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."
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.
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.
"Everyone is saying IT is immune from the economy"
who is saying that?
The only people who say that are those who profit from saying it. Educational institutions who want more business. CEOs and others who want more cheap labor. Governments who have become dependent on infinite economic growth to fuel their spending.
Talk to regular people, regular engineers... and we all say IT is just as vulnerable. With free trade and a globally educated work force... most of IT is as expendable as manual labor is. Sure if you're in the top 1% of your field, you might always have a job...but that's pretty much true of any active field.
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.
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!
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 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!