they never lay off someone that is their best programmer, they never lay off someone that just made over a million dollars in sales that month - they lay off fat fucks sitting at the water cooler talking about how they came in late that day b/c they are so hung over from drinking all night and are going leave early b/c they feel sick.
then that same fat bastard is going to whine and bitch and moan about how the company will regret it once his sorry ass is booted.

although to be fair, it also those same pussy ass fuckers that come back wiht a gun to get revenge - which to those dipshits somehow makes sense.

anyway, my point being - work hard, do a good job, you won't get fired.
(there are exceptions to this - if your company is getting rid of your division, or if your company was aquired and your position is now redundant - then whoever works for less money will stay)

quote:

---

Originally posted by cm3504jm:
Like sitting around all day posting on Elitefitness?.....lol

Excuse me, I've got work to do.....

---

yup, like that

that won't lay me off here b/c I am one of our better programmers.

First, Lucent made two awful mistakes. They hired an incapable CEO, who has since been let go, and, equally foolish, they made an aggressive and misdirected attempt to compete with Cisco. Lucent also makes communciations hardware, and as telecommunications become less about voice and more about data, (and voice as data - voice over IP) Lucent has to adjust. The thing is, Cisco is already there, on the top of the mountain.

Cisco is not invincible. Juniper Networks is making some inroads...but Lucent misread the situation and is now paying dearly. Employees that remain are currently holding stock options that are "underwater"..... they've lost money.

The AOL-Time Warner merger caused the layoffs there. There were a lot of people doing the same thing in both places, so there were destined to be duplicates. It's the way mergers are.

Amazon was just a terribly flawed business model, that fortunately was able to raise enough money to stay afloat. This year, they may just turn a profit. But they spent $11billion to do it. That sounds ike a defense contract.

Now as far as Internet-related layoffs, a lot of dot-coms should never have been started. As I have said before, the financial sector can be blamed for that - things like Petopia.com and Etoys.com should have never even been given money, but venture capitalists are by and large so foolish that they threw cash at anything ending in .com - the end result is what is happening now.

Most of the Internt start up people, yes, are basically thanked and pushed out with nothing.

Also - the numbers being what they are is not typical. There is a distinct cause for it right now.

Example, if your profits are low and you need to keep the board happy so you will fire those that cost you the most money. It may not necessarily be the ones who are lazy, since two lazy peoples salaries and benifits are less than one hardworking producing individual who gets paid more. So in managements eyes, I get rid of one person and save money and get twice the work done.

It seems contrary to what should happen but it does. Weed out all the high salary types and keep the losers in place.

The other thought could be that the .coms got what they wanted, their software, websites and such and now only need tech's to maintain them. So they get rid of the guy's who set them up (also the most paid ones as well) In a sense they were used and are no longer needed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:
Happy - your post is nonsense. Good people get laid off ALL THE TIME. Ask May1010.

Also - the numbers being what they are is not typical. There is a distinct cause for it right now.

---

Not to knock May - but when he was discussing what happened, two of the first thing mentioned was that he 1) makes a lot of money, and 2) surfed the web a lot.
If they could replace him with someone that was paid a lot less, then they get more return. I'm not saying he is a bad person - just in their eyes, it is arguable.

And I didn't say these aren't higher numbers - I said people get laid off all the time.

Come on, you went to Exeter - let's debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
Example, if your profits are low and you need to keep the board happy so you will fire those that cost you the most money. It may not necessarily be the ones who are lazy, since two lazy peoples salaries and benifits are less than one hardworking producing individual who gets paid more. So in managements eyes, I get rid of one person and save money and get twice the work done.

---

Yeah - my dad's company is doing that. and I agree with it. if you are any good and get laid off - then great - there are other jobs out there and you will get it.
the people bitching and moaning about it are the ones that shouldn't have been there in the first place and were lucky to get in and now they are pissed that the gravy train won't let them on anymore.
I'm glad the economy is tanking, now when I go around, I don't have to compete with the guys that suck at this shit.

I don't think we disagree all that much. My point is that these current layoffs are more than the worthless people being pruned. I would say that 75% of them, are pruned at the interview and then the rest, shortly thereafter...either terminated, or doomed to remain low level employees.

I would support the claim that a nice amount of those recently laid off were hired during recent economic mega-growth. These people may have been the first to go, as companies realized that expansions they were planing, would not materialize, due to a slowing of the growth.

So one could say that they (people) were worthless against the backdrop of the company's former plans, which themselves had become worthless because of the cessation of economic growth.

I do not debate your point about the crappy employees being the first to go. But good people are damn hard to find. One of my best friends owns a company that processes insurance claims - he is always trying to find a way to increase peoductivity among hius people. I meet with their director of Human Resources regularly (informally) to find new and improved techniques.

My point is that crappo employees are par for the course. Only the really terrible stand out as deserving a layoff. :-) So I would not attrbute too many of the recent layoffs to that.