A 20% pay cut will often result in bankruptcy, as the employees can not just whip up a quick letter telling their creditors they will now be paying them 20% less and if they don't like it, they wont pay them anything.

Now is the pay cut to enable M$ to survive or is it to allow M$ to maintain it's current profit margin or even increase them. M$ has a history of having a total disregard for the costs of it's actions upon other people and companies as long their own profits keep increasing.

You're right. This is what's going to happen. This is what most people do.

That said, what kinda idiots do this? Why do so many people believe they shouldn't have any contingency plans in life? Next month, I could be hit by a bus. If I do, I live in Canada, so medical costs will be okay, I have credit card insurance to cover a year of interest payments on that (it only costs me $5/month), and I save enough money that I'll be able to live, if miserably, for at least 6 months. Why don't more people do this? And don't say they can't, because the people who are going to be missing their mortgages had enough money to buy a house, apparently, so they should have gotten a cheaper one or continued to rent until they could *actually* afford a house. gah!

Re:My kind of democracy

[tomhudson]

Something similar happened at my (now ex-)work, they ran out of funding and told people to go home until they could pay us. Then a couple of weeks ago they sent out an email saying "hi folks, we really need to get working again to keep the company viable, no we don't have any money but you'll start work again Monday right?". To which the answer was "um, no" for me, but a surprising number of people said "oh, uh, ok then".

Is that even legal in any place with minimum wage and Workers Compensation laws?

You should have gone back and made everyone who shows up the same offer - and offered them equity interest. If they're willing to work for free without a piece of the action, how much more so with ...

Re:My kind of democracy

[complete loony]

My point was that as the whole economy focuses on repaying debt, unemployment rises and collective incomes drop. I didn't mean that the debt goes up when measured in dollars, but that the debt goes up when compared against our dwindling income.

Re:My kind of democracy

[RepelHistory]

This sort of thing is going on everywhere. That's why it's a recession. I think it's a little unfair to say that right now it's all Microsoft's fault that they have to cut wages because consumers can't afford their products (not that I'd shill out $150 for Office even in a good economy). It's not like companies can just say, "Wait a minute... if we don't lay people off and/or cut wages... this recession will end!" If that were possible we wouldn't have recessions at all.

Re:My kind of democracy

[tomhudson]

Fair enough, and certainly true :-)

Some debt can be a good thing, for example if its' used to improve your productivity, so that you can earn more, retire the debt, and come out ahead. Most consumer debt is just "I want it and I want it NOW!" type of debt, which just means that you're paying an "impatience tax", akin to the tax on stupidity known as the lottery.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Rocketship Underpant]

That sounds like a lot of Windows pop-up boxes.

"The program is about to do something that might corrupt your data or even damage your computer.
[ OK ] "

Re:My kind of democracy

[Caraig]

Specifically, a quote from Bill Hicks that was used in Freeland's song.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Karellen]

I always find it interesting when you have an ongoing agreement between a company and an employee, whereby the employee works X hours and gets paid $Y, and then the company decides it can simply ask the employee to work longer for less money.

Why? You have the exact same deal. You can decide to simply ask your employer to pay you more for reduced hours, and terminate the current deal if they don't agree to it. Nothing wrong with that.

A contract of employment is between two parties, where both sides agree to give the other something, in return for the thing the other side is giving them. You're giving the company your time, effort, expertise, and ultimately the wealth you create, which they value, while they give you money which you can exchange for wealth of types you are unable to create for yourself (food, shelter, clothing, shiny toys), which you value.

If either side feels they are not getting enough of what they value in return for what they're giving, why shouldn't they try to renegotiate for what they perceive to be a better deal? And if no mutually agreeable deal can be come to, why should the parties continue their unfair (at least to one side) exchange?

Re:My kind of democracy

[geminidomino]

Catbert is the evil HR director.

Geek card. Now.

Re:My kind of democracy

[ultranova]

Unfortunately, that would decrease the pace of production 20% and that's a huge sacrifice when you're trying to keep up with the Goliath that we're competing with.

If you're having trouble meeting the demand, why are you laying anyone off? Shouldn't you rather be hiring more people?

Or is this another case of "let's squeeze them harder to earn our bonuses"?

Re:My kind of democracy

[CraftyJack]

If that's true, then a lot of people are complete idiots.

Yep. It's regrettable, but true. It's also true that the financial behaviors of idiots (none of us, of course) have consequences for the rest of us, and we have to deal with that. There's a reason we have railings, rounded corners, and safety guards to prevent easily avoidable physical catastrophes.

It really doesn't seem logical that...

Ah, there's where you went wrong.

Re:My kind of democracy

[commodore64_love]

You make it sound so simple, but you ignored the part where the company blacklists you and/or gives bad references, because you refused to accept the cut in pay. You certainly have the option to walk-away, but then you won't be able to obtain another job. I don't know if you're a Libertarian, but I've found that's the one flaw of their philosophy. It only works between equals or near-equals, and a corporation versus a person is like Superman versus a normal man. The stronger party can make the weaker party's life a living hell.

Even Thomas Jefferson, who is often called the first libertarian, recognized the danger of a corporation ("monied interest") using its wealth to exert force and suppress the individual. The truth of the matter is when a company says, "Take a $10 cut in pay, otherwise next week will be your last," you really have no choice but to comply. Because finding another job after you've been blacklisted or given bad reference is nigh-impossible.

Re:My kind of democracy

[BimotaGrrrl]

I'm a Volt employee working at MSFT. I never got a Friday email from Volt about this. All I received from them was an email this morning asking me for what I thought was a test on the version of Microsoft Outlook that I was running. Volt has been rolling out new timecard tools, so I thought this was an attempt to collect information on software versions to prepare for a future update/rollout. It wasn't until I checked /. this morning that I learned what was going on. Thank YOU! See my response to Volt this morning: From: [name wittheld] (Volt) Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:19 PM To: 'AskVolt'; [] (Volt) Subject: RE: Non-viewable Vote button Importance: High I thought the email below was simply a test to see if Volt employees were running the right version of Outlook for some future tool roll-out. However, I've since read from the web an article which implies that I should have received an email last Friday night. I never received such an email, nor since. I was never informed on what I was voting on. Now I know that this email is for Volt employees to vote to receive a 10% pay cut. I take BACK my "Accept" vote. I do NOT accept that at this time. Why? Because I don't know enough about it. I don't know if Volt, the company, is also reducing their profit margin to MSFT for my billing by 10%, and further, I don't know if the non-MSFT Volt employees and managers are also taking a 10% pay cut. Truly, if I hear that the answers to my questions are Yes, then I will be glad to join in and take a 10% reduction in pay; but not until then. If it's important enough for Volt staff to do it, then I'm willing to join in. On the surface, this seems like a sneaky thing for Volt to do; but I'm sure it's just an oversight. From: [] (Volt) Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:47 AM To: 'AskVolt' Subject: RE: Non-viewable Vote button Accept From: AskVolt Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:41 PM To: AskVolt Subject: Non-viewable Vote button If your version of Outlook does not allow you to view the 'Vote' response option in the upper left hand corner, simply reply by stating "Accept."

Re:My kind of democracy

[Karellen]

"You make it sound so simple, but you ignored the part where the company blacklists you and/or gives bad references, because you refused to accept the cut in pay."

I don't see how that would follow. If they give you option A or option B, and you select one of those options calmly and rationally, without throwing a hissy fit, whining, bad-mouthing people or generally burning bridges, why on earth would they blacklist you?

Would a company blacklist you or give you bad references if you'd just quit because you felt you weren't getting enough out of that job, or felt you could do something more rewarding elsewhere, or just realised you couldn't hack the commute? I mean, unless they're just a bunch of faceless asshats who are vindictive just for the heck of .... oh, yes, I see what you mean now. :-)

Re:My kind of democracy

[Aram Fingal]

Still, honestly given the economy, I'd rather see this than layoffs. Not that there aren't people I'd like to see gone, but that needs to come as part of the normal, "You're a moron/sloth, go pursue other career opportunities" methods. Layoffs always seem to get 75% of those people, and another 25% that were invaluable but pissed off the wrong person.

Right. Then, when things improve at the company, you hire people who were laid of from other companies because they were morons/sloths there and they hire your morons/sloths. Each will, of course, get a pay raise in the process. The premium for moving jobs is usually better than for staying put and getting merit pay raises.

Re:My kind of democracy

[deets101]

What pissed me off the most about the HP deal is the way they did it. They did not ask for a vote, they sent out an email (after business hours of course) informing all US employees. Then they scaled back the 401K matching to a floating scale. Then, to add insult to injury, the very next day HP sends out the financial report from the last quarter and they met their goals and barely missed their stretch objective. This has happened the last 5 quarters, but still they take away from the employees.

This seems to be the HP way..... Two years ago, we had a record quarter (Q2, I think) for sales but at the end of the year we were told we would not get bonuses because the numbers were a little lower than expected in another quarter.

Re:My kind of democracy

[cyphercell]

You're quite right. The bottom line has always been that workers are independent of their employers, which is why when things get really bad they revolt and get slaughtered. Personally, if I refuse to live on credit how can I get a fare wage when competing with people that do? They will accept a lower wage and supplement their income with a "use the visa to pay the mastercard to pay the discover that we used to pay the second mortgage that was used to pay the student loans and the car" strategy. I can't compete with that, cause it's an illusion. Those people should have shored up their credit and started demanding higher wages years ago.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Hordeking]

It's not like companies can just say, "Wait a minute... if we don't lay people off and/or cut wages... this recession will end!" If that were possible we wouldn't have recessions at all.

Theoretically, they could do exactly that. That's not the problem.

The problem is actually the old "The markets can stay irrational for much longer than you can stay solvent" problem

Re:My kind of democracy

[el_chicano]

The bottom line difference between Fascism and Communism is labels. Both are murderous tyrants. Bandits.

The historic clash between Communism and Fascists was about who would get credit for the creating a worldwide utopian society. Mostly it was over which set of elite get the power and money.

Contrast that to people like the Founding Fathers. George Washington could have been king, but gave up his power and wealth to create something greater. They never advocated a Utopian society. They just wanted a place where WHITE MALES were allowed to live a life without without tyranny.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:My kind of democracy

[CodeBuster]

Amen. Your personal debts are your personal responsibility, not the companies'.

Re:My kind of democracy

[ryanov]

That's the kind of language that puts you on the same side as the employer, sounds like to me. "Do whatever you want as long as you're not going to take away my job!" No thanks.

Re:My kind of democracy

[ryanov]

Why are you going after unions, exactly? Is there something wrong with you, or are you just ignorant?

Re:My kind of democracy

[Perf]

Don't you think your post is a little racist?

Re:My kind of democracy

[eleuthero]

given the "purrr purrr," he appears to have mistyped rather than committed a "geek card revocation" offense

Re:My kind of democracy

[Squiffy]

It's wolves and sheep, but the parent is most certainly on topic: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Stupid mods.

Re:My kind of democracy

[plague3106]

Well... would you rather a 10% paycut, or to be laid off? Yes, it's a crumby choice, but I'd also rather work for 10% less then not at all.

Re:My kind of democracy

[pxlmusic]

i'm a little saddened that you were the only one who seems to have gotten it.

a little surprising for /.

i'm not a long-time Slashdotter, so i can't really comment on whether or not the environment here has changed.

Re:My kind of democracy

[ctonchev]

Funny how the statement falls apart when you replace personal with Bank and companies with Taxpayers

Re:My kind of democracy

[CAIMLAS]

Or, try this: they conduct the poll blindly, with a "seed". In other words, regardless of how many people vote, the result is: "Yes, cut our pay." Actual results may have been the exact opposite, but it doesn't matter.

Or, they simply lie.

Then, they simply announce, "The poll results indicate that you overwhelmingly agree to a pay cut. Thank you for your support in this issue!" Voila, pay cut without too much triage: they get to keep most of their staff (ie similar output) while reducing costs.

I mean, c'mon. This is HR we're talking about. The only lower forms of life in the corporate environment are executive levels who parasitically eat from the company, and litigation lawyers.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Restil]

The employee is already paid less than the agency. That profit margin is built in. So yes, if the agency gets cut 10%, the employee's rate will also probably get cut 10%. Only if the agency is trying to maintain the same dollar profit per person will the employee get the more serious cut. That in turn ultimately depends on the contract the employee has with the agency in the first place. However, if you're a temp worker to begin with, you're used to things like this. The whole point of a temporary worker is that they are TEMPORARY. Their status of employment and/or salary can change at any time.

The company I work for canned all the temp workers a couple months ago. In the middle of a shift no less. The fact that Microsoft is still using them is strange by itself. If all they're asking for is a 10% reduction in pay, that's probably a pretty reasonable concession. The alternative is not likely to be much of an improvement.

-Restil

Re:My kind of democracy

[Cally]

Congratulations, you have just discovered the Keynsian inverse multiplier effect, aka "deleveraging". This is why people who know the markets and understand economics and banking were looking so ashen-faced back in Sept/Oct 2007.

Re:My kind of democracy

[marcello_dl]

I'm not sure there are two sets of elite involved in communism and fascism. To govern sheep you need dogs on both sides.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Cally]

Next month, I could be hit by a bus. If I do, I live in Canada,

After being hit by a bus? Not so much.

Re:My kind of democracy

[el_chicano]

OK, your "Founding Fathers" and the nation they founded:

1) did not allow White females to own property and vote
2) owned Black Americans as property
3) instituted a policy of genocide towards Native Americans
4) killed innocent Mexican Americans and stole their land
5) threw Japanese Americans in concentration camps

I think the examples above illustrate my point that your point is valid as long as you are talking about White males.

And no, pointing out racism does not make one a racist...

Re:My kind of democracy

[Perf]

Sigh

I realize the Founding Fathers were not perfect. The founding of America was a step in the right direction.

Slavery existed in Africa long before slaves were sold in the Americas. People fought, bled and died to outlaw it in the U.S. It still exists in Africa and other parts of the world and I understand it is on the rise. (For the record, I believe it was and still is despicable.)

Ever hear of a guy called John Adams? He was a founding father who didn't own slaves.

William Penn?

Japanese -- Wow! I did NOT know the founding fathers threw Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Tell me, which one of the Founding Fathers was still alive in 1942?

BTW, racism is a universal human problem -- all humans are capable of it, not just one particular ethnic group or nationality. That is, people of all colors are capable of it.

In the same way, both men and women are capable of being sexist.

And then there is a survival instinct called xenophobia.

The point of my original post was to point out that Communism and Fascism are inherently selfish and greedy. They never helped anyone except the party elite.

The Founding Fathers were unusual. They were men of wealth and power. They were NOT greedy. They gave up their time, wealth, and power to establish something better for everyone. Yes, it was not perfect. They could not agree to abolish slavery in the new country. (Many of the Founding Fathers were against it.) They still had the taint of European aristocracy. But it was a start.

How many other countries are culturally racist and sexist?

Re:My kind of democracy

[sgt_doom]

"Now is the pay cut to enable M$ to survive or ..."

NO! It is to allow M$ to continue supporting the Discovery Institute, that right-wing nut job outfit that gave us Intelligent Design.

I kid thee not.....

Re:My kind of democracy

[complete loony]

Nope, it was Irving Fisher's "The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions" I was trying to allude to. "the more debtors pay, the more they owe. The more the economic boat tips, the more it tends to tip. It is not tending to right itself, but is capsizing" (Fisher 1933)

Re:My kind of democracy

[el_chicano]

I realize the Founding Fathers were not perfect. The founding of America was a step in the right direction.

Again, you need to qualify: a step in the right direction for White males.

Slavery existed in Africa long before slaves were sold in the Americas. People fought, bled and died to outlaw it in the U.S. It still exists in Africa and other parts of the world and I understand it is on the rise. (For the record, I believe it was and still is despicable.)

The topic was that of slavery in the United States, not slavery anywhere else. If you want to talk about slavery elsewhere, did you know that Mexico outlawed slavery in 1828, more than 30 years before the US did? And without having to fight a long, bloody war?

Did you know that it was illegal to own slaves in Texas yet the White male descendants of the "Founding Fathers" illegally imported slaves when they settled in Texas? And that one of the first things they did after the gaining "independence" for Texas was to re-institute slavery of Blacks?

Japanese -- Wow! I did NOT know the founding fathers threw Japanese Americans in concentration camps. Tell me, which one of the Founding Fathers was still alive in 1942?

I said: OK, your "Founding Fathers" and the nation they founded. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills?

And then there is a survival instinct called xenophobia.

Hah! Xenophobia as a survival instinct, that is a good one. Maybe you need read up on nativism in the US during the 1800's. How was keeping out non-Whites from the US a survival instinct? This makes you sound like a closet racist or a subconscious racist.

The point of my original post was to point out that Communism and Fascism are inherently selfish and greedy. They never helped anyone except the party elite.

And capitalism is not about selfishness and greed? The economy is currently in the toilet because of selfishness and greed. The sad part is that much of the selfishness and greed was by the White male descendants of the "Founding Fathers" who make up the elites that currently control many of the financial and governmental institutions in the US.

The Founding Fathers were unusual. They were men of wealth and power. They were NOT greedy. They gave up their time, wealth, and power to establish something better for everyone.

OK, so you claim the "Founding Fathers" gave up their wealth and power. So why is it that it took over 240 years to elect a non-White president? Why is it that the elites are still disproportionately made up of White males? Why is it that today poverty disproportionately affects non-Whites?

I'll bet that you fancy yourself a libertarian and that you believe that the US is about the potential for individual success no matter who you are or where you come from. If that is so then it must be the moral failings of non-Whites as to why non-Whites are not doing as well as Whites are here in the US.

Like I said above, either you are a closet racist or a subconscious racist if you do not see that the condition of non-Whites today is due in large part to 240+ years of this country favoring Whites over non-Whites. I would rather believe that you are not racist and that you are just the victim of a piss-poor US educational system.

Yes, it was not perfect. They could not agree to abolish slavery in the new country. (Many of the Founding Fathers were against it.)

It was not that the "Founding Fathers" COULD NOT abolish slavery it is that they WOULD NOT abolish slavery. All that was missing was the WILL to do so.

Had the "Founding Fathers" done so then I would be agreeing with you as to their greatness. However, since they did n

Re:My kind of democracy

[rtb61]

If you had 'enough money to buy a house' why would you get a loan? If you can afford to pay rent, you can afford to buy the house you are renting, it is obviously an investment and the required returns on that investment are at a minimum what you could have obtained for the capital invested as bank interest. B$ is B$, your house payments, your car payments, you medical insurance, your food , your utilities, your clothing, you employment expenses, and maybe after all that some entertainment expenses.

When people borrow they borrow up to that portion of income that they can set aside and still make the other payments. That reduction is a gross reduction in their overall pay not a reduction in the portion of pay use to make house payments. When you are talking around 20% that is a deep cut that they can not simply make up because none of their other expenses are reducing.

When it comes to buying a house you buy the maximum you can afford, the two basic reasons are, inflation should raise your salary hence making house payments more affordable within one year etc. and the cost of trading up when you can afford it is prohibitive basically throwing away tens of thousands of dollars. So in reality stepping away from the knee jerk bullshit you are forced to take a risk in order to make a sound investment and that is based upon the information you have available for most people that is based on B$=PR produced by mass media to favour those who did they damage.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Trahloc]

Stop taking into account skin color when you judge someone and perhaps if enough people stop giving a damn what melanin content their fellows have we can move beyond this bigotry. While its important to not forget the past there is no need to bring it into the present. I've seen many families of multiple elasticities who came to this country unable to speak the language who pulled themselves up from nothing to being more successful than most native born Americans. If someone who can't speak the language, didn't even finish their version of high school and had no one help them at all can make a life for themselves then anyone can. Cut the racial crap, we live in a messed up but still wonderful country and the people who founded it were not perfect ... they were human, just like the rest of us. The American dream of working hard and succeeding is alive and well and its color blind.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Trahloc]

Gd spell check, hah, I meant ethnicities not elasticities :}

Re:My kind of democracy

[Chosen Reject]

Or maybe it's more like "Do whatever you want as long as you're not going to take away my job while I'm looking for another one."

Re:My kind of democracy

[Perf]

Comprehension skills - My reading comprehension is fine. Do you understand coordinating conjunctions?

"Elite [sic]" - How did I misspell it?

Xenophobia - The dictionary definition is a fear of unfamiliar things. That is why I call it a survival instinct.

Closet racist - !?!?!? You are the first to suggest I am. So far, none of my friends has accused me of that -- White, Indian, Asian, or (for lack of a better term), my friends with dark skin who are neither American nor African.

Are all white men bad? Are all other people good?

If your evil "White Men" did not allow women to vote, who voted to give them the right? Could there perhaps be white men who truly believe all people were created equal? (I know there are.)

"Capitalism is all about greed and selfishness" - Another Communist lie. There are plenty of capitalists who work and trade honestly. (Woz had some interesting things to say about that in his Byte interview.)

Marx said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Sounds good, but who decides ability and need? The corrupt Roman Emperors would have agreed with that. In their mind, the peasants had the ability to do manual labor and they didn't need much for food. They were much too delicate for manual labor and needed fine food such as peeled grapes.

Why is it that 99% of the countries that have tried Communism has failed dramatically? What is the appeal of a political system that advocates continual revolution and bloodshed? Communist always advocate the redistribution of wealth -- when will they figure out how to generate it on their own? (i.e. without stealing and murdering from the people who scrimped and saved.)

A wise man once told me, "Before embracing a philosophy, check out the life of the philosopher." (Can he live out his value system?) Marx sure didn't. Neither did Stalin nor Mao.

Re:My kind of democracy

[el_chicano]

Stop taking into account skin color when you judge someone and perhaps if enough people stop giving a damn what melanin content their fellows have we can move beyond this bigotry.

As a Chicano skin color is not important to me, I have family members that range from light-skinned to dark-skinned. It does seem to matter a lot to White people, especially from the US South. I spent two years in Georgia while in the Army and boy was I glad to get out of that unenlightened hellhole. Even though that was over 20 years ago not much has changed in the South since then.

While its important to not forget the past there is no need to bring it into the present.

The only way not to bring the past into the present is to forget it. Why is it that Whites in the South can keep bringing up their past by pointing to their Confederate ancestors but when I try to bring up the past I am accused of being racist?
 
If anyone is racist it is those from the South, while the descendants of the Confederates keep talking about "states rights" that is only code for "keep the Blacks enslaved". The Confederates were fighting in part for states to have the right to keep certain people as property; however, the descendants of the Confederates are too intellectually dishonest to admit that their ancestors were fighting to keep Blacks enslaved.

Cut the racial crap, we live in a messed up but still wonderful country and the people who founded it were not perfect ... The American dream of working hard and succeeding is alive and well and its color blind.

Do have proof of this dubious assertion? If so bring out your facts. Here are the facts according to the US Census Bureau:

Median income (2006)
---------------------
Whites - $50,673
Blacks - $31,969
Hispanics - $37,781

Income $100,000 and over (2006)
-----------------
Whites - 20.2%
Blacks - 9.1%
Hispanics - 10.5%

Reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html

If the US was truly color blind then these numbers would even. An before you blame education for the lack of equality in these statistics remember that Blacks and Hispanics tend to have crappier schools than Whites.
 
Speaking of color blindness, blindness is considered a handicap in most cases, why not in this case? Why is it that Whites can celebrate their culture and proudly point to being descended from Scottish or Irish or German or French people? Why is it when Blacks and Hispanics say they are proud of their heritage they are accused of being racist? That is a big double standard there.
 
Besides if you are color blind then you are ignoring a large part of who I am and where I came from. You are also consciously denying any contributions that Mexico and Spain had in the past in building the US.
 
The answer is not to ignore race but to not make negative judgments based on race and that has to start with the Whites. For example, the KKK has been around since the 1800's and yet they still exist. If Whites truly valued color-blindness then you would think that he first place to start changing things would be with their White brothers and sisters.
 
To me "color blindness" is code for me to become White. Dress like Whites do, speak like Whites do, believe like Whites do. Now if I do that because I want to do so that is one thing but when success in the US is predicated on that concept then you are forcing me to become White to succeed in this country. There is another word for that, tyranny...

Re:My kind of democracy

[el_chicano]

"Elite [sic]" - How did I misspell it?

Elites, it is plural. It is not one elite but a set of elites that run this place (look up subject-verb agreement).

Xenophobia - The dictionary definition is a fear of unfamiliar things. That is why I call it a survival instinct.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia:

"For xenophobia there are two main objects of the phobia. The first is a population group present within a society that is not considered part of that society. Often they are recent immigrants, but xenophobia may be directed against a group which has been present for centuries. This form of xenophobia can elicit or facilitate hostile and violent reactions, such as mass expulsion of immigrants, pogroms, or in the worst case, genocide."

Genocide as a survival instinct? That is a new one on me.

Closet racist - !?!?!? You are the first to suggest I am. So far, none of my friends has accused me of that -- White, Indian, Asian, or (for lack of a better term), my friends with dark skin who are neither American nor African.

Having non-White "friends" does not automatically make you a non-racist. Here is an idea, why don't you tell your non-White "friends" that xenophobia is a "survival instinct" and see how well they receive the news. I'll bet your non-White "friends" will start having second thoughts about your alleged lack of racism...

Are all white men bad? Are all other people good? ... If your evil "White Men" did not allow women to vote, who voted to give them the right? Could there perhaps be white men who truly believe all people were created equal? (I know there are.)

Don't be putting words in my mouth. I did not say all White people were bad. I did not use the word "evil" anywhere.

While it is true that White males did give women the right to vote it was not until over 100 years after the US was founded. Also, Black and Hispanic males did not get to vote on allowing women to vote because they were not allowed to vote freely until almost 200 years after the US was founded.

"Capitalism is all about greed and selfishness" - Another Communist lie.

There you go putting words in my mouth again. Where did I say I was a Communist and/or supporter of Communism?

Why is it that 99% of the countries that have tried Communism has [sic] failed dramatically?

Way to pull numbers out of your ass. Do you have a reference backing up your assertion that "99% of the countries that have tried Communism have failed dramatically?" (this [sic] is also for subject-verb agreement).

Communist [sic] always advocate the the redistribution of wealth -- when will they figure out how to generate it on their own? (i.e. without stealing and murdering from the people who scrimped and saved.)

Again, I said nothing about redistribution of wealth. That is why I have to keep questioning your reading comprehension skills (again the [sic] is for subject-verb agreement).

To get back on topic, don't you think that when Enron tanked that the capitalists running that company stole from its employees and stockholders? You don't think that the capitalists running the companies in trouble right now are stealing when they take huge bonuses as they run their companies into the ground?

And isn't capitalism supposed to be about the survival of the fittest in the marketplace? Don't you think that the bailouts being given to AIG and the auto industry are "redistribution of wealth" albeit on a much larger scale?

A wise man once told me, "Before embracing a philosophy, check out the life of the philosopher." (Can he live out his value system?) Marx sure didn't. Neither did Stalin nor Mao.

Re:My kind of democracy

[GWBasic]

If insufficient numbers of people vote for a pay-cut,

It's not a vote, nor did the letter make it sound like one. The word "vote" comes from a misleading summary.

What's more likely happening is that Microsoft pays $X / hour, and each contractor fills out a timecard at the end of the week. Volt then pays each contractor something like 0.75 * $X / hour; although the difference is used for things like social security taxes (about 6 percent), benefits, and overhead. Volt isn't making much profit through skimming; thus, when Microsoft said to Volt, "We are now going to only pay 0.90 * X / hour / contractor," Volt could not shield their contractors from the hit.

Re:My kind of democracy

[Perf]

Elite - ever hear of a collective noun?

Xenophobia - The Wikipedia pages on Xenophobia (and Nativism) are flagged biased. It would be poor scholarship for me to accept them as authoritative. That's why I mentioned, "dictionary definition." Have a look at a real dictionary. (Hint - Wikipedia mentions the psychological dictionary.)

Xenophobia != genocide. You attempt to put words in my mouth. Even the Wikipedia article does not say they are equal. (Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension.)

"friends" - yes, I do have very good friends of many ethnicities, skin colors, and nationalities. I notice you didn't mention my white friends. As I said, they, too, have not accused me of it. :-)

BTW, my college roommate's mom was Vietnamese and his father was white American GI. He invited me over to dinner a month ago. He told me about trying join a minorities group in college. The members wouldn't let him join -- he wasn't minority enough for them.

Putting words in your mouth - You did not use the word "evil," but in your previous posts, without exception, you portrayed white American men that way.

Communist lie - You put words in my mouth. Did I say you are a Communist? You do support Communism with your words. You recite their mantras well. My point was that this is a common lie of the Communists.

Why is it that 99% of the countries that have tried Communism has [sic] failed dramatically?

Communist [sic] always advocate the the redistribution of wealth

You caught me on the sic's. Editing error on my part.

All whites not bad - We finally agree on something. :-)

Also, Black and Hispanic males did not get to vote on allowing women to vote because they were not allowed to vote freely until almost 200 years after the US was founded.

You are saying Black and Hispanic males didn't get to vote until 1987? (or did you mean 1976?) I think you are off by 100 years. The 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870.
Are you referring to voter intimidation? That has happened to people of all races in all countries thru history.

BTW, before, you complained that the U.S. never had a non-White president until January. I am curious, you seem to know Mexico's history well. I admit I don't know much about Mexico. How many ethnic minority presidents has Mexico had? Just an honest question.

Read history instead of Rush and O'Reilly -- I don't have a TV and seldom listen to a radio. :-) I have heard of them, but seldom seek their opinion. I prefer to read and travel.

And isn't capitalism supposed to be about the survival of the fittest in the marketplace?

No. (That is another false mantra of the Communists.) That is a narrow minded view of capitalism. Many times, I have seen a company help a competitor stay afloat during a crisis.

U.S. Gov bailouts -- I don't understand your point. Do you think I support the bailouts?

Stalin and Mao brutal men - another point we agree on. :-) And that is the point of my original post -- there is no difference between Communists and Fascists. Both are extreme groups.

I am curious - why are you so hostile to me? You have attacked my education, reading comprehension, friends, relationships with non-whites, TV viewing, morals, etc.
You make many assumptions about me, but without basis. Do you know my ethnicity? Nationality? Education?
You know I dislike Communism. I doubt you know why.
While I lived in a Communist country, I did some thinking on my own and saw Marx's lies - like the thing about peeled grapes. Marxism is feudalism by another name.
You seem to think Marxism is a nice system. Have you ever lived under it?

So, that would mean

[Jane Q. Public]

that their REAL "Elevate America" plan is to hire 10% more people but pay them 10% less?

Re:So, that would mean

[Anonymous Coward]

...and pay the saved 1% as a bonus to management?

Re:So, that would mean

[Herkum01]

Isn't this the real American way for the last 10 years? Cut employees or their salaries and give managers a big bonus?

If you don't think that it is true, look no farther than the republican party when comes to the financial bailouts. They insist that the auto-workers take cuts in benefits and salary. Then they turn around and complain that the government should not be involved in limiting salaries of failed bank executives to 500K. If that is not hypocrisy I don't know what is.

Re:So, that would mean

[will_die]

not 10% but 15%. Microsoft is cutting how much is paid for current contracted hires by 10% but future contract hires will be hired at a 15% decrease in amount paid to the contracting company.
Companies are being forced into it by Microsoft saying sign the paperwork for this change in contract or we will not hire from you when your current contracts are up. Contracting companies can then push the decrease by telling the employee to sign the agreement or you are fired. Most employees are probably hired under the standard right to work so they can be fired for any reason, however most companies have an employee handbook which prevent firing for any reason, so could be a legal fight.

Re:So, that would mean

[Anonymous Coward]

UAW workers are paid much more (including benefits) than workers from U.S. workers working for foreign companies in the U.S.

Re:So, that would mean

[pxlmusic]

what?

would you mind re-wording that a little; or at least using some punctuation?

Re:So, that would mean

[baboo_jackal]

Um no. If they were actually trying to legislate a limit on workers' salaries, while fighting legislation to limit executive salaries, that'd be hypocrisy. But they're not.

Re:So, that would mean

[jcr]

most companies have an employee handbook which prevent firing for any reason

Say what?

-jcr

Re:So, that would mean

[similar_name]

GM doesn't pay much more than Toyota. In 2005 GM paid on average $31.35/hr vs Toyota paying $27/hr.

The big cost difference comes from GM paying people who aren't working (Job banks and retirees[460,000 vs 1,600]) as well as taking more man-hours (34.2 hrs vs 27.9) to build a vehicle than Toyota. Some Toyota plants actually pay more than some GM plants.

Re:So, that would mean

[retchdog]

You're right, except that the "skill" is actually a strange one: to disregard risk knowing that you won't bear the costs personally.

(And no, I don't believe any real sort of management would be posting on slashdot. I'm just playing along.)

Re:So, that would mean

[maxume]

I suspect he means "...handbook that requires a reason for all firings" (so, not any random reason).

Still doesn't sound right.

Re:So, that would mean

[Dogtanian]

That's because management deserves it. We make the big decisions and take the risks that enable the company to succeed.

Probable AC troll, so I won't waste time on most of it.

It's a good opportunity however, to point out that the problem with capitalism in recent years has been that the management have *not* been exposed to risks despite having been paid accordingly. They've worked themselves into the ludicrous position where they get paid bonuses regardless of whether they succeed or not.

They're generally are the *last* people to be exposed to the results of their failure, assuming that they haven't been astute enough to move on before the results of their short-term, shareholder-pleasing actions become evident.

Even when they're kicked out due to extreme incompetence, they'll still end up with comfortable payoff or at worst what they managed to get out of the company beforehand.

Re:So, that would mean

[will_die]

Most companies with an employee handbook usually list the reasons and manner that you can or will be fired. US courts have ruled that those consist as a contract, so even though you can be fired by state and federal law "at will" the handbook probably restricts that right. So if he employee handbook lists reasons for firing, they would have to find a way to make "refusing to take a pay cut" something you can be fired for; probably just call it insubordination.

Re:So, that would mean

[unlametheweak]

what?

would you mind re-wording that a little; or at least using some punctuation?

Don't count on it. People are paid BIG money to make things sound confusing. They're paid even more money to make it sound like a vote for a pay decrease for the most valuable and inexpendable employees in a company is a good thing.

Re:So, that would mean

[SpartaChris]

Well, for starters, autoworkers union != bank executives. The two situations aren't even similar. On one hand, you have a union that's doing nothing more than bleeding a corporation dry. On the other, you have a situation where the free market should really be determining things like salaries and bonuses*.

Truth be told, it would be better for the US Automakers if they went bankrupt. That would dissolve all union contracts, forcing them to restructure. While there are certainly other factors like demand and quality, the benefits alone received by members of the UAW make it almost impossible for American car companies to compete with non-union car manufacturers in the US. Its great when a company can afford to treat their people well, but when they can't, something's gotta give. Unfortunately, the UAW doesn't see it that way. Their form of compromise is to give nothing but take everything. Same story with the unions here in California. All take, but no give. And they wonder why the state is having a hard time paying them.

*For the record, I am opposed to huge bonuses being paid to execs whose companies received money on the backs of the tax payers. I'm not opposed to it as determined by the free market system, just when it comes on the backs of tax payers.

Re:So, that would mean

[E 99]

Clearly, as you suggest, you don't know what hypocrisy is. The only companies that survived the Great Depression are the ones who were able to get all employees to accept pay reductions. This depression will be no different. Top executives have had as many pay reductions as the rest of the work force. However, the idea of the government capping salaries, especially in a recession or a depression, is an obscenity if not a criminality. It's the stuff that revolutions are born of.

Re:So, that would mean

[callinyouin]

He's obviously taking about working for U.S. workers who work for working foreign companies who do their work outside of their own working work zones in the U.S.
Jeez, have you ever even worked a job before?

Re:So, that would mean

[unlametheweak]

That's because management deserves it....

One of the more well written and believable Trolls. Well done.

Re:So, that would mean

[Bysshe]

umm not that much more? GM pays a 16% premium over what Toyota pays. Any company would dance in the streets if they could get that kind of a cut out of their labor costs.

Re:So, that would mean

[FrankieBaby1986]

probably sarcasm, but they posted anon to avoid the inevitable troll mod. (And NO, i did not post it)

Re:So, that would mean

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Pay is irrelevant.

GM doesn't know how to build, sell, or market anything other than a truck or SUV.

The only division of GM with the potential to compete against Toyota, is Saturn. And they're going to shut that division down in 2012 because they've never managed to make money.

The decision makers have been spouting off bullshit about how they deserve to make that kind of money because of their vision and leadership. All they have proved is that they're nothing more the 2nd rate salesmen who's only talent is convincing other 2nd rate sales men of their own value.

The management have fucked themselves, the Corporate Officers, Board of Directors, and all former Officers and Board members withing the statue of limitations all deserve to be sued into bankruptcy by the shareholders and pensioners.

And after they have been bankrupted by civil litigation, and have no money left to pay even a second rate attorney, the FTC needs to go after them for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, and anything else they can come up with and throw them in Federal prison. Then its the state's turn to go after them and make sure they finish out the rest of their miserable lives in the state pen with the gang-bangers and giving blowjobs for drugs. Because that the only thing they think will make their miserable lives a little more bearable.

Re:So, that would mean

[similar_name]

Any company would dance in the streets if they could get that kind of a cut out of their labor costs.

Labor cost compared to production is what really matters. GM workers are 22% less efficient. Increasing productivity would provide bigger gains that cutting wages.

When you factor productivity in with wages GM is obviously at a huge disadvantage. I think we are mostly agreeing. GMs costs don't provide as much return as Toyotas.

Re:So, that would mean

[Megahard]

"Elevate America" is their way of saying "up yours".

Re:So, that would mean

[Repossessed]

While I'll agree few people could do the job of an executive well, I'd argue that very few executives manage to do a good job. Companies are failing left and right, most of the ones that aren't in distress exist on pure inertia. Nor is there any real effort to find good executives by most businesses. Instead they hire people who failed at a previous executive level job (see the guy who drove AMD into the ground, after trashing another company right before being hired), or who have the right networks to get the attention of the existing executives.

Re:So, that would mean

[qbzzt]

In point of fact the non-union auto-workers make more (counting benefits) than UAW workers.

So the UAW is working against the interests of auto workers?

Or is it that managers are non-union, and they tend to get paid more than assembly line workers?

Re:So, that would mean

[Zero__Kelvin]

The OP clearly means to say:

most companies have an employee handbook which prevent firing without good reason.

Re:So, that would mean

[Chaos Incarnate]

Yes, the UAW is working against the long-term interests of auto workers. They're great at gaining long-term concessions, but in the long run the Big Three simply can't afford how the UAW is bleeding them dry.

Re:So, that would mean

[smidget2k4]

Nope. Sorry. That number comes from the total amount in pensions paid out to retirees plus the benefits and hourly wage of the current work force, divided by the number of the current workforce.

If you break it down like a normal person and only counted the people currently working for the UAW, their figures come out within $1/hr of the foreign companies.

Had the foreign companies been in the country as long as the Big Three, they'd be in exactly the same boat. Next time don't just take the FUD passed along by conservative blogs and television as fact without actually looking at where they are pulling these numbers from.

Sorry for the rant, but I am sick and tired of hearing this number thrown about as an excuse to dismantle the UAW. Sure, they have their problems, but this really isn't one of them. If you want to cut pensions for everybody in the country, then take that platform. Otherwise stop complaining about this number and pick a real avenue of attack on unioned labor instead of a fabricated one created by someone bad at math. One of many sources.

Re:So, that would mean

[N1EY]

I had thought everyone know that the $70 number from the New York Times is extremely misleading. The $70 includes the payments to the retirement funds for RETIRED workers. This is for pension of GM workers that management has never paid during the last 40 years. It is only $50 for the current worker and his or her benefits. It is not far from the average of a Toyota worker in the US. Toyota workers in Japan earn more. GM management has insisted upon pushing designs to market that no one wants to buy. They also continue to think that everyone is going to buy a new car every three years. The demand is not there. The average age of a car in my state is 10 years; I live in a blue state, too. You can't build 50 million cars when only 30 million customers are out there. GM management has continued to ignore the wishes of the marketplace. Look at how the car prices have declined. Yet, they still can not make money.

Re:So, that would mean

[athlon02]

I may agree about GM marketing and the like, but I disagree on GM's ability to build a car...

The Malibu was (and maybe still is?) the best selling car in North America and the only car really selling for quite a few months.

I also have a friend who's an ASC certified master mechanic who says he sees A LOT of Toyotas in the shop vs. GM vehicles for more than trivial matters. One guy, for instance, needed an all new motor on his brand new $15k Toyota car b/c the fuel pump got backed up & blew due to some other faulty design. He's also told me that Toyota (along with Honda and Nissan) tend to have lots of electrical issues. I care not who has the best car in initial quality. That means squat when the car is 5-10 years old... tell me what will last for the long haul.

While I don't agree with everything GM does or decisions its up echelons make, when it comes to quality I'd take a GM anything over a Toyota!

Albeit, I'd also take a Subaru as those are supposed to be reliable as well.

Re:So, that would mean

[db32]

Go look at the history of the Enron accounting scandal. The accounting firm involved became the huge success that it did under the view that their first loyalty was to the auditors and not to their customers. That is how they became the accounting powerhouse that they became. If you were a company that hired them, and their first loyalty was to the auditors, you could trust that your books would be squeaky clean and that any kind of problems should come to light. It wasn't until the original founder had passed on the reigns that they got themselves wrapped up in multiple book cooking scandals. That immediate and infinite growth model that has been adopted lately has done tremendous damage to our economy as a whole. The idea of slow and steady growth with a solid foundation has all but been abandoned by most firms. When you start focusing on how tall you can stack the blocks instead of how stable your block tower is this is the kind of shit that happens. It is a poison that spreads because when even a few firms start down that path investors will be lured into that trap away from the firms that are focusing on stability. Soon it becomes the only way you can succeed and everyone is stuck in this new model. As long as the C*O types keep getting their golden parachutes to continue on to the next block stacking contest after their current tower falls it will keep happening, and all of the workers in those firms will be the ones that suffer.

Re:So, that would mean

[KevinIsOwn]

They did? So that's why their market share has been dropping for the past 5 years or so now? Yes, Americans did demand big fuel guzzling cars, and the American auto makers certainly delivered those, but times are changing and GM/Ford/Chrysler have been failing for the past 5 years to see that more and more people want smaller, more efficient cars. These companies didn't get into a dire financial situation overnight- it may have appeared that way from the outside since all of the sudden they said "We need help!" But the reality is, their decline has been present for a while now, and their management failed to see what many of us saw a while ago.

Re:So, that would mean

[tompaulco]

That's because management deserves it. We make the big decisions and take the risks that enable the company to succeed. Once upon a time that may have been true. High level people who believed in the company might have actually put some money into it. These days, management is brought in, paid high salaries, and given stake in the company without having to front any money. They have only the risk of the shares they were given going down. The people who take the real risk are the people who do the work. They get paid less, and if there is a downsize, they are the ones cut, not management. Even if management were cut, they get paid enough that they could live comfortably off of the excess until they found another job, not to mention their golden parachute. Plus, if they REALLY screwed up, then they will probably get another job pretty quickly. A colossal failure is better than a mediocre success.
No, there is no risk at all in management these days.

Re:So, that would mean

[tompaulco]

Let's look at it another way - which one of the people should I have to lay off, in order to meet the financial goals of the company.
None. I mean, assuming you want to make more money, you have to make more products or better products, which is harder to do when you start laying people off.

Re:So, that would mean

[tompaulco]

Actually the companies that came out of the depression best were ones that invested during the depression so that they would be prepared to take advantage as soon as the depression lifted. A few years from now when the economy improves, some companies will be losing money hand over fist trying to ramp up, while others that invested during the down market will be years ahead of the game.

Re:So, that would mean

[Ihmhi]

A fair way to run a company would be to determine executive's salary by the combined salary of a lower class of workers.

Here's an example. A small company has 28 people: 1 owner/CEO at the top, 3 managers, and 24 workers of an equal pay grade. 8 workers per manager.

The owner doesn't want the managers dinking with salary and screwing over the employees, so he says that the managers salsary is twice that of the base salary of the workers. If you cut the workers' salary, you cut your own as well.

Re:So, that would mean

[drizek]

I was just looking at Buick Enclave SUV. The grill is made of plastic and flexes enough that it can probably be broken by a reasonably strong person. The door handles are all made of plastic, they feel extremely cheap. The interior is also covered in this cheap plastic "chrome". The rear windshield wiper looks like it came off of a Kia. The car is just ugly and cheap inside and out. And what do you pay for the privilege of buying this pile of crap? $45k, more expensive than a loaded BMW X3(which starts at around 30k and passes 40k when you add every single accessory known to man). You can probably even get an X5 for this price too. Who in their right mind would buy a GM vehicle when they can get a foreign car that won't fall apart on the way home for less money?

Re:So, that would mean

[sr180]

I also have a friend who's an ASC certified master mechanic who says he sees A LOT of Toyotas in the shop vs. GM vehicles for more than trivial matters.

Its a pity, because you get the American Built Toyotas. In Australia, we get the Japanese built Toyotas, and they are consistently the most reliable car by far. The Toyota's top all of the reliability surveys and have very low failure and problem rates.

Re:So, that would mean

[hab136]

So if he employee handbook lists reasons for firing, they would have to find a way to make "refusing to take a pay cut" something you can be fired for; probably just call it insubordination.

I haven't seen an employee handbook yet that didn't contain a clause stating that you can be fired at any time for any reason, or for no reason. (I've only worked in at-will states)

Re:So, that would mean

[ShenTheWise]

I think the absolute value of their compensation is also a problem. If you make $500k a year, getting that extra $500k bonus is a pretty big deal. Maybe you can finally buy that yatch, or retire a bit earlier. But if you made 150 Million last year, does this year's bonus it really matter anymore? What exactly it the "risk" for those people?

Re:So, that would mean

[Registered Coward v2]

Yes, the UAW is working against the long-term interests of auto workers. They're great at gaining long-term concessions, but in the long run the Big Three simply can't afford how the UAW is bleeding them dry.

Then the companies should not agree to the terms the union wants. It's a contract, pure and simple, and both sides agreed to it. Companies would be the first to scream if the union said "you're doing better than you thought so we want more money" and point to the contract and say "live with it." The union, OTOH, has to decide what they are willing to do to try to save their member's jobs and pensions.

Executives at companies do things to protect themselves, such as bankrupt-proof their pensions, and then cry foul when unions refuse to play along? Sorry, but I have no sympathy for corporations that made bad deals and then want to back out of them.

Re:So, that would mean

[GooberToo]

This post is so funny.

That's because management deserves it. We make the big decisions and take the risks

This is a huge gem. So funny. Yes, their risk means if they fail they get a huge bonus. If they fail really badly, they get a huge bonus and likely a golden parachute such that they never have to work again in their life. Their buddy over at the next company, who hasn't failed miserably yet, then recommends to the board to bring them over. Cycle repeats. Its a buddy system where stupidity is handsomely rewarded.

that enable the company to succeed. The ones that can do this successfully surely should benefit the most from this when it does.

Except that is not how business is done in the US. At least not public companies in the US. In the US, public companies only look for the next quarter, the next half year, or maybe even the next year. Few truly develop and/or execute long term plans; save only for companies (examples include Intel and AMD) who make them money looking at tomorrow. This is because they want to prove worth by short vision and short vision only.

Destroying a company in five years in exchange for a good earnings report this quarter is all too common. What do they care. By the time the company implodes it will be someone else's problem and whoever is in charge then will take the heat - rather than the person who screwed the company over how. In the mean time, they'll take their money now and pretend, as all sociopaths do, their series of dumb decisions had no effect in setting up the company for failure a year or two from now.

The above depiction is well documented sociological issue and has even been covered in several articles here on slash dot in the past. These very problems are the reasons why the US in is a financial crisis. If you want to see the face of the people responsible for the economic woes in the US, you can look at the face of the majority of CEOs and board members of public companies. These same sick personalities are why the economy sucks and they don't care - after all, they already got their money. Failure for them means success and because of their sociopath personalities, they can happily turn a blind eye to the thousands left jobless in their wake and care less.

Re:So, that would mean

[dbcad7]

needed an all new motor on his brand new $15k Toyota car b/c the fuel pump got backed up & blew due to some other faulty design.

This doesn't make sense.. and would result in new motors every time a car ran out of gas,.. now, an "oil" pump, that's another story.. but a blown engine would only happen if the idiot lights were ignored. (or not working)

For the fuel pump.. let me do a computer analogy for a car problem... It would be like having to replace the motherboard if your power supply died.

Re:So, that would mean

[Rolgar]

Anytime the union decides to strike, the auto companies have a choice to let the unions have their way or go out of business, because they can't produce anything (strikebreakers are against the law), so they accept the contract that the UAW dictates to them. Because of the capital intensive nature of the automobile business (factories, supply lines for Steel, etc.) the big 3 have always given in to the union instead of moving to a state that will allow them to negotiate with the union on equal terms.

Re:So, that would mean

[ultranova]

Anytime the union decides to strike, the auto companies have a choice to let the unions have their way or go out of business, because they can't produce anything (strikebreakers are against the law), so they accept the contract that the UAW dictates to them.

Every time a corporation asks it employees to vote for a pay cut, said employees have the choice of letting the corporation have its way or be fired. This seems to be fine with various right-wing people. However, as soon as people form a union and turn the tables, it's suddenly a bad thing. Some of them even want to have the unions banned, despite otherwise supporting the right to freely associate. Weird.

Because of the capital intensive nature of the automobile business (factories, supply lines for Steel, etc.) the big 3 have always given in to the union instead of moving to a state that will allow them to negotiate with the union on equal terms.

Seems to me that the union and the big 3 are on equal terms then, because if car business is so capital intensive, then if the big 3 go bankrupt there won't be any replacements to work for for their employees.

Mutually Assured Destruction. Can't get more even than that.

Re:So, that would mean

[Registered Coward v2]

Anytime the union decides to strike, the auto companies have a choice to let the unions have their way or go out of business, because they can't produce anything (strikebreakers are against the law),

They can hire replacement workers - the law you reference refers to strikebreakers - people whose repeatedly work at struck companies for the purpose of ending strikes. That's different than replacing strikers with new employees.

so they accept the contract that the UAW dictates to them. Because of the capital intensive nature of the automobile business (factories, supply lines for Steel, etc.) the big 3 have always given in to the union instead of moving to a state that will allow them to negotiate with the union on equal terms.

That's management's key error - they assumed the market would not change and basically gave away the store; then refused to believe that fundamental shifts were occurring in the car market and clung to their old ways of doing business. Now that it's time for one or more to downsize and or disappear, management goes to big government for a bailout. Bankruptcy would at least let them reorganize under more favorable conditions, shed a lot of the dealer network and have a shot at long term survivability. Of course, no one involved wants that because it would end all their gravy trains.

As for more company friendly states, GM and Ford closed plants in Georgia which is a lot less pro-union than Detroit. KIA, OTOH, just opened a large factory in GA.

In the end, as long as the union and management believe the government will bail them out they both will continue to strike deals that line their pockets at the expense of long term survivability. And why not; they get the money, we get the bill.

Re:So, that would mean

[ultranova]

That immediate and infinite growth model that has been adopted lately has done tremendous damage to our economy as a whole. The idea of slow and steady growth with a solid foundation has all but been abandoned by most firms. When you start focusing on how tall you can stack the blocks instead of how stable your block tower is this is the kind of shit that happens. It is a poison that spreads because when even a few firms start down that path investors will be lured into that trap away from the firms that are focusing on stability.

What trap? In a highly liquid stock market that's the best strategy for an investor. Suck the company dry, dump the stock before anyone realizes it's on the verge of collapse, and repeat the process with some other company. It's a game of musical chairs for the economy and when the music stops, it falls on its ass.

Re:So, that would mean

[deets101]

I don't have a problem with future hires getting 50% of the current pay. If they agree to that when hired, it is their fault.

Re:So, that would mean

[ryanov]

If all I had was rhetoric and epithets, I guess I'd post anonymously too.

Re:So, that would mean

[ryanov]

When flexibility means allowing your employer to fuck up left and right and you being willing to foot the bill, I don't think unions are wrong to be inflexible. You want to make a cut? Cut those which got us into this mess, not employees that show up everyday, don't do their jobs, don't steal anything, etc.

Besides, what are the realities of the situation? I couldn't afford benefits if I suddenly had to pay for them. I consider fighting to keep my benefits very much in tune with the realities.

Re:So, that would mean

[ryanov]

Something tells me you know virtually nothing about unions, like a majority of the citizens in the US apparently, but still feel perfectly comfortable talking about them.

Re:So, that would mean

[will_die]

Dillon v. Champion Jogbra is one of the many cases where courts have said that companies cannot imply you have some form of job security and then ignore that.

Re:So, that would mean

[SpartaChris]

Other than I used to work for one and got screwed by them, and I live in a state governed by Unions, you're right. I know absolutely nothing about unions. But please, enlighten me. Why don't you educate me, since I'm so obviously ill informed?

Re:So, that would mean

[Fujisawa Sensei]

The US auto makers gave Americans exactly what they wanted. Why is this suddenly prison-worthy?

What do you mean suddenly?

Its prison worthy because is their job to plan for the future. Any idiot can say: We're selling SUVs and trucks this year, lets build more! But the declining car sales over the past few years and failure to prepare for the market change, indicated that instead of doing their job, they were fleecing the stockholders and corporation for millions, if not billions of dollars by lining their pockets with the salary and bonuses they did not deserve. The fact that they are asking Congress for a multi-billion dollar bailout is an admission of criminal negligence on their part.

Re:So, that would mean

[CAIMLAS]

The Republican party, eh? Were we paying attention? And by we, I mean you.

Not sure if you noticed, but Congress was predominantly Democrat when the 'stimulus' was passed. It is overwhelmingly Democrat now (when the biggest single gov't handout to industry, ever, is occurring).

What the Republicans have done in the past is not hypocrisy. It's lying. What the Democrats are doing (and have pretty much always done) is hypocrisy..

Re:So, that would mean

[skroops]

That contradicts my experience. I worked at a place called Camaco, doing 70 hour weeks for 9.50/hour. I atleast got overtime pay.. the temps didn't even get that. The health benefits weren't bad, but they were nowhere near as good as my mom's, who worked at Ford. She made over 30$/hour, got paid for 40 even though she rarely worked over 35, and could go to the doctor whenever she wanted.

Re:So, that would mean

[hab136]

Dillon v. Champion Jogbra is one of the many cases where courts have said that companies cannot imply you have some form of job security and then ignore that./blockquote
Interesting.

All the information I can Google about that case says that the court reversed a summary judgement, not that she won. In other words, whether or not she was at-will (page 1 of their employee handbook) or the employer had some procedures to follow before firing her (the rest of the handbook) was left up to the jury (and still undecided). The company could still win.

If their handbook had been more consistent - for example, "the punishment for x is y, OR IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL" on every clause, they probably would have been ok.

Re:So, that would mean

[ryanov]

So then you're generalizing about your experience with one union and painting them all with the same brush. Just as ignorant, in my view.

Vote

[ultrabot]

"Voting" is a rather hilarious newspeak term for acceptance of a pay cut.

Not that I see anything particularly wrong with this approach. I find it pretty absurd that a company should be "stuck" with the contract rates it offers. And considering how big salaries in USA are, it's a small miracle that they still manage to make a profit.

Re:Vote

[maxume]

It smells like unfortunate to me; i.e., someone wanted confirmation that the message had been read and foolishly used a tool labeled "vote" to get the confirmation.

Re:Vote

[mdwh2]

I find it pretty absurd that a company should be "stuck" with the contract rates it offers.

A contract is a contract ... I'm not sure why not being able to back out afterwards if you change your mind is "absurd" - the whole point of a contract is that you stick with it.

(Now yes, in this case I suspect that temporary workers have zero rights, so they could easily fire them if they don't accept, but in general, I don't see how it's absurd that people are stuck with contracts that they enter.)

And considering how big salaries in USA are, it's a small miracle that they still manage to make a profit.

I don't think that follows - it's rather simplistic to assume that a company must be unprofitable. Given that many businesses with their "big salaries" have been staying in business for years, I find it unlikely that this is all chance. And whatever the cause of this recession is, it's not that salaries suddenly increased.

Re:Vote

[Culture20]

This way, Volt can issue a press release saying that its employees all voted to voluntarily reduce their pay, as if they asked for or prompted the action. "We have the best temporary employees in the world" - Volt HR/Marketing drone.

Re:Vote

[rianman]

Of course you need to be stuck to the contract rates you offer! For the life of the contract, or a mutual renegotiation (I think a web poll button is pushing this concept a bit) but you enter a contract with responsibilities to BOTH parties, not just the one feeling a bit bruised. You can renegotiate a contract - preferably when it ends - but if you are just changing the details of it when it suits you, then it isn't a contract. Technically, unless your contract is really badly written (possibly verging on illegal, as it must give equal gain to both parties) you cannot be turfed for failing to take a pay cut. They may need to prove you don't fulfil your other duties - work performance, etc - but if it is a contract, no, they don't get the right to change the value unilaterally without offering some other compensation (shorter work hours, perhaps?). Temp workers usually have a contract with their agency, not the company, and this may be a different story.

Re:Vote

[ratboy666]

"I find it pretty absurd that a company should be "stuck" with the contract rates it offers."

Slow down, cowboy! If you engage me, and then decide to stiff me on a contract, I WILL SUE YOU. And I will win. It doesn't matter how long it takes, or even how much it costs me -- it's just business.

As soon as you announce "You won't be paid", I put down my tools, and walk. Again, it doesn't matter how much I may need the work.

Why? What other leverage do I have? And, trust me, companies understand. If I didn't stick to my guns, I am afraid that others would start to take advantage of me. This is my protection, ok?

About the only way I would take less is if mandated by a bankruptcy court.

Re:Vote

[denobug]

I must say that while I enjoy my salary here in US and making a descent living, there are other engineers in other countries who are paid far less than we do but are probably equally competent if given a chance. I really hate to say this, since I would truly wish to justify that 1. we make more because we are more effective, and 2. we make more because the standard of living is much higher here.

For many companies the reason it is still cost effective to pay such a high salaries is simply the fact that the US trained engineering professionals are trained to work in such a fashion managable by the companies without a need for a cultural training, as well as the fact that the job itself is not easily transferrable to other countries without either raising the cost to do business itself, that or because of the safety regulations. In addition, US professionals tends to be more ethical in their actions, which does means the company can afford to trust them more on their individual actions. I'm sure some would argue otherwise. Yet I have to point out that many senior level professionals that I know are able to do much, much more than their counterparts in other countries because they are indeed given more latitude in what they decide to do. Of course they are given more responsibility on the end result.

Re:Vote

[Archimonde]

A contract is a contract

...is a contract (but only between Ferengi).

... I'm not sure why not being able to back out afterwards if you change your mind is "absurd" - the whole point of a contract is that you stick with it.

It is null and void if the other side is not Ferengi. If you can prove that, you won't have trouble at all.

Re:Vote

[poot_rootbeer]

Slow down, cowboy! If you engage me, and then decide to stiff me on a contract, I WILL SUE YOU. And I will win. It doesn't matter how long it takes, or even how much it costs me -- it's just business.

Ah, but the workers themselves don't have a direct contract with Microsoft. Microsoft has a contract with the staffing agency, and the agency has contracts with each worker individually.

As a contractor, you only get paid when you're on an assignment. It's common sense, and it's in your contract with Volt. Guess who gets to decide whether you're on an assignment or not?

Re:Vote

[YttriumOxide]

I really hate to say this, since I would truly wish to justify that 1. we make more because we are more effective, and 2. we make more because the standard of living is much higher here.

It's worth mentioning though that both of these are not always the case. You don't need to feel TOO guilty about making too much, since here in Germany, I make about 1.5 times what I could make in the US for a similar job (according to most "average income" websites that I've seen). And the standard of living here is definitely very high*.

* It's hard to measure quality of life though, as it's quite subjective - if I lived in the US, I'd definitely have a MUCH larger apartment than I do here, but how much you consider "apartment size" to be "quality of life" is difficult to say... I wouldn't want to trade in "cheap and widely available extremely high quality beer" for "have to drive 10 minutes to find a shop that only sells slightly alcoholic gnat's urine". Nor would I want to trade in "surrounded by beautiful old buildings" for "surrounded by drab skyscrapers or suburban streets with a thousand identical houses". Or "walk safely through ANY streets at ANY time of night" for "be careful of these areas when it's dark". Or even "cheap and TRULY unlimited high speed broadband" for "capped without telling you how much by and highly priced broadband". I know that not all of those apply to every part of the US, but each of them definitely applies to at least some places, and I do definitely prefer the quality of life here in mainland Western Europe to any place in the US that I've visited.

This is happening in plenty of places

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is Microsoft singled out? Oh, that's right, because they're number 1 in someone's twisted mind means that they can't protect their interests. They should be forced to dole out money until they go out of business so you same fucktards can caw on about how Microsoft's business model outlived it's usefulness.
 
Give me a break. This same bullshit is getting really old around here.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[urbanriot]

I agree. There's plenty of companies negotiating concessions with unions and regularly staffed employees for pay or incentive cuts. Slashdot villify's Microsoft enough that they don't need to post the common business practices of third parties in the employ of Microsoft. Give us a break kdawson, enough with the sensationalist anti-Microsoft vendetta.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[MightyMartian]

So why is Microsoft singled out? Oh, that's right, because they're number 1 in someone's twisted mind means that they can't protect their interests. They should be forced to dole out money until they go out of business so you same fucktards can caw on about how Microsoft's business model outlived it's usefulness.

I'm sure much worse is going on elsewhere. It's just that this is such a bizarre way to do it. Do the temps really have a choice?

Give me a break. This same bullshit is getting really old around here.

There's the door, you know how to use it.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there an alternative to slashdot? (Honest question)

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[Anonymous Coward]

If another big company has the audacity to inform their employees of a paycut by sending them an email with an "option" and recommendation to "vote yes" on it, that would be equally deserving of a public flogging. There's negotiating a paycut and there's being a dick while negotiating a paycut.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[bobstreo]

Actually, the question is, how much is Volt cutting it's charges to Microsoft? Typically from what I've seen, the agency is making somewhat more than the contractors.

And what if you never reply to the email, maybe it got caught in the Hotmail spam filter???

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[ThrowAwaySociety]

I agree. There's plenty of companies negotiating concessions with unions and regularly staffed employees for pay or incentive cuts. Slashdot villify's Microsoft enough that they don't need to post the common business practices of third parties in the employ of Microsoft. Give us a break kdawson, enough with the sensationalist anti-Microsoft vendetta.

How many of them made $17 billion in profits over the last year?

It's one thing to cut salaries when you're hemorrhaging. It's another to cut salaries when everyone else is hemorrhaging, and you have a stable, monopoly-protected revenue base, just because your workers have no alternative.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[notaprguy]

Did you even read the posting? It wasn't Microsoft that did this. It was a vendor that contracts with Microsoft. But framing this as a Microsoft is evil topic gets it on to the /. home page because everyone gets their panties in a twist and drives /. traffic up. Dumb.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[linguizic]

What's news about this is that Volt is letting it's employees vote on a MANDATORY pay decrease: FTA:

We have evaluated all pay rates for our Microsoft agency temporary workers and have concluded that we will be asking each of you to share in these measures by accepting a 10% reduction in your pay rate. These reductions are very difficult for Volt to implement since we value each and every one of you; however this is mandatory in order to continue your assignment at Microsoft and to respond to this economic environment.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[Anonymous Coward]

There are alternatives, but not on one of them will you get +5 Insightful for bitching about the story and calling the readers 'fucktards'.

The OP indicates to me that Slashdot is working very well.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[notaprguy]

That's not the question. Your note suggested that MSFT had something to do with asking employees to "vote" on the paycut. That's almost certainly not the case. But that would involve objective thinking.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[Daimanta]

Well, you could try life.

Disclaimer:

Life might have (severe) emotional impact and can harm your health including but not limited to depression, skin tissue damage, loss of hair, loss of bodily functions and death.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[tedu_again]

How many of them made $17 billion in profits over the last year? Guess what Lehman Brothers profits were the year before they went bankrupt.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[bjourne]

Especially since the story isn't even about Microsoft! Microsoft negotiates a new contract with Volt in which they pay 10% less for each consultancy hour bought. Which is not unreasonable since it costs them 2-3 times as much for consultants as for full-time employees. Volt chooses to put the lost income on each individual consultant as 10% lower salary.

Which is reasonable if their salaries are proportional to their hourly fee. Except it usually isn't, in good times consultant companies can charge exorbitant rates while not raising salaries much which means that they have insane profit margins on their services. It is supposed to be a give and take, consultants give up some of their earning potential for greater security in bad times. But the security is just an illusion and consultants working for companies are just as vulnerable as incorporated ones. These companies are the scum of the IT industry, they offer no value neither to companies they sell to who would rather hire new employees if they were available nor to consultants that work for them.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[dmomo]

So what's wrong with singling out #1? Oh, that's right, because there are other companies out there doing the same thing, which means no one should call foul. People should be forced not to take advantage of the spotlight to rally for their cause. #1 would never do that... I'm sure. So, why can't these fucktards protect their own interests? Contract firms and temp agencies are in a powerful position. People should keep a close eye on the relationship they keep with the Corporations. They provide a service, but reap profits largely disproportionate to the gains they receive.

I was working as a Temp once for Adecco and was put into a position that required I see how much I was being billed out for. It was about 40% of my pay. I had been in this position for a few years without a raise. At this point the Temp agency was making 40% of my hourly pay for doing nothing but send me the check. I did not get enough hours to qualify for benefits. I had well compensated them fairly for finding this position. Now it's just a milking scheme.

So, sorry to say, but you're right. Everyone should protect their interests. Even these "fucktards"

It's easy to stand on a soap box anonymously.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[glittalogik]

Also it's hard to find the original product. Most people just settle for the generic version.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[QuasiEvil]

It's one thing to cut salaries when you're hemorrhaging. It's another to cut salaries when everyone else is hemorrhaging, and you have a stable, monopoly-protected revenue base, just because your workers have no alternative.

Hate to say it, but that's exactly why. The cost of labor is dropping, because there's a massive pool of it willing to work for less right now. Market forces and all - more supply, less demand, price drops.

Sure, it was awesome for us all during the .com boom because it was the other way around (demand outstripping supply, causing outrageous salaries, etc.), but the point is stop your bitching when it goes the other way. That's just the way an open market works.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[Blakey Rat]

Unfortunately, they're publicly-owned, which means they have to at the very least pretend they're coping with the economic downturn in a very visible way. Even if they really don't need to. Otherwise their stockholders will revolt, sell of their shares, and they'd be in much worse state. It also doesn't help that the other layoffs rates in Washington State have lowered the price of tech labor.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[kwantar]

Especially since the story isn't even about Microsoft! Microsoft negotiates a new contract with Volt in which they pay 10% less for each consultancy hour bought. Which is not unreasonable since it costs them 2-3 times as much for consultants as for full-time employees. Volt chooses to put the lost income on each individual consultant as 10% lower salary.

And what planet are you from? This is total BS. Microsoft is the reason for the 'vote'. You need to get a grip and realize the thrust of the issue.
Yes, consultants cost more per hour of pay, but with all the other costs of employees, its pretty much a wash as far as overall costs go. (vacations, health care, taxes, etc)

This action is another fine example of market domination at play. Volt is pretty much only serving msft with their 'staff'. One could honestly say that Volt is the consulting arm of msft where the staff has other opportunities every 100 days, the only reason they do anything other than only msft staffing!!

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[Your.Master]

Less than a quarter as much.

Still a shitload, mind you.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[93 Escort Wagon]

So why is Microsoft singled out? Oh, that's right, because they're number 1 in someone's twisted mind means that they can't protect their interests. They should be forced to dole out money until they go out of business so you same fucktards can caw on about how Microsoft's business model outlived it's usefulness.

No, it's probably because Microsoft has been caught pulling shenanigans with its employees and temps before. For instance, telling the government it needs access to more foreign workers because the skill sets MS needs aren't readily available in the U.S. (and claiming they'll be paid at a premium 6-figure income), when an analysis of its actual practice is the vast majority of its guest workers earn around $75K and don't have any particularly hard-to-find skill. Or abusing laws regarding temp staffers basically so it can avoid paying them benefits and/or stock options - they lost a class-action lawsuit over this one.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[falconwolf]

Did you even read the posting? It wasn't Microsoft that did this. It was a vendor that contracts with Microsoft. But framing this as a Microsoft is evil topic gets it on to the /. home page because everyone gets their panties in a twist and drives /. traffic up.
Dumb.

Looked at alone Microsoft isn't stupid. But it is stupid when MS asks congress for more H1b visas. Just before Obama entered office MS asked Microsoft to "remove caps that bar entry into the U.S. by high-skilled immigrants." If MS can import cheap labor and put US citizens on the street it will.

Falcon

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[bjourne]

I don't think you understand how the consulting business works. In this case, Microsoft and Volt has an agreement. Volt gets to be one of Microsofts preferred suppliers meaning that they get certain benefits, like exclusive access to most of Microsofts consulting purchases. In return, Volt gets to sell consultants to Microsoft for X$/hour. MS then wants to renegotiate that contract and pay 10% less. Volt is free to decline the offer. If so MS, is free to let another consulting company become their preferred supplier.

This is all a negotiation between businesses identical to how any other company would want to try to lower the prices of the wares they buy. It is Volt's salespeople that failed here in that they couldn't keep the price they were previously selling for. They are the ones that should take the cut, if any. They are also the ones that get the biggest bonuses when they make large sales so it seem only fair.

And believe me, it is not a wash between consultant rates and salaried employees. How else would companies like Volt survive? Ask your local consultant whether he makes more money consulting than as an employee.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[MrMr]

Yes, but it is 10% less interesting.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[Registered Coward v2]

I was working as a Temp once for Adecco and was put into a position that required I see how much I was being billed out for. It was about 40% of my pay. I had been in this position for a few years without a raise. At this point the Temp agency was making 40% of my hourly pay for doing nothing but send me the check. I did not get enough hours to qualify for benefits. I had well compensated them fairly for finding this position. Now it's just a milking scheme.

While 40% gross margin may seem excessive, you need to consider their entire cost of doing business is paid out of that margin. Their profit is often considerably less.

If it was a bad deal, you're better off going as an independent; just be sure you factor in all the expenses before you deice. You may need to subtract a "name premium: as well; i.e. the agency can charge more because of reputation and ongoing relationships than an independent.

I say this as a consultant who has looked at the numbers and decided that I'm better off with a little more stable cash flow than a slightly higher one with wild swings. I view my employment as building my reputation and developing a book of recommendations that I will fall back on if times dictate it. Until then I will happily stay where I am. YMMV

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[geminidomino]

Is this your way of saying "Love it or leave it"? You sound like a flag waving hick who's lost the ability to work within a system to change it. Zealotry is such an ugly thing. It's interesting to see you, in other posts, bash this concept and turn around and use it to your own ends.

There's a large difference between telling someone to emigrate for criticizing the "leadership" of his country, and telling a troll that if he doesn't like the website, he's welcome to not use it.

But I think you know that and just saw an opportunity to troll.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[ThrowAwaySociety]

Hate to say it, but that's exactly why. The cost of labor is dropping, because there's a massive pool of it willing to work for less right now. Market forces and all - more supply, less demand, price drops.

Sure, it was awesome for us all during the .com boom because it was the other way around (demand outstripping supply, causing outrageous salaries, etc.), but the point is stop your bitching when it goes the other way. That's just the way an open market works.

That's entirely true. Microsoft is a business, after all, and answerable to its shareholders. If it thinks this is the path to greater profits, it should absolutely follow.

My point was that there is no external pressure on MS to make these cuts. And, regardless of the competitiveness of the labor market, there will still be a negative impact on morale and productivity. Most companies try to avoid pay cuts or big layoffs for this reason, 90s management fads aside. And I think most companies in MS's enviable position would risk carrying a little fat rather than risk turning its employees against it.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[McBeer]

just because your workers have no alternative.

We have other alternatives. I could quit and get a job elsewhere. Thing is that, even with the 10% cut, I'll still likely be making more then anybody else is offering.

Re:This is happening in plenty of places

[pod]

But there IS external pressure.

If other software companies are cutting 10% to shore up their bottom line, MS better come up with a plan to do the same or better, or the market will come knocking wondering what's up.

This isn't a problem

[SwabTheDeck]

People have been so thoroughly conditioned to click "Accept" by years of dealing with EULAs that there is no chance that they will even realize what they have just agreed to. The real question is why MS has restrained themselves to just 10% when they could just ask them to "Accept" their own termination. This will make all the temps end up like Milton, post-glitch-fix and they'll still keep showing up to work everyday.

Re:This isn't a problem

[Qrlx]

I think it's more likely that people don't even know where the voting buttons are in Outlook.

Wrong Options

[kandela]

Instead of Yes/No the options should have been, in keeping with Microsoft software licensing tradition, Accept/Cancel.

Re:Wrong Options

[ais523]

Nah, it should have been Cancel/Allow. Then they could rely on employees clicking on Allow without actually reading the message...

volt's cut

[Qrlx]

I worked for Volt at MS for a year. They offer a 401k plan and match a small percentage which is vested after a year. My year ended (MS only lets you stay a year due to the perma-temp settlement, then you have to take a 100-day break), but the Volt match never materialized in my 401k. Volt explained that to get the match I had to work 12 complete months. Sounds like a year, right? No. Since I started in the middle of the month, my first month wasn't a "complete" month, and it didn't count towards matching.

I told them their policy was BS, since 1 in 30 employees must start on the first day of the month, assuming people's contracts are as likley to start on day 1 as any other day. They didn't respond.

But the really nice part is today, when everybody on Slashdot gets to read about it.

Re:volt's cut

[stox]

I'll bet Volt isn't taking a cut on their obscene margin.

Re:volt's cut

[will_die]

Once did a job interview and almost took a job with a similar type company. They talked about the great health, leave, and retirement benefits and reading the employee book they had them; then in small print at the end they said you only got them after a year.
Thing was that company only hired people for another company, MCI, and I knew that MCI once a year, right after Christmas, would fire 10% of the work force and that MCI would only allow contracted employees to work between 6-12 months before they hired you or told your contracting company that your services were no longer needed.

Re:volt's cut

[jalet]

> since 1 in 30 employees must start on the first day of the month, assuming people's
> contracts are as likley to start on day 1 as any other day

Considering your explanation above, I doubt any contract starts on day 1, because clearly they don't want to pay, and not starting contracts on day 1 is a way for them to not pay.

Re:volt's cut

[d8ta]

My question exactly. When I was contracting at Microsoft, after I had dug up the gig, gone through the interviewing process, arranged a bill rate, and gotten steered by MS' HR area to go through Volt, Volt was proposing to take a 35% margin off the top for a deal that I had put together. Fortunately, I was able to find another "approved vendor" with a much more reasonable margin. I've come across Volt's presence in several other contracting situations, and they've tried to cram down similar margins there too. I hope that the folks actually doing the work at MS have enough contract flexibility and persistence to find a more reasonable subcontracting vendor.

Re:volt's cut

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to second this, I did a contract gig through Volt. At the end of my contract they changed the position to a vendor (no 100-day break) and went through another company. Same job, but I got raise and better benefits, without me even asking for them.

Re:volt's cut

[stephanruby]

I told them their policy was BS, since 1 in 30 employees must start on the first day of the month, assuming people's contracts are as likley to start on day 1 as any other day. They didn't respond. But the really nice part is today, when everybody on Slashdot gets to read about it.

When did this happen? Personally, I would have sent them (their satellite office, their HQ, and their corporate counsel) a registered letter telling them that I would take this up with the US Department of Labor and I would have worked in the words "class action lawsuit" somewhere in my letter. From what I understand, the US Department of Labor takes these issues of unpaid compensation quite seriously. And also, the mere threat of a class action lawsuit is sometimes enough to scare a corporate lawyer, because it may be a lot cheaper to settle confidentially with one person, than potentially having to settle with thousands of former and current employees. And last but not least, if my letter campaign hadn't worked, I would have probably just taken them to Small Claims Court, and tried to at least attempt a partial recovery.

PS: And yes, this was just legal advice. As a non-lawyer lay person, I can give out as much (right or wrong) legal advice as I feel like it.

How about

[esocid]

they start sending this email to the upper management in MS and see how many Accept replies they get.

And since when is something that's compulsory also voluntary?

Re:How about

[plopez]

Can't do that. You need to pay top dollar for the best talent. Without the best talent you wouldn't get such market winners such as the Zune or the highly profitable X-box, soon to drive Apple, Sony and Nintendo out of the market.

Just think of where we'd be today without Microsoft Bob or Windows ME. Or Vista.

Top pay=top talent=best leadership=best products ever. :)

Re:How about

[Darkk]

Nahh... fire the people who worked on Vista. That'll save Microsoft some money. Oh wait would that mean 90% would get laid off?

Re:How about

[fermion]

As has already been extensively described, top executives can't take a cut in pay and can't make as low as 500K a year. For instance, many have charity balls to attend at least once a quarter, and the dresses and suits for these balls run at least 10K per ball. That is 40K for the year. This is basically what the median family earns in a year. These people are required to spend on four fancy dances what most family are required to live on in a year.

Then there is the cars. Most of us can get around in a 20K car, but what executive can be seen driving these cheap cars. It is simply not good for business. They must least a top of line car. This means that while most of us could average $250 a month in payments and repairs over the life time of our car, executives have to burden payments of at least twice that much, all for the good of the country.

And not even talk about housing. While in more fiscally conservative countries entertainment is often does outside the personally owed home, the US has so much excess capability we entertain in the home, which means that the home much be as lavish as the corporate headquarters. This not only means huge house payments, but high end furniture, decorations, and, don't forget, servants, which are not getting cheaper. Butlers in particular have been very expensive lately. It it said that the top butlers earn almost six figures, making them the top 3% of the wage earners.

So in then end, we must pay these people. And if it means that we have to pay a couple hundred more dollars in taxes, then so be it. It is just funny that no one wanted to pay a couple more hundred in taxes so that we could actually pay for supplies for the soldiers in Iraq.

Vote No = Lose Job

[racasper]

The email stated "this is mandatory in order to continue your assignment at Microsoft ". So voting yes just means you want to keep your job.

Optioning out?

[Redfeather]

All this Microsoft bashing, and no one takes the chance that they're giving these contractors a pretty good choice? If I had to choose between taking a pay cut and losing my job, in a market where getting a new one is shaky at the best of times, I'd take the pay cut. At least it then gives me stability till the end of my contracted time. Way to go, doomsayers.

Re:Optioning out?

[HBI]

If you assume they aren't losing their jobs, also. Do you really think they aren't shrinking headcount at the same time?

Re:Optioning out?

[Redfeather]

Guesswork isn't my field; I'm a salesman, not an accountant. However, yes, I expect they may be shrinking headcount, but if you answer "No paycut no how" you're likely to be the first one on the block. Self-preservation is a bit more useful than wariness in some cases, it's up to the contractors themselves to decide which is in their best interest. Taking your ball and going home is usually not the best option.

Re:Optioning out?

[Darkk]

"Taking your ball and going home is usually not the best option."

Especially if you have a wife at home who will kick your ball in high court!

Re:Optioning out?

[petermgreen]

"just be glad you have a job"
unfortunately for many people that is the reality at the moment.

Middle class people can no longer fund living above thier means through the housing bubble since it has popped.

That means less gets spent which means companies have less money to pay thier staff with which means layoffs or paycuts which means even less gets spent (both by those who have had them and by those who are afraid they will be next) and the cycle continues.

Re:Optioning out?

[ultranova]

That means less gets spent which means companies have less money to pay thier staff with which means layoffs or paycuts which means even less gets spent (both by those who have had them and by those who are afraid they will be next) and the cycle continues.

Here in Finland there are huge ads saying, loosely translated: "Don't save us to recession!" They even have a picture of a piggy bank with vampire teeth on it. It's kinda cute, actually ;).

That's how you know it's really, really, really bad. Much worse than I thought. In fact I think I need to reduce my spending and try to save up some more money.

Details!

[jcr]

Come on man, give us the scoop! Don't protect the guilty.

-jcr

Strange!

[brennz]

I thought Microsoft only hired via the H1-B visa scam?

Whoa really bad idea

[areusche]

Nothing hurts the employees that were sparred during a lay off the a wage decrease. Just lay off some more workers then pissing off the few that are left.

This is a farce

[n00btastic]

A large portion of their contractors are really contracted through temp companies. For example, I install computers in the Microsoft offices through one company while testing Xbox 360 hardware/functionality through another. I never received one of these letters, it was answered for me. I would also like to note I have barely had work for the last couple months, and it is terrible. Microsoft is a corporation which uses its contractors as fodder in order that it doesn't get the media that is normally involved with laying off employees.

Re:This is a farce

[catmistake]

Its not just Microsoft. IT skillsets have steadily been devalued by all industriesfor about the last decade. In 2001, Windows Adminstrator positions started at $65k (at least in Austin). By 2005 the same position payed half that. Nowadays if you're a Window Admin making more than $14/hr, you better know you're in trouble, because you're being paid twice the market rate (yes, plenty of little fuckers are willing to give away expensive skilled labor for min wage).

It boggles the mind. I want to go back to 1992 when computers moved like slugs and IT was really crazy simple compared to today... and the pay was fantastic and jobs plentiful.

 

Pay Rate or Bill Rate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Volt could take a 10% cut in their BILLING rate, and not touch the PAY RATE of its contractors...
I worked for Volt for most of 6 years while at Microsoft, through tough times and around the time of the whole Contractor as Employee law suit...
The BILL RATE that Volt uses gives them about 100% on top of what the Contractor is getting paid...so what is the problem here, Volt?
Take a 10% loss on the BILL RATE and keep the Contractors happy...

Wrong!!

[DaMattster]

Microsoft skills are not the key to economic recovery. The key to economic recovery is open source and open standards which encourage innovation and competition. With competition, comes improved products and reliability; not this poor security/reliability record that Windows has. The keys to economic recovery come with the innovations of open source that stem from individuals, universities, and companies like Red Hat, SuSE, Vyatta, Asterisk, and others alike. It is the practice of using M$ software rather than Free/Open Source Software that has a much lower total cost of ownership that helped us get where we are today ... competition stifled and debt weary. Rather than Volt workers accepting a pay cut, why not the CEO, CIO, and CTO of that company agree to cap his salary at 100,000 and no bonus. Let him or her take one for the team for a change. They should have an option to vote down the executives. This is my own 0.02 anyhow.

Re:Wrong!!

[Darkk]

I personally use open source and loving it. Although it's not for everybody or every business.

Hardest thing to deal with is ancient software that maybe only run on Windows 2000 and nothing else. Companies are usually unwilling to invest on another platform when it simply works. Granted they may not get the coolest of features but if the software is stable and does the job well what incentive will they have to switch to entirely new platform?

If the applications are web-based then it's easy to switch but anything like old windows with ancient APIs, good luck with it.

 

Re:Wrong!!

[Redfeather]

Cap at 100k? And you expect to attract high-power, high-earning execs to your company how? Sunshine enemas? Be logical. If a programmer makes thirty to forty thousand per year, and his boss makes twenty percent more - move five or six steps up the logical chain and of course you get million dollar salaries. Is it fair? Not really, by most logic.

But even if you project a 20% pay raise per position five steps up the chain, you still have nearly 100k salaries - and I don't expect jumps as low as 20% are realistic. In my company, salary more than doubles from location manager to district manager - five steps up from that (Which is roughly executive level) puts salaries nearly half a million a year. I'd call that estimate conservative and I work bloody retail, where there is NO profit margin WHATSOEVER.

This isn't an attempt to curry favour with execs, as I don't know any who read Slashdot in the first place. Your use of 100k-no-bonus just makes me wonder where in gay hell your logic is coming from.

Re:Wrong!!

[Savantissimo]

100k is a little stiff, but why shouldn't they be forced to pay to keep their high titles and status? those CxOs at Volt do nothing that requires any more skill than some of the people three levels down. They do not earn what they are paid. No one's forcing them to take the high-status title. They got the rewards when things were good. When the economy gets tough, sales are down, then they should bear the risks. If they're such hot shit, they can go look for another job. They may find that executive hiring is even slower than usual, though. Just because they have some class sense of entitlement, doesn't mean they can't be replaced with somebody better for 75% less.

If they were loyal to the business, they wouldn't need a giant salary, especially in this economy, and if they were loyal to their employees they wouldn't pass on 100% of the customer's spending cut when Volt's margins are so much higher than the rest of the industry. But they aren't loyal, they aren't good - they're opportunists, amoral swindlers, psychopaths out only for number one. That's all you're going to get when the money and the power and the status all go together, winner take all. Pay the top people less and you'll actually have a chance of getting people who have some sense of responsibility to others.

I wonder how many are H1B's?

[Paracelcus]

Sort of poetic justice..

Re:I wonder how many are H1B's?

[CrazyTalk]

Probably most of them. And do you know why? No vast conspiracy - its because that's whose applying for the jobs. I've worked in the IT Industry for about 15 years, and almost all of the resumes we've received during periods of hiring have been from people from India. They are not worse or better than any other group - just like European Americans, there are good Indian Developers and bad Indian developers - but if you need to hire, that's pretty much the pool you have to pick from. So to all the people complaining about "foreigners" (many of these folks honestly want to become US Citizens) taking good American jobs - where are you??? Why aren't you applying for the contract positions at Microsoft and elsewhere?

Re:I wonder how many are H1B's?

[spiffmastercow]

So to all the people complaining about "foreigners" (many of these folks honestly want to become US Citizens) taking good American jobs - where are you??? Why aren't you applying for the contract positions at Microsoft and elsewhere?

If you don't want to work 80 hours a week for $30k/year, they don't even consider you. Companies that hire H1Bs tend not to care whether you're competent, but whether you're willing to fill a seat. I'm guessing all the good Indian programmers are gone from those places too, because they're sick of being paid less than the janitor (Disclaimer: I have been both a programmer and a janitor.. I'm better at the former but got much more fulfillment from the latter).

Re:I wonder how many are H1B's?

[CrazyTalk]

Certainly not true at Microsoft (from personal experience) - competence is the most important criteria, and the pay is good by any standard.

Re:I wonder how many are H1B's?

[spiffmastercow]

Really? I see postings on CL for MS jobs occasionally, but they're all for 45k/year jobs, in Seattle, where 45k/year doesn't even get you a place in the slums.

Re:I wonder how many are H1B's?

[Alpha830RulZ]

Haven't hired many people, have you? Why would anyone hire a poor programmer at any price? I've managed the hiring process for many folks with work visas - we absolutely put those people through the wringer. A shitty programmer is a shitty programmer no matter how much you pay them. BTW, we were paying $60 to $90k for the folks we hired, and one of them came in at $110k + 20% bonus. Which is in the low end of the range that we were generally hiring at. Yeah, we paid them less, but we also footed the legal bills for their visas. They all seemed content with the deal.

Re:I wonder how many are H1B's?

[CrazyTalk]

I think the problem is you are looking on CL. Try contacting the agencies/vendor companies directly, or even http://www.microsoft.com/careers/. Plenty of 6 figure jobs out there, IF you have the right experience.

Re:I wonder how many are H1B's?

[spiffmastercow]

The difference is that you're talking about hiring people to develop software, whereas most consulting companies just want to charge ridiculously high hourly rates for each "analyst". The more analysts they have, and the longer it takes for them to get the work done, the better off the company is. If it's poorly produced and needs to be completely rewritten, all the better.

Re:I wonder how many are H1B's?

[Alpha830RulZ]

Make no assumptions, grasshopper. I was hiring them for a consulting company. You also seem pretty naive about the economics of consulting companies. If we deliver poor quality, we get fired. If we assign poor people, that do bad work, we get told to remove them from the job. If we have teams that are racking up hours without delivering, we get called on the carpet by our customers. Consulting companies want to hire good people, however they define the term, just as much as our customers do.

Re:Let me explain what economic recovery means

[DaMattster]

Whomever modded this article as a troll, missed the point. This comment was tongue in cheek and meant to illicit a laugh. I found it funny myself.

Re:Not with insane copyright laws...

[NineNine]

No, I would say it is things like what Microsoft is doing that is keeping us from getting out of this economic mess and they are partially to blame from getting us in it.

That's patently absurd. Microsoft is arguably the most successful company in the history of business, they donate a tremendous amount of money, and they pay their employees well. If anything, the US would be better off if we had more Microsoft's.

15 Minutes to establish a LLC

[codepunk]

So in this day and age when it takes less than 15 minutes to establish a LLC and set yourself up as a private contractor, why would anyone work for one
of these employment agencies? I guess if the job pimp says you are going to take a 10% cut then you are going to have to do it if you want to work
on his street corner. Admit it, if you work for a contracting company you are nothing but a simple code whore.

Re:15 Minutes to establish a LLC

[careysb]

Only a handful of contracting firms are considered "approved suppliers". If you are on your own your out of luck, at least as far as big companies like Microsoft are concerned.

Re:15 Minutes to establish a LLC

[batkiwi]

Most big companies will not deal with individual LLCs. They have a "panel" of agencies (say between 3 and 10) that you have to go through.

Re:15 Minutes to establish a LLC

[bastion_xx]

Check out point #2:

http://www.hrmorning.com/obama-stimulus-package-contains-6-big-changes-for-payroll/

It does say:

Here's how it'll work: Once an employee pays his or her 35% share, the company must then front the rest of the money. The employer will pay the insurer directly, then claim the amount as an offset against payroll tax liabilities. Payroll will report any subsidies made and take the offset on an updated Form 941 the IRS will soon release. Employers will have to pay the premiums for up to nine months for workers (and their families) who are involuntarily terminated between 9/1/08 and 12/31/09. Anyone who was terminated after the 9/1/08 start date and the dateâ(TM)s enactment but didnâ(TM)t take the coverage because of the expense has 60 days to elect COBRA and take advantage of the subsidy.

Re:15 Minutes to establish a LLC

[russotto]

So in this day and age when it takes less than 15 minutes to establish a LLC and set yourself up as a private contractor, why would anyone work for one of these employment agencies?

Because pimping yourself out is difficult.

Re:15 Minutes to establish a LLC

[falconwolf]

So in this day and age when it takes less than 15 minutes to establish a LLC and set yourself up as a private contractor, why would anyone work for one of these employment agencies?

Many people have to use these temp agencies because they don't have the skills needed to run their own business. Take a software business, being able to program isn't all that's needed to run a software company. The person also has to be able to market their skills as well as all the stuff needed to run a business. Simply sticking up an "Open for business" plaque isn't enough. Most businesses fail and many people who do make it only do so after failing in more than one business startup. "The Seven Pitfalls of Business Failure and How to Avoid Them".

Falcon

Re:15 Minutes to establish a LLC

[freedom_india]

What the GP said was that incorporating as a LLC would enable us to get the same tax benefits that Warren Buffet gets.
The IRS hates salaried people and loves them a lot: otherwise why it hates to provide tax breaks and loves to tax us more?
Incorporating yourself would get you same tax benefits with none of the taxes!

Not just Volt

[Anonymous Coward]

All "a-" (contract employes) were told to take a 10% pay cut. Those of us at Aquent weren't even asked to "vote".

We're trying to get the word out on this site: http://www.msratecuts.org/

There's no headcount for permanent hires now, and I don't think any Blue Badges are getting raises, but that's different than taking a 10% pay *cut*. However, at least on my team, they're still hiring contractors.

On the Aces (Flight Sim) team, they fired the whole team and then asked about 3/4 to come back as contractors, forgoing their severance.

IMHO: This is an excellent catalyst for unionizing.

Re:Not just Volt

[Bourbonium]

I chatted with a Microsoft employee over the weekend, and while he wasn't among the 1,400 laid off a few weeks ago, he is being transferred from one project to another. Unlike at my job, where the newest employees are the ones being cut, he mentioned that the layoffs at MS are hitting the people with the most seniority (the more expensive workers on the payroll). He also said Union Activists are shamelessly agitating tech workers across the entire Pacific Northwest trying to get them to commit career suicide by unionizing the IT industry, as your post so clearly demonstrates.

Keep waving your sign, Norma Rae, and agitating everyone in sight to stop working and go on strike! That's sure to get our nation back into productive competition with the rest of the world, and boost the United States' economy right into the stratosphere!

Re:Not just Volt

[pod]

Oh please, unionizing. The market is the market. You're not owed a job. If something is unprofitable, it gets cut.

No one was crying about unionizing 10 years ago, when "HTML programmers" were commanding 100k+ salaries.

Re:So, that would mean I smelled a rat when i read

[davidsyes]

"Microsoft, as a trailblazer in the information technology industry,"

"Whooat?" I thought... "trailblazer?" I thought most of what ms did was light the initial fire in some cases, buy and shut down in many cases, and FUD/run out of business in many more caes.

(cue the off-topic/flamebait/troll-markers against me...)

From listening to NPR

[way2trivial]

I've heard that benefits for employees are also vastly in big 3 workers favor.
I found one 'for example'
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/pers-n13.shtml

[i] Like Friedman, he writes indignantly of decades (now ended) during which Big Three workers received "gold-plated medical benefits that virtually no one else had," under which United Auto Workers members had "no deductibles, copays or other facts of life in these United States."[/i] opinions of the validity of the argument aside, such benefits add a lot to the bottom line....

Re:Vote "No" please

[dougmc]

And you for one welcome our new Volt overlords?

so they want to work for 1 year with no health or

[Joe The Dragon]

so they want to work for 1 year with no health or time off?

Re:Not with insane copyright laws...

[setagllib]

Will the US nationalists make up their collective mind? If capitalism and competition are good, then Microsoft can only be bad for stifling competition.

Successful companies are a good thing, they can help improve the industry's efficiency through reduced prices and increased quality. But monopolistic companies like Microsoft rarely do either.

If it wasn't for the monopoly, Microsoft would have been dead between XP and Vista. Six years between incremental product releases? Instant death in any *normal* industry. Fast-paced competitors like Apple and Linux would have eaten it for breakfast. And the economy would benefit. So does the US still need more Microsofts?

Re:Hey, does anyone know who...

[TomHandy]

Gary Locke, although I don't believe he's been confirmed yet, but as far as I've heard he doesn't have any tax problems.

Re:fuck volt

[mdwh2]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that contractors can stand to make a lot more money than regular employees, when they are in work?

The downside is that your job's temporary and you have fewer rights, as this article shows. That's the risk they choose to take.

Ultimately this is the answer.

[Maxo-Texas]

American workers take a 25% haircut and become competitive again.

During the great depression there were several major waves of pay cuts.

This service economy fantasy is not sustainable.

What's missing is the 75% pay cut for the executive class back to 1987 levels when they "only" made 50 times the average worker (instead of over 400 times today) AND raising taxes on dividends and capital gains from 15% back to normal income levels ( these extremely low tax rates on div and capital gains are why warren buffet averages 17% income tax rate while his secretary averages about 30%)

Re:Ultimately this is the answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the lack of government expense incurred by investment activity, this would guarantee a reduction in investment in the US. Why would any foreign investor in their right mind pay almost 40% in taxes for investments?

Warren Buffet gets exactly the same federal government services as does his secretary or any other legal worker.

Re:Ultimately this is the answer.

[iluvcapra]

Aside from the lack of government expense incurred by investment activity, this would guarantee a reduction in investment in the US. Why would any foreign investor in their right mind pay almost 40% in taxes for investments?

Because it's still competitive with other G8 economies, and arguably the United States has more to offer in ROI than France or Germany.

Warren Buffet gets exactly the same federal government services as does his secretary or any other legal worker.

Anybody who makes their money by the trading of stocks is a person totally dependent on the enforcement powers of the SEC. There would be no market to trade BRK.A on without them.

Re:Ultimately this is the answer.

[manastungare]

American workers take a 25% haircut and become competitive again.

I chopped off my hair to 3/4th of its length, but that didn't help me be competitive.

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

Re:Ultimately this is the answer.

[Savantissimo]

I agree, but the cap gains tax should only be on real profits over $500 per year taken as income and not reinvested. Now you pay on purely nominal gains caused by inflation, fill out onerous paperwork over tiny amounts of savings account interest, usually can't deduct all investment losses from profits, and usually take a tax penalty for rebalancing your portfolio. Investment companies don't have most of these burdens, but individuals do. Getting around the ridiculous rules is a big part of why the market is dominated by mutual funds, hedge funds, IRA money-jailers and other parasites.

Inflation-adjusting nominal capital gains using the government's numbers isn't good enough. The have been fiddled with so much over the years that they are 3 to 6 percentage points lower than they would be when calculated using the methods of 15 to 30 years ago. This fiddling has also inflated GDP growth and screwed Social Security recipients by a similar percentage compounded over many years.

Also, capital gains shouldn't be taxed if the underlying capital is intellectual property. Ireland got that right; it really paid off for them. (I know this is Slashdot, but individual authors and inventors would be more viable if their product weren't taxed out of existence.)

Re:Ultimately this is the answer.

[Maxo-Texas]

lol

Perhaps you need to try a crew cut?

Seriously-- if the chinese had not been playing games with the currency for the last decade, then the yan (sp) would have gone up and chinese compensation levels would not be so crazy low relative to ours.

It's likely to happen really fast at some point when they stop buying our treasuries.

Re:Ultimately this is the answer.

[CodeBuster]

If the bank doesn't bother to send you a 1099-INT in the mail for your savings account interest, generally because it was less than $10 for the year, then you don't have to report that as interest or dividend income on your taxes. If they do send you the forms then you have to report it because the IRS is going to check what the banks reported against what you report. It would be more of a nuisance for the IRS and the banks to process paperwork on interest amounts of less than $10 than the tax collected is worth, so in those cases they generally don't waste their time.

Re:Let me explain what economic recovery means

[plopez]

hmmmm i've been getting troll modded a lot lately it seems. is it me or is this forum changing?

Re:Not with insane copyright laws...

[leonbev]

Sadly, most of the reasons that you gave to hate Microsoft aren't unique to the company. You could have easily scratched out Microsoft and put IBM or HP in it's place, and 90% of it still would have been true.

That doesn't make it right, mind you, but it shows that Microsoft is simply acting like every other bloated technology conglomerate out there.

Low Volt-age geek

[westlake]

How many of them made $17 billion in profits over the last year?
It's one thing to cut salaries when you're hemorrhaging. It's another to cut salaries when everyone else is hemorrhaging, and you have a stable, monopoly-protected revenue base, just because your workers have no alternative.

The temp's employer is Volt Workforce Solutions.

Volt joins most but not all firms in deciding to pass some or all of the impact of the [Microsoft] cuts on to their workers. Temp giant Volt informs workers it will make Microsoft pay cuts

How surprising is it when a wholesale supplier cuts his prices and costs to remain competitive in a recession?

--- but is not so quick to dial back his own profits?

Microsoft is bleeding to death when kdawson's theme is FOSS and Linux. Microsoft is rich, strong and stable when the talk turns to pay cuts and layoffs.

The well-run company survives a deep recession - a depression - by making changes before the situation turns desperate.

The 10% pay cut now is at least a better outcome for the temp than the 100% cut he'd take later if his job is outsourced to India.

It's useful to remember now and again that the median household income in the states is $50,000 -

keeps things in perspective, when you ask yourself how much your job is worth.

Re:Low Volt-age geek

[Savantissimo]

The 10% pay cut now is at least a better outcome for the temp than the 100% cut he'd take later if his job is outsourced to India.

The workers aren't getting anything in exchange for the cut in their pay, least of all a commitment from Volt or MS that their job will exist a moment longer than is most profitable for their employers.

I think the best response by the workers would be to counteroffer a 10% reduction in hours at the same hourly rate, while looking for both a new job and a class-action attorney to handle the breach of contract case.

employee pay

[falconwolf]

Well, for starters, autoworkers union != bank executives. The two situations aren't even similar. On one hand, you have a union that's doing nothing more than bleeding a corporation dry. On the other, you have a situation where the free market should really be determining things like salaries and bonuses*.

The auto workers negotiated in just as much a free market as those bank executives did. SO they are the same in that regard.

Truth be told, it would be better for the US Automakers if they went bankrupt. That would dissolve all union contracts, forcing them to restructure. While there are certainly other factors like demand and quality, the benefits alone received by members of the UAW make it almost impossible for American car companies to compete with non-union car manufacturers in the US.

While it may be better if US auto manufacturers did go bankrupt, you're either discounting, ignoring, or don't know something. Even foreign auto makers what Detroit bailed out, "Why Toyota wants GM to be saved". This is because of the reason mentioned above, they all depend on the same suppliers. If Chrysler goes bankrupt it's suppliers, who also supply Japanese makers in the US may go bankrupt as well. Secondly those foreign owned factories received a lot of government subsidies. State governments have given out billions in subsidies. "Alabama offered a stunning $253 million incentive package to Mercedes ." And one of Alabama's senators, Sen. Richard Shelby was one of those who opposed bailing out US auto companies.

Its great when a company can afford to treat their people well, but when they can't, something's gotta give. Unfortunately, the UAW doesn't see it that way.

Neither do company executives. Even Carl Icahn says executive pay needs to change.

Falcon

HPs orig. cross-the-board pay cut policy was good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this pay-cut-instead-of-layoff was pioneered by HP back in the good old days when Bill and Dave were still actively running the company. This was a good for the company, good for the employee thing. You would be paid 10% less and get every other Friday off. The employees got to keep their jobs or look for a new job while still employed (always better than looking while you're out of work). The company got to save money, keep experienced people and, after the downturn was over, they could effectively staff up instantly without the slow and expensive process of interviewing and hiring. I was at HP when this was done back in the 1980s when John Young was CEO,but the Bill and Dave formula was modified. Some of us cut pay and hours, some got a lower pay cut but continued to work full hours, while others kept full pay but had to work extra hours. This just created a caste system and made people angry when mgmt talked of policing the system to make sure people were working their designated hours. Mgmt also gave no criteria for when we could go back to full pay; it was all just whenever mgmt felt like it. Shows how a good plan can be ruined by lesser management.

Re:no problem with honest capitalism and never wil

[Dogtanian]

Collectivism and Marxism already failed. We don't need to try that again.

Don't recall anyone advocating that. Put that straw man away before it falls apart!

Though expecting 100% free-market capitalism to work without people taking advantage and/or subverting it for their own ends (even through the "legitimate" use of markets to- e.g.- get a monopoly) is just as flawed and dependent on a grossly over-idealised view of human nature as communism is.

Remember that though many will proclaim the merits of a free market, they really want it to be free for themselves... and will certainly seek to shut out competition given the chance.

Re:no problem with honest capitalism and never wil

[Dogtanian]

Additional; I got distracted from the point I was making... which is that your separation of "true" capitalism from opportunism, greed and borderline legal behaviour is academic as the system does not work in a vacuum and is in fact dependent upon the same motivations that breed those problems.

Not saying that capitalism doesn't work, just that trying to argue its case in isolation is ultimately meaningless in the real world.

An interesting question

[DesScorp]

"Honestly, I think this was a better choice than a 10% FTE workforce reduction, and 50% contractor pool reduction like we had where I work."

It's an interesting question: what would be better for those workers, their families, the company, and the economy over all? The workforce taking a pay and benefits cut, but losing no jobs, or leaving pay and benefits at current levels, but laying off X number of workers to achieve the necessary cuts.

I have no idea which would be better. Anyone else given this scenario some serious thought? Myself, I'd rather take the pay cut, and just see people cut back on movies, fast food, trips to Blockbuster, etc. We could all use some more economizing. But maybe there's a case for the layoffs being better for the health of the company and economy. Thoughts?

Re:An interesting question

[Zerth]

The problem with workforce reduction is you also lose capacity. Now if your market has decreased and you either don't think it will return or have a low training cost, then fire the excess.

But if you still have demand then you could possibly maintain or even expand your market if you can reduce costs while maintaining capacity.

The last bubble-pop, the company I worked at grew by decreasing prices while maintaining margins. Came out of it poised to greatly expand and didn't need to wait for rehiring or training.

Then I got outsourced, but at least my boss doesn't work there anymore, either:)

Re:An interesting question

[ConceptJunkie]

Now if your market has decreased and you either don't think it will return or have a low training cost, then fire the excess.

Ha ha! At first I read that as "fire the execs"...

Re:An interesting question

[ps2os2]

What is also interesting if there are minimum wage earners in the pool. That would violate the law (my understanding that is).

Re:An interesting question

[commodore64_love]

I don't know about business but for ME the better option is a cut in pay, because earning $10 less per hour is better than $0 an hour.

Plus I can start surfing my resume for a second job, while still keeping my original job as a safety net. If the second job happen, I can quit my first job, but if not then at least I can still pay the bills.

How exactly can Microsoft be doing bad?

[GoldMace]

I don't get it...they practically have a monopoly on their main products, it would seem if ANYONE would be doing alright in a bad economy, it would be Microsoft...even though sales probably are down, they are still rather high, and the actual cost of producing a DVD-ROM is rather low compared to the price of the products, which is very high due to lack of competition, and it's not like there's huge development costs either, since their main products are basically the same as they have been for years and years, with a new look and a handful of new features and bugfixes...none of this makes any sense...

Re:fuck volt

[russotto]

The downside is that your job's temporary and you have fewer rights, as this article shows. That's the risk they choose to take.

Contractors may have fewer rights (or may not, in an at-will employment state). But this article doesn't show it. Any company can tell its employees to take a 10% pay cut or hit the road.

Thanks.

[Gazzonyx]

... and of those of us highly skilled, in debt and just graduating from college? Glad the boom was fun for y'all, but some of us showed up a little late to the party.

Re:Thanks.

[ultranova]

... and of those of us highly skilled, in debt and just graduating from college? Glad the boom was fun for y'all, but some of us showed up a little late to the party.

To put it bluntly, it was stupid of you to take loan for college when you knew there are people in India and China able to work for less. Education is an investment, and you invested in a horse you knew would likely lose. Worse, you invested borrowed money - which you can't afford to lose since it's not really yours - in this way.

What you should had done was get a law or management degree. Being a producer doesn't pay off in globalized economy; but for parasites, it's almost always a party. Your best bet now is to try to asskiss yourself popular, and work on a bullshit degree at night school. That, or pull the old disappearance trick; you'll leave your papers behind, but it's not like they'll do you any good anyway.

Yo, mods. Will someone give this guy a voice?!

[Gazzonyx]

Sorry, I blew my mod points earlier this week.

FWIW, Sorry to hear about your situation.

Re:Never on Volt payroll again...

[Renraku]

Pretty much all contract companies are like this.

If you don't answer the customer's question and the reboot fails, they'll call back. So now you've doubled your work load with little to no effort. Doubling your work load and increasing your work speed by 50%. You take ten seconds to tell them to reboot and call back, and a few minutes when they call back to answer their question.

The issue is metrics. People live and die by the by them. Would you rather take 1,000 calls a month with an average resolve time of 10 minutes? Or 2000 calls with an average resolve time of 6 minutes? Look at it from a company's perspective that is contracting their phone work to another company.

I'm sure much worse is going on elsewhere.

[falconwolf]

It's worse at Microsoft. MS wants congress to allow more H1b visas.

Falcon

Re:Hey, does anyone know who...

[ClosedSource]

"Speaking of patriotism, did anyone notice how disagreeing with the last president was considered patriotic"

Sure, just ask Bill Maher.

Re:So, that would mean I smelled a rat when i read

[ClosedSource]

"(cue the off-topic/flamebait/troll-markers against me...)"

I've heard of begging the question, but I've never heard of begging the moderation.

paying for talent

[falconwolf]

You need to pay top dollar for the best talent.

It was the best talent that got us in this recession. That is best at creating imaginary financial instruments.

Falcon

What will this really accomplish?

[christophercrooker]

I am a contractor at Microsoft right now subject to this pay rate decrease. Although I have my opinions about why it is happening, and what should be happening instead, I think more interesting is what the immediate effect of this will be. In my case, I cancelled several services I pay for in order to absorb the hit to my income and will be increasing my W-4 deductions to maximize my current income (up to my allowed amount) in favor of decreasing my tax return next year (here's to hope).

But, I cancelled Netflix who licenses Microsoft's streaming video technology. I cancelled Gamefly who previously rented me Xbox 360 games. I will be providing less revenue through withholding to the federal government. There will be less discretionary spending and less revenue provided to my local and state government, all of whom need it just as bad as we do right now. All of those organizations rely on Microsoft products for their dwindling operations. In a very real way (since I live in northwest Washington) there will be less money for police to protect Microsoft's physical assets.

Don't these circular relationships represent the defintion of a "downward spiral"? Are we sure we understand the impact of these actions?

In the meantime I will buckle under and keep working my ass off. My kid's doctor doesn't accept righteousness as a form of payment.

Re:What will this really accomplish?

[JoeFromPhilly]

Don't these circular relationships represent the defintion of a "downward spiral"?

Absolutely. This is why economists get spooked when they hear the word deflation. Even now they can't bear to say it, and resort to euphemisms.

Are we sure we understand the impact of these actions?

We understand the economy in almost exactly the same sense as we understand the weather.

In the meantime I will buckle under and keep working my ass off.

That's probably the only thing anyone can do. Good luck, this year is going to be a brutal adjustment for a lot of people.

Re:What will this really accomplish?

[Joe Snipe]

We understand the economy in almost exactly the same sense as we understand the weather.

I'm tempted to make that my new signature.

Re:What will this really accomplish?

[JoeFromPhilly]

I have to admit that I was sort of impressed with myself when I wrote that. Feel free to use it if you like! I've always just wanted people to understand that the economy isn't the sort of system that can be manipulated in a predictable fashion. We're not particularly rational actors.

Shortage of Tech Workers?

[hemp]

It is very strange for Microsoft & HP/EDS to be doing this with the huge shortage of technology workers.

Paycuts Beat the Alternative

[this_is_art]

I'm an engineer at a Calif Semiconductor mfg and while we're still in reasonably good financial health, we've had a temporary de facto paycut of about 15% since about early December. We've only had a few layoffs, and there are none on the horizon at this time, but the work load still must be maintained even through staff reductions. We all agree that the paycuts are painful, but no one wants to be out of work, looking for a job during a down market. The bottom line is that we work hard, deliver good product, and make good money. If we need to have shared sacrifice through hard times, then so be it. I'm very sympathetic to those who wind up jobless during times like this, but before you complain about pay cuts versus profitability, never forget that you are working for a company that is in business to make money. If that concept is alien to you then step aside for some of those good folks who are jobless and will gladly take your job. Cheers

Re:Never on Volt payroll again...

[Savantissimo]

Yes, it's all about bad metrics. Bad metrics are the root of all evil. Taylorism, six-sigma, ISO x000, outsourcing, call-center idiocy, TPS reports accounting manipulation, stock analyst BS, structured finance, gaussian risk assumptions, macro-economic stats, bond ratings,.... on and on.

Never try to fix the bad metrics, though. You won't win. They are bad because it butters somebody's bread. Don't try to explain why you can't add minutes, percentages, stock prices, checklist tick-counts and fluid ounces together and get a meaningful number, (no, not even if your team leader can make a chart of it in Excel and embed it in a Powerpoint slide for the morning huddle. No, hiring consultants, taking the standard deviation and setting stretch goals won't help, either).

No, don't try to explain. Manipulate the system shamelessly and cynically while trying to hedge against the coming collapse - at least you know the options will be cheaper than they ought to be because of the bad metrics.

Re:so they want to work for 1 year with no health

[will_die]

Yes, but in most cases you would of been offered a job by MCI in 6 months if any good or fired. The really slimmy part was that they talked about the great health and leave benefits during the interview and in all the propsective employee flyers and ads.

Temps asked to if they want to keep their jobs

[fireheadca]

MS hires temps on a low payscale - then asks them to take a 10% hit? Because Vista failed?

Re:Temps asked to if they want to keep their jobs

[Bourbonium]

RTFA. MS isn't asking them to take the pay cut. Volt (the temp agency) is doing this. And Vista isn't the real problem with Microsoft, only a part of the problem.

Re:Temps asked to if they want to keep their jobs

[fireheadca]

RTFA? Are you kidding?

Who does Volt work for? MS. Does this need to be explained?

And Vista failed, causing a REAL problem for Microsoft - as in no money for underpaid temps.

Hiring temps and keeping them on as full time employees but keeping them under an agency is despicable. Too many companies use this method to underpay their workers and keep them under constant threat of layoffs.

But then you're not defending Volt, you're defending MS which has deep pockets and should be ashamed of having temp workers and asking them to accept that pay cut.

Re:Temps asked to if they want to keep their jobs

[Bourbonium]

I'm not defending Volt or Microsoft. Hell, I used to work for Volt, many years ago, but would never do so again. I'm just pointing out that the letter was sent by Volt to their temps, not by Microsoft. It is not something that I find particularly surprising, since I know how they operate.

Apparently, this does need to be explained, if you didn't quite grok what I said. Are you suggesting that Microsoft ordered Volt to cut their temp employees' pay by 10% rather than have Volt reduce their overhead charges by the same amount? TFA (and its associated linked article) report that Microsoft is cutting by 10% the amount it pays to temp agencies, but there is no indication that MS told them to cut the temp's hourly rate by that amount. The agency could ease the pain by simply reducing their exhorbitant administrative charges that are often 60%-80% over what they pay their temps. But Volt would never consider that option.

And I don't think that even if Vista had been a smashing success that it would make any bit of difference, given our current global economic collapse. If you haven't yet noticed, the entire financial system is crumbling all around us. A successful release of Vista or even of Windows 7 isn't going to turn things around. We're all going down with this. We just have to adjust our lifestyles to acclimate to the new economic environment. I can envision a future not too far away where life in Redmond won't be all that different from everyday life in Mumbai. Just be glad you have any kind of job at all.

How about...

[fragMasterFlash]

How about MS lives up to the financial obligation it entered into contractually and states that new/renewed contracts will be subject to reduced rates? Given that the duration of these contracts is limited to 265 days I would think that this would amount to a mere drop in the fiscal bucket. This seems more likely a ploy to lull investors into the thinking MS wields an iron fist with its workforce. Wooing investors at this point is hopeless, they are too fickle care about anything other than the indexes. Pissing off your workforce however will absolutely kill productivity. I, for one, think the chair throwing antics of one MS executive will come to an end sooner than later.

everything is inflated....

[lpq]

The prices of ALOT of things jumped up after 9/11 on fear and during the gasoline crisis. They also take advantage of every weather crisis or flood to publish how it will cause a shortage and a price hike.

Ever notice -- when these things clear up, they don't go back down.

Everything needs to go through some deflation. The price of many things is just ridiculous.

Things going from 25-50 cents in the 70's to 6-10 bucks... That's a hell of alot of inflation -- alot more than the
supposed 2-4% reported by government figures each year. Over 3 decades, 4% would be a 324% price inflation.
Instead, I commonly see things more in line with 20x (2000%). It's not just housing.

$2.99 for a corrupted version of a song (a ringtone). vs. $4-6 for an album in the early 80's. The incremental cost
to produce that ringtone: 0. An album might have ~10 songs... so as ring tones, that'd be $30. That's 7.5-5x and those aren't for the real song. The incremental profit margins are nearly incalculable. Piracy has hurt music companies sooooo much.....

But contrary to what 'should' happen -- the government is just manufacturing more money backed by nothing. It's like stock dilution -- but on a massive scale -- dollar dilution. Soon street bums will be begging $20's for a cup of joe.

Theoretically, we are so screwed...but for what really will happen? Good luck guessing!

Re:everything is inflated....

[tomhudson]

Well, part of the problem is the "magic of compounding" ,,, so our dollar has actually lost about 94% of its' value over 50 years. For examples, just look at comic books or paperbacks, a loaf of bread, a dozen eggs, a gallon of gas, or the minimum wage (50 years ago, it was a buck an hour).

If everything stays "in sync", then everyone survives, and everyone has enough money to participate in the economy. The problem is that we have, as you pointed out, NOT kept wages in line with inflation for a decade (the Bush years), and instead replaced wage growth with debt growth as a way to maintain or "improve" the standard of living - but it was a lie for most people; higher debts are not an improvement.

Re:everything is inflated....

[defaria]

Ever notice -- when these things clear up, they don't go back down.

Actually I did notice. Gas prices were at ~$5/gallon. Now they are $2. You're theory stated above is at odds with reality.

Re:everything is inflated....

[robklaus]

Things going from 25-50 cents in the 70's to 6-10 bucks... That's a hell of alot of inflation -- alot more than the supposed 2-4% reported by government figures each year. Over 3 decades, 4% would be a 324% price inflation. Instead, I commonly see things more in line with 20x (2000%). It's not just housing.

Can you point out a couple things that have gone from costing '25-50 cents' to 6-10 bucks?? Ringtones don't count that is a superfluous example.

Re:everything is inflated....

[lpq]

Sorry, not entirely clear -- commodity problems cause retail price hikes, justified by higher 'commodity' problem.

Gasoline, is technically a retail item compared to oil, but for most retailers, their fleet run on petrol or diesel, so for most retailers, they use the price of fuel as a commodity price to base prices on.

Here's a recent article concerning what I'm talking about. Retailer giants like General Mills recently (I think Kellog's) followed suit, downsized produce amounts in boxes, while keeping prices flat early last fall. 12-pack - fridge-ready packs were
the standard 'unit' at all the retail stores in my area that had the widest selection and most sales. Last fall,
all of the soda-vendors decreased the standard unit to an 8-pack last fall. Their "on sale" price is now about the same as what 12-packs went for last fall. That's a 50% price increase -- though tempered by more frequent, steeper sales, for now on the 8 packs while the public gets used to the new "unit" size.

Re:everything is inflated....

[lpq]

Books, magazines (especially cost of techmags now days), movies (like in going to the movie theater, matinee or evening prices), comics are ones that come to mind.

Re:everything is inflated....

[Cally]

Ever notice that the plural of "anecdote" isn't "data"?

Re:everything is inflated....

[toddestan]

It's not so much the price of fuel itself, but all the extra surcharges and prices increases that came about because of the high fuel prices. The price of gas has come down, but my grocery bills are still as high as ever, the shipping rates for packages haven't come down, and the airlines are still tacking all kinds of surcharges and fees onto tickets.

Besides, the last time oil was $40 a barrel, gasoline was was more like $1.50 per gallon, so that's something you might want to consider.

Eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

...stop your bitching when it goes the other way. That's just the way an open market works.

I thought that an open market was supposed to serve society, not that society was to serve the open market?
 
Seriously, the boom-bust cycle is pretty well documented in open markets, and these things are pretty painful. I would argue that it is better to sacrifice a bit of efficiency during the booms in order to make the busts less painful. In this case, we have a perfect example of why the government should be regulating labor and should not cut taxes too much during the good times. It is true that such policy would have cost some efficiency during the good times. However, here in the bust life would be better for workers and the government would have more room to maneuver in its fiscal policy toward stimulating the economy.

Re:Eh?

[pod]

Holy S^%$! Government cut taxes?! Where do you live?

I Have Seen the Light!

[jeko]

I find it pretty absurd that a company should be "stuck" with the contract rates it offers.

My God, You're Brilliant! I'm such an idiot! Why didn't I see this earlier?! I'm calling the bank right now to tell them that I don't have to be "stuck" with our previous contract. It's old news. Next month, my mortgage payment is going to be what's most beneficial to my bottom line, which after all is the the engine of the American economy! And why stop there? AT&T's gonna get a similar wakeup call from me, and the cable company too! And hey, those lazy bastards at the electric company -- why really, anyone I write a check to!

All of our previous agreements are water under the bridge, and they are going to do their patriotic duty and accept whatever I choose to give them!

Thank you for your astonishing genius. With this new principle at work, I expect my retirement account to be fully funded by next week.

Income

[Andypcguy]

A home should not cost more than 2X to 3X gross yearly income. If the median home price in an area is more than 2X to 3X the median family income, they are priced too high. Right now, home prices still have a long ways to go. If they don't, families will continue to make interest payments to banks for thirty years instead of fifteen, which adds no value to the economy. If these same people now start taking pay reductions, this will only serve to increase the distance prices must fall.

Bad math

[uptownguy]

Try a 66% margin. For example, charging the customer 45/hr and paying the contractor 30/hr for normal, straight time.

Your math is bad. Charging $45/hour and paying a contractor $30/hour means that the firm keeps $15/hour. (A 33% margin.) (Contractor keeps 2/3 of the bill rate.) That is *less* than the 35% the grandparent post said Volt kept...

Actual Letter

[Katamba]

Dear Volt Employees Assigned to Microsoft, Every day when we read a newspaper or watch television, we hear about how the economy is experiencing considerable turmoil. Unemployment rates are at a 17 year high, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has plummeted 40% over the last 6 months. Many companies are faced with office closures, layoffs, and deep cost containment initiatives throughout corporate America and globally. Volt Workforce Solutions is not immune to these activities or their effects. Microsoft, as a trailblazer in the information technology industry, has positively stimulated the economy for years. Notwithstanding, we all have to look at the economic conditions that currently surround us. At the request of Allegis/Microsoft we will participate in some key cost containment initiatives that include a reduction in billing for all current Volt Agency Temporary Workers (a-) assigned to Microsoft, effective March 16, 2009. In response to the cost containment initiatives, your Volt Employee Relations Representative or a Volt Representative will begin scheduling appointments with each of you to discuss how this impacts you. We have evaluated all pay rates for our Microsoft agency temporary workers and have concluded that we will be asking each of you to share in these measures by accepting a 10% reduction in your pay rate. These reductions are very difficult for Volt to implement since we value each and every one of you; however this is mandatory in order to continue your assignment at Microsoft and to respond to this economic environment. We want to support you in continuing your assignment at Microsoft and respectfully ask that you respond by going to the upper left hand corner of this email under the 'Vote' response option and select, 'Accept' by close of business Tuesday, March 3, 2009. By accepting you agree to the pay adjustment in your pay rate. Volt has prepared a formal written amendment to your employment agreement for your signature and will execute this amendment in your scheduled meeting. We sincerely ask for your understanding in this matter. Please be advised that if any other changes do occur, we will notify you as soon as possible. If you would like clarification about this message, please email xxxxxxx. Please do not discuss this with your Microsoft manager, as they have been instructed to direct you to your employer (Volt) for clarification. In closing, the world is struggling and we are challenged to consider the economy as a whole and what is happening beyond our own current situation. Please know that even though we are in an economic crisis, we will continue to work hard to identify new opportunities for employment as well as offer competitive pay for the advancement of your career. Thank you and your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated, Volt Workforce Solutions

Volt is a TEMP agency

[ChrisA90278]

These are CONTRACTORS not employees. The whole reason a company uses contract labor is so they can adjust the number of bodies to the workload without having to later layoff their own employees. In other works these a TEMPORARY jobs. Everyone understood they were temporary and would not last. I don't even count not renewing a contract with a layoff

I was a contractor once too. And sure enough we were the first to go. With all of about 20 minutes notice at that. Cutting your pay is just a very nice way to say "Find another job, soon." The more normal way to say that to a contractors is "Find another job."

Read the story "Volt" is a "temp agency". Our company uses Volt too. For thing like when a normal emplyee is on extended sick leave, they might hire someone on a 6 month contract.

Re:Hey, does anyone know who...

[Ottair]

Gary Locke is a walking tax problem, or more correctly a walking, talking campaign cash laundering ethics problem. The technical term for Obama's vetting team is "clusterfuck".

Re:Not with insane copyright laws...

[ultranova]

If it wasn't for the monopoly, Microsoft would have been dead between XP and Vista. Six years between incremental product releases? Instant death in any *normal* industry.

Decremental product releases. Almost everyone prefer XP to Vista. "Has Windows XP" is a selling point nowadays, judging by computer ads. All of which, of course, only reinforces your point, but is noteworthy nonetheless.

Re:wait, which is it?

[Bourbonium]

I think you're confused. Where the hell did you hear that Microsoft accepted any bailout money? If they did, why didn't Apple? As far as I know, the companies that have been bailed out are the investment banks on Wall Street, the commercial banks (CitiGroup, BofA, Wells Fargo, etc.), AIG Insurance, Chrysler and General Motors. Merrill Lynch ended up being bought out by Bank of America, Bear Stearns was bought (at $2/share) by JPMorgan/Chase, and Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail (which caused the AIG Bailout, since AIG had insured Lehman Bros. against bankruptcy).

Re:Kinda like the "Freedom of Choice Act"?

[ryanov]

Something bad would happen to you if you didn't sign the card -- when some bullshit thing like this happened, you'd have no recourse. If they'd all signed union cards, Volt would not have this option.

Oblig Star Wars referance...

[Kaenneth]

Lando: "...That was never part of our agreement!"
Vader: "I am altering the agreement, pray I do not alter it further".

Missed Opportunity

[gilly3]

Microsoft is missing out on a great opportunity here. Microsoft has plenty of money, and even if sales are down now, the economy will eventually get better. Now is the time for product development. Start working on dozens of killer applications, start planning a brilliant marketing scheme, and mature its products and offerings. Then, when the economy improves (and it will improve), Microsoft is ready with astounding products that the public can't help but consume! Microsoft's investment pays off and has the happy side effect of stabilizing somewhat the economy in Puget Sound.

Re:So, that would mean I smelled a rat when i read

[davidsyes]

Ahem. I'll just add modification to your (sic) your own quote:

Or did you think the trail blazer was the guy who followed at the rear?

No, but i think they ARE tail blazer (firey firmware/hardware "her hengelahders" (German, sp) ) being the guy who mostly follows at the rear... Either they will excite and endtertain you or they will alight your ass and put and end (sic, sick one at that) to you.....

(Have a sense of humour, lad/lass...)

Re:My kind of democracy..This Volt event

[davidsyes]

must be a polarizing shocker...I wonder how much resistance there will be sparked an arc flash, or if the bad economy will increase capacitance for drops in currency....

I wonder if ms will issue an admittance to their impedance of income flowing to Volt, or if ms will rump up and ramp up with their Aeolian Vibration technique that requires resonant vacuum attachment to the Amorphous Semiconductor of the rear of the discharge port.

Butt, despite their biased relay, blackouts, bonding and brownouts, they will huck and buck and steady up on their probe-inserting stabilizing Bull Wheel.

Their cable-pulling lubricant will be NO MATCH for the cable sheath. Their characteristic angle matching their characteristic curve will charge the cherry picker, swing the choker, conduct a corona around the counter EMF, reduce the dip tolerance, and increase the Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum, Direct-on-Line, Duct Bank, with a steady eddy current to boot, maximising en(d)trainment.

Do or Die

[triso]

So, if you don't agree with the 10% pay cut does that mean you get a 100% pay cut and an escort out of the building?