On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 06:16:55PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Then I was unclear. Basically all I really meant is that if someone > lends you a helping hand it would be nice if you didn't turn around > and kick them in the balls for their trouble.
What constitutes "kick them in the balls"? In the context, the best interpretation I can think of would be "fire them and hire someone who is willing to do the same work for less money". I still can't see any interpretation of your "loyalty" statement that doesn't involve businesses being asked to sometimes choose to be less efficient than they could be. While it is certainly true that outsourcing is not always the best business decision (if the savings were only estimated to be 10%, for example, it would probably not justify the risk that your estimate could be wrong, the risk that your company might not be able to attract and retain the best people in the future when they know that they could be laid off at any time, etc.), it is also true that the decision must be made as a business decision, not considering "loyalty" for loyalties sake. Doing that would harm and possibly destroy the business in the longer term. > And I'm not positive, but I believe I said "their employees" not > "American workers" which is a subtle but important difference, IMO. Yet it is not likely that an Indian or Chinese company will lay off large numbers of their workers and outsource their work to America, is it? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
