Slashdot Mirror
Nokia-Siemens Axing 17,000 Positions
alphadogg writes with troubling news for the network hardware joint-venture between Nokia and Siemens. Quoting the article: "Struggling network infrastructure vendor Nokia Siemens Networks is planning to cut 17,000 jobs worldwide, as it aims to cut $1.35 billion from its costs by the end of 2013, the company said Wednesday. About 23% of the company's 74,000 employees will be laid off. The 4 1/2-year-old joint venture between Nokia and Siemens has been struggling to compete with Swedish Ericsson and Chinese vendor Huawei. Parent company Nokia's ongoing problems have made Nokia Siemens' situation even more difficult."
They might like this...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/23/1331209/us-government-probes-huawei-and-zte
Any idea on which countries will have the most positions lost? The article didn't mention this bit. Really is too bad, this is not a great time to be out of a job.
Love sees no species.
Unless perhaps you're looking at a CEO's salary, there are other areas besides HR that cost a company money. Add to that:
The 4 1/2-year-old joint venture between Nokia and Siemens has been struggling to compete with Swedish Ericsson and Chinese vendor Huawei.
Equipment and facilities can be purchased or leased again. But innovation and attracting and retaining key talent is priceless. What are they losing in order to save their budget?
Equipment and facilities can be purchased or leased again. But innovation and attracting and retaining key talent is priceless. What are they losing in order to save their budget?
Who cares? It's more important that they keep their profits high for each quarter, so the CEO can get a bigger bonus. Why should the CEO care about his company's long-term future?
Slashing people shows bankers a willingness to be ruthless assholes so they will then loan money. I've seen various solutions, none that do much good.
In one case I know of the Nokia cellphone side gutted the staff of a critical infrastructure product that was intended to bring up a US data center.
They 'laid off' everyone with zero notice and pretty much told to go home.
The way they terminated those employees is what rankled. They got the standard Nokia severance.
A friend in that group went on to make more money, less bureaucracy, better health care and much better job security and they didn't have to get any windows phone shit on them.
Who cares? It's more important that they keep their profits high for each quarter, so the CEO can get a bigger bonus. Why should the CEO care about his company's long-term future?
Exactly. There's no point worrying about the long term when the government can put your company out of business overnight with some new law or regulation.
look, if you got 70k people.. then yes, it is a significant cost of doing business. a very significant cost.
at least they're looking like they'll get severance, but it's a lot of folk outside those that also lose(have lost) jobs. the performance of nsn hasn't exactly been stellar, I suppose they knew that too.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Nokia bought TrollTech some years ago and while they didn't fire a bunch of employees after their switch to Windows Mobile, I'm guessing with this move TrollTech's development efforts will be harder to justify. It's unfortunate really.
On the positive side, unemployment here in Norway is below 4% at the moment. And maybe the strategic direction of Qt will go back to...devices people actually have.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
$1.35B / 17,000 = ~$79,500 annual cost per employee.
Assuming those cost savings are purely employee related of course... salaries, benefits, training, etc. Easily can come out to $80k for a single employee.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Exactly. That's why we need to just get rid of government altogether, so we don't have that problem! Then everything can be like it was in the 50s, when there was no government.
Moron.
Who cares? It's more important that they keep their profits high for each quarter, so the CEO can get a bigger bonus. Why should the CEO care about his company's long-term future?
Exactly. There's no point worrying about the long term when the government can put your company out of business overnight with some new law or regulation.
Especially when that government is perfectly willing to make sure that you, as the CEO, walk away with more money than you will ever be able to spend (and making sure that it remains untaxed, at all, ever).
It tolls for thee!
Everyone is saying IT is immune from the economy. This should be a wakeup call for all those feeling snug.
Our sector can and will get hit too- especially the longer the economic doldrums and uncertainty lasts.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
ELOP-POLE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement
SM - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism
Sadomasochism broadly refers to the receiving of pleasure—often sexual—from acts involving the infliction or reception of pain or humiliation.
MS - http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MICROSOFT
Organisation bent on world domination masquerading as a software company.
YOU ASKED FOR IT, IDIOTS
Out of mod points, but this one needs it
Higuita
23% of the company's 74,000 employees will get laid? I like my odds!
I would say that government is actually the key stabilizing force in the market.
Where the Fed can cut interest rates to 0% or raise them to 10%?
This argument is silly, the Fed's chief goal is market stability, and sustained growth.
Do you want to explain how a company can plan years into the future when the EPA can declare tomorrow that oxygen is a pollutant?
The EPA is around to protect the environment; if your business model requires you destroying the environment to succeed, then you need to deal with the fact that the general populace doesn't want to sacrifice their breathable air so you can turn a profit.
Where Congress can pass a new minimum wage or new tax that makes your business model unsustainable?
If your business model requires paying workers wages that keep them below the poverty line, then you shouldn't (and shouldn't be allowed to) put it into practice. It seems like you would argue that slavery is good business model, if only the damn government would stay out of your way.
The success of your business shouldn't be valued over the success, happiness, and prosperity of society as a whole, sorry.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
They 'laid off' everyone with zero notice and pretty much told to go home.
The way they terminated those employees is what rankled. They got the standard Nokia severance.
I will bite. As a Nokia Employee for the last 4 years("the hard years"), I can tell you that getting laid off from Nokia is a good deal.
I would prefer to be laid off immediately with an amazing severance. Being told that you are being let go and hanging around is a real morale killer for yourself and the remaining workers.
A friend in that group went on to make more money, less bureaucracy, better health care and much better job security and they didn't have to get any windows phone shit on them.
Nice for him(or they?). I'm sure having Nokia on his resume helped him land that job. I'm not quite sure I understand though why this is relevant since Nokia pays well, has very good healthcare and the job security was great until the company fell on hard times. Business is a competition and that secure job might not be so pretty in a few years.
This is all the fault of the M$ plant Elop.
Elop has no power over NSN. It is run by a separate board and CEO.
You do understand that Nokia Siemens Networks makes telco equipment such as antennas and switches? None of which runs Windows, except for (perhaps) monitoring software.
Slashing people shows bankers a willingness to be ruthless assholes so they will then loan money. I've seen various solutions, none that do much good.
In one case I know of the Nokia cellphone side gutted the staff of a critical infrastructure product that was intended to bring up a US data center.
They 'laid off' everyone with zero notice and pretty much told to go home.
The way they terminated those employees is what rankled. They got the standard Nokia severance.
A friend in that group went on to make more money, less bureaucracy, better health care and much better job security and they didn't have to get any windows phone shit on them.
How does standard nokia severance suck? how about switching that to one months notice that you're expected to work through.. ? that's the situation a lot of folk who were doing the actual Nokia products were put into this year(you thought they code their shit by them selfs? then they wouldn't have been burning billions so fast!).
A lot of these nsn jobs are just triple-redundant regional office staff, assembly drones etc..
I agree in part (at least with the sentiment, if perhaps not the expression), but don't think the EU or its remnants won't move to block such a MicroNokia merger. The EU already hates Microsoft, and is not afraid to put M$ on a short leash, unlike the US DoJ kid-gloves approach to M$'s criminal behavior.
Exactly. That's why we need to just get rid of government altogether, so we don't have that problem! Then everything can be like it was in the 50s, when there was no government.
Moron.
Don't sign your posts! :)
You could at least have said "Oh no - they're Finnished" in a first post!
There is no 'key talent' in NSN otherwise they wouldnt be in this pickle... Source: Post by Coward above... "We have been struggling from day one with bad management, bad planning, bad product line definition, bad choices, millions and millions of money wasted with idiotic things" This bonehead should be working to fix these problems not sitting on this board complaining...
Virgin moderator apparently.
Maybe it is like when an illiterate nigger speaks their typical gutter pidgin and wants to ax you a question.
Illiterate niggers like Geoffrey Chaucer, you mean? (See The Miller's Tale for a use in the first stanza)
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
An army with crap generals and commanders isn't going to win wars even if it had great soldiers.
That's why leadership is important, and arguably more important than great engineering talent.
Lots of idiots want to be leaders and many get the job.
This argument is silly, the Fed's chief goal is market stability, and sustained growth.
No you simply have no idea what you are talking about, and have contradicted yourself within a single sentence but are nevertheless quite happy to expound your ignorance to the rest of the world.
Go watch Alfred Bartlett.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Watch all of the sections from start to finish.
This could not be described as stability
Deleted
More than that, why should the shareholders--the frickin' owners--care? They bail at the slightest hint of decline.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Eliop is the boss of NSN's key shareholder. He hasn't shown much interest; his priority is clearly disembowelling Nokia; but he is the only person who could make a serious decision to actually fund NSN properly and has clearly not yet decided to do so.
I remember correctly, the US government as a percentage of GDP was significantly smaller in the 50s than today, and most of today's regulatory agencies did not exist."
Taxes on the rich were far higher too. Heh.
You're a complete moron.
1) Taxes were much, much higher in the 50s than there are now. Go look it up. The 1% paid 90+%.
2) With all the spending on the Cold War, there's no way the USG was much smaller as a percentage of GDP than now.
3) The EPA is there to prevent pollution from making this place like China. I guess you'd prefer living in Beijing where you need to wear a respirator when you're outside?
4) The Fed has been around since the early 20th century. If you have a complaint with them, but you're saying the 50s were great, then you're obviously a complete idiot as nothing has changed since then WRT the Fed.
5) Congress has been able to pass new taxes since Congress was invented, you moron.
You're the moron. He's complaining about the government being able to pass new laws or regulations; there's no government in human history that doesn't have those powers. That's the entire function of government: to pass new laws.
Go fuck off you coward.
You flame but you don't respond to what the poster actually said. Let's look at white house data: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
In 1950, the US spent $42,562 million off of a $293 Billion GDP or 14.5% of GDP
In 1955, the US spent $68,444 million off of a $415 Billion GDP or 16.5% of GDP
In 2010, the US spent $3,456,213 million off of a $14.5T GDP or 23.7% of GDP
So, sorry. federal spending is MUCH higher as a percentage of GDP than in the 50's.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
And they had a ton more loopholes. Hence they paid less than they do today:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
In 1950, the US spent $42,562 million off of a $293 Billion GDP or 14.5% of GDP
In 1955, the US spent $68,444 million off of a $415 Billion GDP or 16.5% of GDP
In 2010, the US spent $3,456,213 million off of a $14.5T GDP or 23.7% of GDP
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
It was 18% in 1995, and it was 17% in 2000, 19% in 2007, and now its 23.7... hmm. What happened between 2007-2010 which could have possibly caused such a substantial increase in gov spending against the GDP in the lest few years? I don't have the stats, but I'm sure you'll see similar blips around 1927-30's and during WW2. All I'm getting at is looking at raw stats without context doesn't give the whole picture of what the gov was spending their money on, or why.
Bye!
"Axing them what?"
The EPA is around to protect the environment
And the TSA is around to protect us from terrorists. I agree with most of what you are saying, but your logic isn't going to convince anyone.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Whilst there's still quite a number of Finns working for Nokia Siemens Networks (though surprisingly few; lots were fired when the Germans couldn't be touched) the interesting thing is that even Nokia has not really been a Finnish company for ages. Most of the decline has happened since it was bought out by Americans.
When they hire people it's said they 'create' jobs. So it's only fair to call this 'destroying' jobs.
You can develop in Python too if you want. Hell, you can write bash scripts if you want... Which makes it an intriguing multi purpose mobile computing device which can talk to anything.
You just can't buy one if you are in UK, Germany, USA etc. Wonder why.
Deleted
You apparently see government as a destabilizing force in the market, causing uncertainty. I would say that government is actually the key stabilizing force in the market.
That is a very simplistic outlook.
Good governmental policies implemented by good government officials can be stabilizing.
Good or bad governmental policies implemented by bad government officials can be destabilizing.
Based on the figures you provide, taxes are still somewhat higher or about the same as the 50's as a percent of GDP. This supports the fact that although there were high marginal tax rates that there were significant tax loopholes to avoid these rates. As recently as the 70s, there were ways to get writeoffs higher than the amount of money spent. In the 80s, almost all of those loopholes were shut down. So, it is not accurate to compare tax rates of today with those of 60 years ago.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Maybe it is like when an illiterate nigger speaks their typical gutter pidgin and wants to ax you a question.
Illiterate niggers like Geoffrey Chaucer, you mean? (See The Miller's Tale for a use in the first stanza)
Yes, exactly! Everyone knows that when uneducated street thugs with criminal records who never met their fathers and wear pants 3 sizes too large and never heard of a belt say "ax you a question" they are actually making a clever allusion to Chaucer. I mean that's so obvious I have no idea why you felt a need to point it out.
See folks this is the deep denial of political correctness, right here.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but your logic isn't going to convince anyone.
So what convinced *you*, if not his logic?
That's true too, but it still has the Finnish seed. Just like how pizza is ubiquitous food, it's still an Italian one. Actually it's just fun to continue the tradition of finns and swedes mocking each other.
There's a large R&D department in Greece as well. Given the current state of the economy there, any employees laid off will have a very hard time recovering.
Virgin moderator apparently.
Those virgins can be so unruly. They need moderation.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
What the hell has the US Government to do with this post, you self-centered american ....!??? The world doesn't go around USA, you prick!!!
Oh noes! Congress might raise minimum wage! Here's an interesting factoid:
Average worker hourly rate in 1965: 19.61$
Average worker hourly rate in 2007: 19.71$
Average CEO hourly rate in 1965: 490.31$
Average CEO hourly rate in 2007: 5419.97$
You know what, I don't think that congress raising minimum wage is where we should focus our attention...
~Syberz
Whilst there's still quite a number of Finns working for Nokia Siemens Networks (though surprisingly few; lots were fired when the Germans couldn't be touched) the interesting thing is that even Nokia has not really been a Finnish company for ages. Most of the decline has happened since it was bought out by Americans.
nokia also pays quite not so much taxes to finland as it used to.
through taxes of wages though, sure, quite a lot still. but a lot less than what it used to.
finnish government subsidies their research still in the old proportions though. which is sort of funny. or sad.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Stop being such a rude asshole. The OP obviously was one of these Teabaggers who complains about the size of government, and would really prefer if there was almost no government at all, so I was just pointing out that back in the 50s, when most Americans think everything was rosy and wonderful, our government really wasn't much different from what it is now, and in fact the income tax rates then were far higher than they are now.
I certainly don't see any non-Americans complaining about their government making "some new law or regulation"; most Europeans seem to understand perfectly well that you need government regulation to keep corporations from becoming too big and abusive or monopolistic, and to prevent things like the financial meltdown we just experienced over here.
Finally, this is a USA-centric message board. It's located in the USA, the majority of the members here are Americans, and the language used is English (and it's pretty obvious most of them use American English, though there's a good number of UK English users too). If you don't like that, I invite you to go start your own country-specific Slashdot.