RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: No, I don't expect anything but a paycheck at the end of a pay period. Are you worried your employees may read this? Hence the use of anonymous email. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71504t=70953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
hehehe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: No, I don't expect anything but a paycheck at the end of a pay period. Are you worried your employees may read this? Hence the use of anonymous email. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71524t=70953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
No, I don't expect anything but a paycheck at the end of a pay period. Are you worried your employees may read this? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: Ok Sen. McCarthy, Your response is Bolshevik, get it? ;) All I'm talking about is taking care of people who took care of you. As an employee I have an obligation to do x amount of work. I always do more than that, it's a pride thing. I want the business I work for to prosper. What is wrong with showing an employee like that some loyalty. Hey, if the employer wants to do that, there is nothing wrong at all. What's 'wrong' is that you apparently expect them to do so. The employer is obligated to compensate you for your time according to whatever employment agreement you arranged when you were hired, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to altruistically give time and effort above and beyond what is necessary, that's your prerogative, but the employer is not obligated to reward you for it, and if you're truly being altruistic, then you shouldn't have anything to complain about, because altruism means to do something without any expectation of recompense. Now, if you're not being altruistic and you are willing to do extraordinary work but because you expect a reward for it, then you should play Let's Make a Deal. Tell your employer that you're willing to do this-and-that task but only for such-and-such an increase in compensation or a similar arrangement.But if you don't do that, you can't complain ex-post-facto. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71497t=70953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: Ok Sen. McCarthy, Your response is Bolshevik, get it? ;) All I'm talking about is taking care of people who took care of you. As an employee I have an obligation to do x amount of work. I always do more than that, it's a pride thing. I want the business I work for to prosper. What is wrong with showing an employee like that some loyalty. Hey, if the employer wants to do that, there is nothing wrong at all. What's 'wrong' is that you apparently expect them to do so. The employer is obligated to compensate you for your time according to whatever employment agreement you arranged when you were hired, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to altruistically give time and effort above and beyond what is necessary, that's your prerogative, but the employer is not obligated to reward you for it, and if you're truly being altruistic, then you shouldn't have anything to complain about, because altruism means to do something without any expectation of recompense. Now, if you're not being altruistic and you are willing to do extraordinary work but because you expect a reward for it, then you should play Let's Make a Deal. Tell your employer that you're willing to do this-and-that task but only for such-and-such an increase in compensation or a similar arrangement.But if you don't do that, you can't complain ex-post-facto. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71342t=70953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mark E. Hayes wrote: The way I see it, which judging by the responses is wrong, you start a business by doing what you know how to do. I can't start a business making paper because I have no clue how to do that. A big corporation can do that by simply buying another company out. But that big corp started somewhere, probably by a person or group of persons doing what they know how to do, and doing it well. Since they did it well, they made a profit and the business prospered. Now we have an entity (the corp)that was assembled by the sweat of it's workers. That core group that gave the corp it's legs to stand on. I see that you are familiar with the works of Marx. Yet we are all familiar with how successful Marxism has been as an economic system. Allow me to inject some counterplay into your argument. First, it's not like those initial workers got nothing. At the very least, they got paid a salary. Secondly, when we're talking about the first few workers at a startup, more often than not those workers are handed pieces of equity in the form of stock options. Secretaries who worked at Microsoft from the very early days have gotten filthy rich precisely because of that equity. Third, and most importantly, it's not like those workers are forced to work there. They are free to quit whenever they want. If some other company offers them a better deal, they are free to take it at any time. So the analysis breaks down as follows. Let's say I create my startup company and I decide want to hire you as my secretary. So I make you some sort of compensation offer which you are free to accept or refuse. Obviously I have to give you some sort of offer that is comparable to all the other secretarial offers you may be getting from other companies, otherwise you're not going to work for me, you're going to work for those other companies. So let's say my company does does become big. Why exactly are you, as my secretary, entitled to rewards beyond what may be stipulated in any equity that I had agreed to give you? If I agreed to give you equity, then you deserve the appreciation of that equity, but nothing more. Did you really 'build' that company? Not really, most likely you just did secretarial work just like all the other thousands of other secretaries around the country do every day (for which you got paid just like every other secretary). So why do you have any unusual claim to the success of the company beyond what was agreed upon in an equity package? Just because you happened to be there, you deserve more benefits than the average secretary? I simply don't see it as giving the core group its legs to stand on - you did the same secretarial work as you would have done anywhere else and you were paid an accompanying secretarial salary just like anywhere else. Just because you happened to do that secretarial work at my startup company does not by itself give you claim to the success of my company. If you negotiated some equity in your employment contract, that's one thing, but you don't deserve anything more than what you negotiated. That's like saying that if my brother wins the lottery, I am somehow automatically entitled to part of it. If my brother wants to give me some of the winnings, that's one thing, but I have no right to demand it of him. If you think that you as a startup worker should enjoy the benefits from the success of the company, then by all means negotiate yourself an equity stake. Generally, startup negotiations tilt on how much salary you get vs. how much equity you want. The more equity you want, the less salary you are offered. Nowadays, I see that most people are leaning towards more salary and less equity because of the dotcom bust. But the point is, if you choose to trade salary for equity, you can't return later and say do-over if the company becomes big. If you agreed to trade equity for salary, then that was your choice. After all, what happens if the company doesn't do well - I can't say do-over either, I can't just give you equity in lieu of salary, I have to pay you what I said I was going to pay you. Along comes Joe or Josephine CEO, president, or whatever. They have a bug up their butt to make even more profit. After all their business worth (and salary) is dictated by the revenues they generate. They did not build that company, they have no sweat equity in it. What do they care if people are laid off for the sake of a couple million more dollars to the bottom line. The corp is making good cake now, but when is enough, enough? Is it when you have outsourced all of the depts that do not have a big profit center? When you have laid off all of the workers that built the machine? When you have nothing left but people who wear expensive suits and make ludicrous administrative policies?
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Ok Sen. McCarthy, Your response is Bolshevik, get it? ;) All I'm talking about is taking care of people who took care of you. As an employee I have an obligation to do x amount of work. I always do more than that, it's a pride thing. I want the business I work for to prosper. What is wrong with showing an employee like that some loyalty. I love the over analysis though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: The way I see it, which judging by the responses is wrong, you start a business by doing what you know how to do. I can't start a business making paper because I have no clue how to do that. A big corporation can do that by simply buying another company out. But that big corp started somewhere, probably by a person or group of persons doing what they know how to do, and doing it well. Since they did it well, they made a profit and the business prospered. Now we have an entity (the corp)that was assembled by the sweat of it's workers. That core group that gave the corp it's legs to stand on. I see that you are familiar with the works of Marx. Yet we are all familiar with how successful Marxism has been as an economic system. Allow me to inject some counterplay into your argument. First, it's not like those initial workers got nothing. At the very least, they got paid a salary. Secondly, when we're talking about the first few workers at a startup, more often than not those workers are handed pieces of equity in the form of stock options. Secretaries who worked at Microsoft from the very early days have gotten filthy rich precisely because of that equity. Third, and most importantly, it's not like those workers are forced to work there. They are free to quit whenever they want. If some other company offers them a better deal, they are free to take it at any time. So the analysis breaks down as follows. Let's say I create my startup company and I decide want to hire you as my secretary. So I make you some sort of compensation offer which you are free to accept or refuse. Obviously I have to give you some sort of offer that is comparable to all the other secretarial offers you may be getting from other companies, otherwise you're not going to work for me, you're going to work for those other companies. So let's say my company does does become big. Why exactly are you, as my secretary, entitled to rewards beyond what may be stipulated in any equity that I had agreed to give you? If I agreed to give you equity, then you deserve the appreciation of that equity, but nothing more. Did you really 'build' that company? Not really, most likely you just did secretarial work just like all the other thousands of other secretaries around the country do every day (for which you got paid just like every other secretary). So why do you have any unusual claim to the success of the company beyond what was agreed upon in an equity package? Just because you happened to be there, you deserve more benefits than the average secretary? I simply don't see it as giving the core group its legs to stand on - you did the same secretarial work as you would have done anywhere else and you were paid an accompanying secretarial salary just like anywhere else. Just because you happened to do that secretarial work at my startup company does not by itself give you claim to the success of my company. If you negotiated some equity in your employment contract, that's one thing, but you don't deserve anything more than what you negotiated. That's like saying that if my brother wins the lottery, I am somehow automatically entitled to part of it. If my brother wants to give me some of the winnings, that's one thing, but I have no right to demand it of him. If you think that you as a startup worker should enjoy the benefits from the success of the company, then by all means negotiate yourself an equity stake. Generally, startup negotiations tilt on how much salary you get vs. how much equity you want. The more equity you want, the less salary you are offered. Nowadays, I see that most people are leaning towards more salary and less equity because of the dotcom bust. But the point is, if you choose to trade salary for equity, you can't return later and say do-over if the company becomes big. If you agreed to trade equity for salary, then that was your choice. After all, what happens if the company doesn't do well - I can't say do-over either, I can't just give you equity in lieu of salary, I have to pay you what I said I was going to pay you. Along comes Joe or Josephine CEO, president, or whatever. They have a bug up their butt to make even more profit. After all their business worth (and salary) is dictated by the revenues they generate. They did not build that company, they have
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: The way I see it, which judging by the responses is wrong, you start a business by doing what you know how to do. I can't start a business making paper because I have no clue how to do that. A big corporation can do that by simply buying another company out. But that big corp started somewhere, probably by a person or group of persons doing what they know how to do, and doing it well. Since they did it well, they made a profit and the business prospered. Now we have an entity (the corp)that was assembled by the sweat of it's workers. That core group that gave the corp it's legs to stand on. I see that you are familiar with the works of Marx. Yet we are all familiar with how successful Marxism has been as an economic system. Allow me to inject some counterplay into your argument. First, it's not like those initial workers got nothing. At the very least, they got paid a salary. Secondly, when we're talking about the first few workers at a startup, more often than not those workers are handed pieces of equity in the form of stock options. Secretaries who worked at Microsoft from the very early days have gotten filthy rich precisely because of that equity. Third, and most importantly, it's not like those workers are forced to work there. They are free to quit whenever they want. If some other company offers them a better deal, they are free to take it at any time. So the analysis breaks down as follows. Let's say I create my startup company and I decide want to hire you as my secretary. So I make you some sort of compensation offer which you are free to accept or refuse. Obviously I have to give you some sort of offer that is comparable to all the other secretarial offers you may be getting from other companies, otherwise you're not going to work for me, you're going to work for those other companies. So let's say my company does does become big. Why exactly are you, as my secretary, entitled to rewards beyond what may be stipulated in any equity that I had agreed to give you? If I agreed to give you equity, then you deserve the appreciation of that equity, but nothing more. Did you really 'build' that company? Not really, most likely you just did secretarial work just like all the other thousands of other secretaries around the country do every day (for which you got paid just like every other secretary). So why do you have any unusual claim to the success of the company beyond what was agreed upon in an equity package? Just because you happened to be there, you deserve more benefits than the average secretary? I simply don't see it as giving the core group its legs to stand on - you did the same secretarial work as you would have done anywhere else and you were paid an accompanying secretarial salary just like anywhere else. Just because you happened to do that secretarial work at my startup company does not by itself give you claim to the success of my company. If you negotiated some equity in your employment contract, that's one thing, but you don't deserve anything more than what you negotiated. That's like saying that if my brother wins the lottery, I am somehow automatically entitled to part of it. If my brother wants to give me some of the winnings, that's one thing, but I have no right to demand it of him. If you think that you as a startup worker should enjoy the benefits from the success of the company, then by all means negotiate yourself an equity stake. Generally, startup negotiations tilt on how much salary you get vs. how much equity you want. The more equity you want, the less salary you are offered. Nowadays, I see that most people are leaning towards more salary and less equity because of the dotcom bust. But the point is, if you choose to trade salary for equity, you can't return later and say do-over if the company becomes big. If you agreed to trade equity for salary, then that was your choice. After all, what happens if the company doesn't do well - I can't say do-over either, I can't just give you equity in lieu of salary, I have to pay you what I said I was going to pay you. Along comes Joe or Josephine CEO, president, or whatever. They have a bug up their butt to make even more profit. After all their business worth (and salary) is dictated by the revenues they generate. They did not build that company, they have no sweat equity in it. What do they care if people are laid off for the sake of a couple million more dollars to the bottom line. The corp is making good cake now, but when is enough, enough? Is it when you have outsourced all of the depts that do not have a big profit center? When you have laid off all of the workers that built the machine? When you have nothing left but people who wear expensive suits and make ludicrous administrative policies? Yeah, I know this is over-the-top, but not too far. I have worked in places like this. Surely you would agree that that's a rather
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
At 6:01 PM + 6/22/03, n rf wrote: Mark E. Hayes wrote: The way I see it, which judging by the responses is wrong, you start a business by doing what you know how to do. I can't start a business making paper because I have no clue how to do that. A big corporation can do that by simply buying another company out. But that big corp started somewhere, probably by a person or group of persons doing what they know how to do, and doing it well. Since they did it well, they made a profit and the business prospered. Now we have an entity (the corp)that was assembled by the sweat of it's workers. That core group that gave the corp it's legs to stand on. I see that you are familiar with the works of Marx. Yet we are all familiar with how successful Marxism has been as an economic system. To be precise, the theories of Karl (and Friedrich Engels) appear to have been executed by Groucho, Chico, Harpo, Zeppo and Gummo. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71097t=70953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: Ok n rf... I will admit before I go any farther, this is a rant ;) You have hit the nail on the head. The one that puts me over the top. I am going to refer back to my first rant over CCIE numbers. hehehe. The part where Corporate America oughtta go hang out with the Nazis in S.A. When is enough, enough? NAFTA brought about the demise of the labor sector (as far as assembly line workers, and more menial tasks that employers did not want to pay minimum wage here to do). The spin was that higher tech jobs would be available. Well we had a nice run for about 8 years. Now the higher tech jobs are being farmed out to off-site locations. I can almost picture a bunch of poor souls locked in a NOC and having to ask to go to the bathroom like they do in the Mexican plants run by a few rich guys hired out to American interests. All in the name of $aving money. I haven't checked but I doubt Caterpillar passed on the savings when they moved their production facilities to Mexico. The way things are going the only jobs left will be food service and nurses. The only problem is nobody will be working to afford either one of the services. I changed career fileds in the mid-to-late nineties hoping I would be able to hold on to something worthwhile. I chose networking. It turned out to be an addiction. I love doing this stuff but un-employment sucks! In retrospect nursing would have been a better choice, but hey the market wasn't to good for them either back then. Will American companies EVER realize they have a commitment to keep this country strong. After all, if no one is working who will buy their services? I know you are not the cause, only the messenger. So please forgive my rant. Mark Well, as a free-market capitalist, I have several points to make * Own any stocks? Perhaps a mutual fund in a 401k? If so, guess what, you're part of the very Corporate America that you apparently despise. If you own shares in American companies, then your portfolio is helped by any and all cost-cutting moves made by those companies. *Ever use any foreign products? I bet you have. Just go out to the street and check out all the foreign cars. There's a good chance you have one in your garage. Or just look at the clothes you wear. I bet you that your underwear was made either in Mexico or in Asia. In fact, just take a look around your room at all the househood goods. How many of them were manufactured in other countries? Probably most of them. In fact, look at your PC. Probably only one component of your PC - the microprocessor - was actually manufactured in the US. Most of your PC was probably built in Asia. The point is that you as a consumer want the best product for the least cost. I want to pay as little as possible for my socks, which is why the socks I buy tend to be made in Mexico. I want to drink the best beer in the world, which is why the beer I buy is never American-made, it tends to be made in Germany. Surely you have bought goods that were made in other countries either because they are cheaper or higher quality or both. But if you choose the most optimal good, whether domestic or foreign, then is it really surprising to discover that companies will choose the most optimal workforce, whether domestic or foreign? * I detect a strong tone that American companies should hire only American workers, is that true? If so, does it then follow that foreign companies should hire only foreign workers? For example, should Nortel fire all its employees and replace them all with Canadians? Should the Shell oil refinery near my house eliminate all its American plant workers and replace them all with Brits? Should CBS fire all its American workers and replace them with Japanese (CBS is owned by Sony). The point is that turnabout is fair play. If you want to say that American companies should not employ foreigners, then you have to be prepared for the logical conclusion that foreign companies should not employ Americans. * I think your view of the future is a tad bleaker than it needs to be. While service-work will be more outsourced, what kind of work will stay here? Yes, the cable-monkey work. You will actually need a pair of hands here to do the grunt work. But what other kind of work? Simple - the business leadership/management, the finance, the sales, - in short, the high-end, high-touch, work that is not easily outsourced at all. And who tends to make more money, the engineers or the business leadership/finance/sales? Right. Therefore, the high-yield, high-margin work will stay here. Perhaps some historical perspective is in order. 200 years ago, the United States was a backwards nation on the fringes of the levers of power, where most of the citizenry worked in agriculture. 100 years later, the US was the strongest and most industrialized nation on earth. How else could this have happened had not millions of
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
p.s. I drive a Hyundai and MY beer is made in Holland. ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: Ok n rf... I will admit before I go any farther, this is a rant ;) You have hit the nail on the head. The one that puts me over the top. I am going to refer back to my first rant over CCIE numbers. hehehe. The part where Corporate America oughtta go hang out with the Nazis in S.A. When is enough, enough? NAFTA brought about the demise of the labor sector (as far as assembly line workers, and more menial tasks that employers did not want to pay minimum wage here to do). The spin was that higher tech jobs would be available. Well we had a nice run for about 8 years. Now the higher tech jobs are being farmed out to off-site locations. I can almost picture a bunch of poor souls locked in a NOC and having to ask to go to the bathroom like they do in the Mexican plants run by a few rich guys hired out to American interests. All in the name of $aving money. I haven't checked but I doubt Caterpillar passed on the savings when they moved their production facilities to Mexico. The way things are going the only jobs left will be food service and nurses. The only problem is nobody will be working to afford either one of the services. I changed career fileds in the mid-to-late nineties hoping I would be able to hold on to something worthwhile. I chose networking. It turned out to be an addiction. I love doing this stuff but un-employment sucks! In retrospect nursing would have been a better choice, but hey the market wasn't to good for them either back then. Will American companies EVER realize they have a commitment to keep this country strong. After all, if no one is working who will buy their services? I know you are not the cause, only the messenger. So please forgive my rant. Mark Well, as a free-market capitalist, I have several points to make * Own any stocks? Perhaps a mutual fund in a 401k? If so, guess what, you're part of the very Corporate America that you apparently despise. If you own shares in American companies, then your portfolio is helped by any and all cost-cutting moves made by those companies. *Ever use any foreign products? I bet you have. Just go out to the street and check out all the foreign cars. There's a good chance you have one in your garage. Or just look at the clothes you wear. I bet you that your underwear was made either in Mexico or in Asia. In fact, just take a look around your room at all the househood goods. How many of them were manufactured in other countries? Probably most of them. In fact, look at your PC. Probably only one component of your PC - the microprocessor - was actually manufactured in the US. Most of your PC was probably built in Asia. The point is that you as a consumer want the best product for the least cost. I want to pay as little as possible for my socks, which is why the socks I buy tend to be made in Mexico. I want to drink the best beer in the world, which is why the beer I buy is never American-made, it tends to be made in Germany. Surely you have bought goods that were made in other countries either because they are cheaper or higher quality or both. But if you choose the most optimal good, whether domestic or foreign, then is it really surprising to discover that companies will choose the most optimal workforce, whether domestic or foreign? * I detect a strong tone that American companies should hire only American workers, is that true? If so, does it then follow that foreign companies should hire only foreign workers? For example, should Nortel fire all its employees and replace them all with Canadians? Should the Shell oil refinery near my house eliminate all its American plant workers and replace them all with Brits? Should CBS fire all its American workers and replace them with Japanese (CBS is owned by Sony). The point is that turnabout is fair play. If you want to say that American companies should not employ foreigners, then you have to be prepared for the logical conclusion that foreign companies should not employ Americans. * I think your view of the future is a tad bleaker than it needs to be. While service-work will be more outsourced, what kind of work will stay here? Yes, the cable-monkey work. You will actually need a pair of hands here to do the grunt work. But what other kind of work? Simple - the business leadership/management, the finance, the sales, - in short, the high-end, high-touch, work that is not easily outsourced at all. And who tends to make more money, the engineers or the business leadership/finance/sales? Right. Therefore, the high-yield, high-margin work will stay here. Perhaps some historical perspective is in order. 200
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
My basic point is this, however moot. I am not talking about NOT hiring foreign workers. I have no beef with that. My beef is with CORPORATE GREED. You claim to be a free-market capitalist. Are you a business owner? Or do you invest in the market, or both? Maybe I should have said this in my previous post. My disgust in Corporate America stems from the total lack of morals and sense of responsibility to the people who put them where they are, their workers. Believe it or not, I am not a Democrat. I sway towards the conservative side. But I believe you have to have some morals when you run a business. There is a symbiotic realtionship that exists between the worker and the employer. I know employers hold the cards and can dictate the rules as they see fit. But laying off 10,000 workers after reporting 40,000,000 dollars in profit for the quarter is callous. The cliche we have to do what's right for the business comes to mind. Enron and MCI are shining examples of corporate greed. How many people lost their retirement, their lives? I guess we could come down from the mountaintop and say Weee, here's how it is. You don't have a PhD and a wonderful stock portfolio so you can just go by the way side. No life for you. You don't have the education to be a CEO, you have morals so you can't go into sales. Management has been pretty shaky for a while too. I know guys afraid to lose their jobs because they know they can't find another one that pays as well without having a BA or BS or higher. From your reply- in short, the high-end, high-touch, work that is not easily outsourced at all. And who tends to make more money, the engineers or the business leadership/finance/sales? Right. Therefore, the high-yield, high-margin work will stay here. Ok n rf... I will admit before I go any farther, this is a rant ;) You have hit the nail on the head. The one that puts me over the top. I am going to refer back to my first rant over CCIE numbers. hehehe. The part where Corporate America oughtta go hang out with the Nazis in S.A. When is enough, enough? NAFTA brought about the demise of the labor sector (as far as assembly line workers, and more menial tasks that employers did not want to pay minimum wage here to do). The spin was that higher tech jobs would be available. Well we had a nice run for about 8 years. Now the higher tech jobs are being farmed out to off-site locations. I can almost picture a bunch of poor souls locked in a NOC and having to ask to go to the bathroom like they do in the Mexican plants run by a few rich guys hired out to American interests. All in the name of $aving money. I haven't checked but I doubt Caterpillar passed on the savings when they moved their production facilities to Mexico. The way things are going the only jobs left will be food service and nurses. The only problem is nobody will be working to afford either one of the services. I changed career fileds in the mid-to-late nineties hoping I would be able to hold on to something worthwhile. I chose networking. It turned out to be an addiction. I love doing this stuff but un-employment sucks! In retrospect nursing would have been a better choice, but hey the market wasn't to good for them either back then. Will American companies EVER realize they have a commitment to keep this country strong. After all, if no one is working who will buy their services? I know you are not the cause, only the messenger. So please forgive my rant. Mark Well, as a free-market capitalist, I have several points to make * Own any stocks? Perhaps a mutual fund in a 401k? If so, guess what, you're part of the very Corporate America that you apparently despise. If you own shares in American companies, then your portfolio is helped by any and all cost-cutting moves made by those companies. *Ever use any foreign products? I bet you have. Just go out to the street and check out all the foreign cars. There's a good chance you have one in your garage. Or just look at the clothes you wear. I bet you that your underwear was made either in Mexico or in Asia. In fact, just take a look around your room at all the househood goods. How many of them were manufactured in other countries? Probably most of them. In fact, look at your PC. Probably only one component of your PC - the microprocessor - was actually manufactured in the US. Most of your PC was probably built in Asia. The point is that you as a consumer want the best product for the least cost. I want to pay as little as possible for my socks, which is why the socks I buy tend to be made in Mexico. I want to drink the best beer in the world, which is why the beer I buy is never American-made, it tends to be made in Germany. Surely you have bought goods that were made in other countries either because they are cheaper or higher quality or both. But if you choose the most optimal good, whether domestic or foreign, then is it
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
from the mountaintop and say Weee, here's how it is. You don't have a PhD and a wonderful stock portfolio so you can just go by the way side. No life for you. You don't have the education to be a CEO, you have morals so you can't go into sales. Management has been pretty shaky for a while too. I know guys afraid to lose their jobs because they know they can't find another one that pays as well without having a BA or BS or higher. First of all, if you don't have a BA or a BS, then you should probably think about getting one. Second of all, we've been through this before. In every recession there's an outcry warning of the death of the American worker. Yet the story of American economic history has been a story of nearly constantly rising living standards and nearly-ever-increasing per-capita incomes. I don't see why it would be any different this time. Americans have almost retooled themselves to stay 2 or 3 steps ahead of the rest of the world. Remember that the US has completely and successfully transformed its economy several times in its history - from predominantly agricultural to predominantly industrial to predominantly post-industrial/services. From your reply- in short, the high-end, high-touch, work that is not easily outsourced at all. And who tends to make more money, the engineers or the business leadership/finance/sales? Right. Therefore, the high-yield, high-margin work will stay here. great if you want to do this kind of work. Personally, I prefer the engineer's work. Hey, I prefer sitting around at home all day long watching basketball and eating potato chips. Let's face it, Mark. You can't always do what you want to do. That's life. Actually, I take that back (slightly). You CAN do whatever you want to do, but you can't expect that other people will pay you for it. I can indeed sit around at home watching ball and eating chips, but nobody's going to pay me for that. You can go be a network engineer, but nobody's obligated to pay you to do it. But because they have have to pay more than minimum wage to an engineer because it is skilled labor they want to outsource it. Can't pay some monkey with a mind for technology more than I am paying my masseuse! Yeah that's it, I'll teach the jerk. I just gotta find my business card from that outsourcing company specializing in off-site relocation, yeah that's the ticket. Now my stock will go up because my bottom line looks better and I'll get that big fat stock option. At the press conference I'll just state I did it for the shareholders when I tell them about all the layoffs. First of all, I would ask aren't those people who are now taking the newly outsourced jobs workers too? Sure, they may be in India, but Indians are people too - are you saying that Indians don't deserve jobs? That you are somehow more deserving than those Indians? Second of all, let's not go overboard with the layoff thing. Obviously if all you have to do to raise your stock price is lay people off, then why doesn't John Chambers just lay off everybody at Cisco except himself. Cisco would then be a company of one employee, and since Chambers is only taking a salary of $1 this year, the stock price would then go through the roof, right? Heck, why doesn't every company lay off everybody except the CEO? Either John Chambers is stupid for not realizing this (and if he's so stupid, then why exactly is he the CEO?), or the relationship between layoffs and stock prices is more complicated than I'm postulating. Somehow I don't think it's the former. All of this outsourcing and lowering the bottom line sounds really good for the company, but for the workers who put them in the position to be number one or twelve or whatever they are, it all boils down to one thing. LESS JOBS!!! I don't recall at the moment any press conferences from CEOs stating they rescinded their stock options, bonuses, or raises when times got tough. Well, some did. Notably John Chambers, who cut his salary to $1. Nope, they usually outsource and cut the jobs of the people who are trying to make a decent living w/o an Ivy League education. Give me a minute while I put my shields up! I am not minimizing the pain of people who have gone through layoffs. But on the other hand, this is the way the business cycle works. Sometimes business is good, and other times, business is bad. I didn't hear too many workers complaining during the dotcom boom days when lots of them were becoming millionaires. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: Ok n rf... I will admit before I go any farther, this is a rant ;) You have hit the nail on the head. The one that puts me over the top. I am
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Agreed, and I would never say that government should step in and force morality either. I would just like to see the trust in empoyers come back. -Original Message- From: Jeff Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:33 AM To: Mark E. Hayes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark, I think it is safe to say that corporate greed is never going to go away. You cannot legislate or force morality on someone - unless they are breaking the law they should be able to do whatever is best for their business. The trick is to stay valuable so you don't have to rely on their morality for your livelihood. From: Mark E. Hayes Reply-To: Mark E. Hayes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:05:30 GMT My basic point is this, however moot. I am not talking about NOT hiring foreign workers. I have no beef with that. My beef is with CORPORATE GREED. You claim to be a free-market capitalist. Are you a business owner? Or do you invest in the market, or both? Maybe I should have said this in my previous post. My disgust in Corporate America stems from the total lack of morals and sense of responsibility to the people who put them where they are, their workers. Believe it or not, I am not a Democrat. I sway towards the conservative side. But I believe you have to have some morals when you run a business. There is a symbiotic realtionship that exists between the worker and the employer. I know employers hold the cards and can dictate the rules as they see fit. But laying off 10,000 workers after reporting 40,000,000 dollars in profit for the quarter is callous. The cliche we have to do what's right for the business comes to mind. Enron and MCI are shining examples of corporate greed. How many people lost their retirement, their lives? I guess we could come down from the mountaintop and say Weee, here's how it is. You don't have a PhD and a wonderful stock portfolio so you can just go by the way side. No life for you. You don't have the education to be a CEO, you have morals so you can't go into sales. Management has been pretty shaky for a while too. I know guys afraid to lose their jobs because they know they can't find another one that pays as well without having a BA or BS or higher. From your reply- in short, the high-end, high-touch, work that is not easily outsourced at all. And who tends to make more money, the engineers or the business leadership/finance/sales? Right. Therefore, the high-yield, high-margin work will stay here. Ok n rf... I will admit before I go any farther, this is a rant ;) You have hit the nail on the head. The one that puts me over the top. I am going to refer back to my first rant over CCIE numbers. hehehe. The part where Corporate America oughtta go hang out with the Nazis in S.A. When is enough, enough? NAFTA brought about the demise of the labor sector (as far as assembly line workers, and more menial tasks that employers did not want to pay minimum wage here to do). The spin was that higher tech jobs would be available. Well we had a nice run for about 8 years. Now the higher tech jobs are being farmed out to off-site locations. I can almost picture a bunch of poor souls locked in a NOC and having to ask to go to the bathroom like they do in the Mexican plants run by a few rich guys hired out to American interests. All in the name of $aving money. I haven't checked but I doubt Caterpillar passed on the savings when they moved their production facilities to Mexico. The way things are going the only jobs left will be food service and nurses. The only problem is nobody will be working to afford either one of the services. I changed career fileds in the mid-to-late nineties hoping I would be able to hold on to something worthwhile. I chose networking. It turned out to be an addiction. I love doing this stuff but un-employment sucks! In retrospect nursing would have been a better choice, but hey the market wasn't to good for them either back then. Will American companies EVER realize they have a commitment to keep this country strong. After all, if no one is working who will buy their services? I know you are not the cause, only the messenger. So please forgive my rant. Mark Well, as a free-market capitalist, I have several points to make * Own any stocks? Perhaps a mutual fund in a 401k? If so, guess what, you're part of the very Corporate America that you apparently despise. If you own shares in American companies, then your portfolio is helped by any and all cost-cutting moves made by those companies. *Ever use any foreign products? I bet you have. Just go out to the street and check out all the foreign cars. There's a good chance you have one in your garage. Or just look at the clothes you wear. I
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
No service no money. -Original Message- From: Jeff Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:43 PM To: Mark E. Hayes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. How do you figure that? Besides some businesses that exist for strictly social reasons, money is the sole reason people go into business. If there were no money in it, the service would no longer be provided. Businesses provide whatever services they do because it is profitable, simple as that. From: Mark E. Hayes Reply-To: Mark E. Hayes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:30:28 GMT Nope, don't own any 401k's now. Times have been tough. It's easy to pontificate on the virtues of capitalism when you are doing well. Yes, we all have to future- proof ourselves. Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. Yes there are exceptions like holding companies. I guess I'm am an idealist discussing ethics with someone who endorses amoral business activities. It's funny how businesses try to sound like they care about their people through bogus mission statements and core values, then turn around and stick it to the employees every chance they get. There's nothing like looking at the company you work for's (bad grammar) latest deforestation project called a mission and core values statement as you just saw someone get the axe because they had another needed operation. Or you get asked to leave because you have been taking time off while your mother is dying. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: My basic point is this, however moot. I am not talking about NOT hiring foreign workers. I have no beef with that. My beef is with CORPORATE GREED. You claim to be a free-market capitalist. Are you a business owner? Or do you invest in the market, or both? Well, yes and yes. And apparently, so are you, at least on the first question. You stated yourself in a previous post that you are starting your own business. Furthermore, you probably own stock of some form or another, perhaps in a 401k. Maybe I should have said this in my previous post. My disgust in Corporate America stems from the total lack of morals and sense of responsibility to the people who put them where they are, their workers. But that's not really the purpose of companies. Companies are amoral, which is not the same as immoral. Simply put, companies exist to make profit. Period. There simply is no other reason for a company to exist. Rough as this may sound, we both know that businesses do not exist for the purpose of benefitting workers. They exist for the purpose of making money. Simple as that. Believe it or not, I am not a Democrat. I sway towards the conservative side. But I believe you have to have some morals when you run a business. There is a symbiotic realtionship that exists between the worker and the employer. I know employers hold the cards and can dictate the rules as they see fit. But laying off 10,000 workers after reporting 40,000,000 dollars in profit for the quarter is callous. The cliche we have to do what's right for the business comes to mind. Look, I'm not blind to the pain that layoffs cause. But in your particular case, I would ask how many people happen to be shareholders in that particular company? Almost certainly a lot more than 10,000. The company's earnings, and hence the stock price was probably helped by the layoffs, and since there ware more stockholders than workers, the overall net benefit is still positive. Sometimes you gotta hurt the few in order to help the many. Enron and MCI are shining examples of corporate greed. How many people lost their retirement, their lives? I'm not endorsing criminal behavior. Obviously criminal behavior should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in the case of Enron, (I know I'm gonna get flamed for saying this), but I have to say that a big chunk of responsibility needs to be doled out to the workers themselves. Obviously not all the responsibility goes to them, but you simply can't say that they were blameless on this score. The 'problem', if you will, with the Enron scandal is that a lot of workers chose to fully stack their 401k's with Enron stock, and then those 401k's tanked as Enron stock tanked. But first of all, nobody's entitled to a 401k - Enron was offering it as a perk
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
I'm starting a business to provide a service first. If the service is good, then hopefully I will make money. No one will give you money solely for the purpose of giving you money, unless you run a charity. Even then a charity is a service to someone. Companies founded for social reasons are still providing a service. -Original Message- From: Jeff Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:43 PM To: Mark E. Hayes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. How do you figure that? Besides some businesses that exist for strictly social reasons, money is the sole reason people go into business. If there were no money in it, the service would no longer be provided. Businesses provide whatever services they do because it is profitable, simple as that. From: Mark E. Hayes Reply-To: Mark E. Hayes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:30:28 GMT Nope, don't own any 401k's now. Times have been tough. It's easy to pontificate on the virtues of capitalism when you are doing well. Yes, we all have to future- proof ourselves. Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. Yes there are exceptions like holding companies. I guess I'm am an idealist discussing ethics with someone who endorses amoral business activities. It's funny how businesses try to sound like they care about their people through bogus mission statements and core values, then turn around and stick it to the employees every chance they get. There's nothing like looking at the company you work for's (bad grammar) latest deforestation project called a mission and core values statement as you just saw someone get the axe because they had another needed operation. Or you get asked to leave because you have been taking time off while your mother is dying. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: My basic point is this, however moot. I am not talking about NOT hiring foreign workers. I have no beef with that. My beef is with CORPORATE GREED. You claim to be a free-market capitalist. Are you a business owner? Or do you invest in the market, or both? Well, yes and yes. And apparently, so are you, at least on the first question. You stated yourself in a previous post that you are starting your own business. Furthermore, you probably own stock of some form or another, perhaps in a 401k. Maybe I should have said this in my previous post. My disgust in Corporate America stems from the total lack of morals and sense of responsibility to the people who put them where they are, their workers. But that's not really the purpose of companies. Companies are amoral, which is not the same as immoral. Simply put, companies exist to make profit. Period. There simply is no other reason for a company to exist. Rough as this may sound, we both know that businesses do not exist for the purpose of benefitting workers. They exist for the purpose of making money. Simple as that. Believe it or not, I am not a Democrat. I sway towards the conservative side. But I believe you have to have some morals when you run a business. There is a symbiotic realtionship that exists between the worker and the employer. I know employers hold the cards and can dictate the rules as they see fit. But laying off 10,000 workers after reporting 40,000,000 dollars in profit for the quarter is callous. The cliche we have to do what's right for the business comes to mind. Look, I'm not blind to the pain that layoffs cause. But in your particular case, I would ask how many people happen to be shareholders in that particular company? Almost certainly a lot more than 10,000. The company's earnings, and hence the stock price was probably helped by the layoffs, and since there ware more stockholders than workers, the overall net benefit is still positive. Sometimes you gotta hurt the few in order to help the many. Enron and MCI are shining examples of corporate greed. How many people lost their retirement, their lives? I'm not endorsing criminal behavior. Obviously criminal behavior should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in the case of Enron, (I know I'm gonna get flamed for saying this), but I have to say that a big chunk of responsibility needs to be doled out to the workers themselves. Obviously not all the responsibility goes to them, but you simply can't say
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
If you are starting a business to provide a service first then you must be one of the fortunate people that do not have to worry about income. I would dare say that most business owners start a business to make a profit and the service provided is a way of reaching that end. From: Mark E. Hayes To: Jeff Smith , Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:51:01 -0500 I'm starting a business to provide a service first. If the service is good, then hopefully I will make money. No one will give you money solely for the purpose of giving you money, unless you run a charity. Even then a charity is a service to someone. Companies founded for social reasons are still providing a service. -Original Message- From: Jeff Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:43 PM To: Mark E. Hayes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. How do you figure that? Besides some businesses that exist for strictly social reasons, money is the sole reason people go into business. If there were no money in it, the service would no longer be provided. Businesses provide whatever services they do because it is profitable, simple as that. From: Mark E. Hayes Reply-To: Mark E. Hayes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:30:28 GMT Nope, don't own any 401k's now. Times have been tough. It's easy to pontificate on the virtues of capitalism when you are doing well. Yes, we all have to future- proof ourselves. Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. Yes there are exceptions like holding companies. I guess I'm am an idealist discussing ethics with someone who endorses amoral business activities. It's funny how businesses try to sound like they care about their people through bogus mission statements and core values, then turn around and stick it to the employees every chance they get. There's nothing like looking at the company you work for's (bad grammar) latest deforestation project called a mission and core values statement as you just saw someone get the axe because they had another needed operation. Or you get asked to leave because you have been taking time off while your mother is dying. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: My basic point is this, however moot. I am not talking about NOT hiring foreign workers. I have no beef with that. My beef is with CORPORATE GREED. You claim to be a free-market capitalist. Are you a business owner? Or do you invest in the market, or both? Well, yes and yes. And apparently, so are you, at least on the first question. You stated yourself in a previous post that you are starting your own business. Furthermore, you probably own stock of some form or another, perhaps in a 401k. Maybe I should have said this in my previous post. My disgust in Corporate America stems from the total lack of morals and sense of responsibility to the people who put them where they are, their workers. But that's not really the purpose of companies. Companies are amoral, which is not the same as immoral. Simply put, companies exist to make profit. Period. There simply is no other reason for a company to exist. Rough as this may sound, we both know that businesses do not exist for the purpose of benefitting workers. They exist for the purpose of making money. Simple as that. Believe it or not, I am not a Democrat. I sway towards the conservative side. But I believe you have to have some morals when you run a business. There is a symbiotic realtionship that exists between the worker and the employer. I know employers hold the cards and can dictate the rules as they see fit. But laying off 10,000 workers after reporting 40,000,000 dollars in profit for the quarter is callous. The cliche we have to do what's right for the business comes to mind. Look, I'm not blind to the pain that layoffs cause. But in your particular case, I would ask how many people happen to be shareholders in that particular company? Almost certainly a lot more than 10,000. The company's earnings, and hence the stock price was probably helped by the layoffs, and since there ware more stockholders than workers, the overall net benefit is still positive. Sometimes you gotta hurt the few
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. How do you figure that? Besides some businesses that exist for strictly social reasons, money is the sole reason people go into business. If there were no money in it, the service would no longer be provided. Businesses provide whatever services they do because it is profitable, simple as that. From: Mark E. Hayes Reply-To: Mark E. Hayes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:30:28 GMT Nope, don't own any 401k's now. Times have been tough. It's easy to pontificate on the virtues of capitalism when you are doing well. Yes, we all have to future- proof ourselves. Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. Yes there are exceptions like holding companies. I guess I'm am an idealist discussing ethics with someone who endorses amoral business activities. It's funny how businesses try to sound like they care about their people through bogus mission statements and core values, then turn around and stick it to the employees every chance they get. There's nothing like looking at the company you work for's (bad grammar) latest deforestation project called a mission and core values statement as you just saw someone get the axe because they had another needed operation. Or you get asked to leave because you have been taking time off while your mother is dying. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: My basic point is this, however moot. I am not talking about NOT hiring foreign workers. I have no beef with that. My beef is with CORPORATE GREED. You claim to be a free-market capitalist. Are you a business owner? Or do you invest in the market, or both? Well, yes and yes. And apparently, so are you, at least on the first question. You stated yourself in a previous post that you are starting your own business. Furthermore, you probably own stock of some form or another, perhaps in a 401k. Maybe I should have said this in my previous post. My disgust in Corporate America stems from the total lack of morals and sense of responsibility to the people who put them where they are, their workers. But that's not really the purpose of companies. Companies are amoral, which is not the same as immoral. Simply put, companies exist to make profit. Period. There simply is no other reason for a company to exist. Rough as this may sound, we both know that businesses do not exist for the purpose of benefitting workers. They exist for the purpose of making money. Simple as that. Believe it or not, I am not a Democrat. I sway towards the conservative side. But I believe you have to have some morals when you run a business. There is a symbiotic realtionship that exists between the worker and the employer. I know employers hold the cards and can dictate the rules as they see fit. But laying off 10,000 workers after reporting 40,000,000 dollars in profit for the quarter is callous. The cliche we have to do what's right for the business comes to mind. Look, I'm not blind to the pain that layoffs cause. But in your particular case, I would ask how many people happen to be shareholders in that particular company? Almost certainly a lot more than 10,000. The company's earnings, and hence the stock price was probably helped by the layoffs, and since there ware more stockholders than workers, the overall net benefit is still positive. Sometimes you gotta hurt the few in order to help the many. Enron and MCI are shining examples of corporate greed. How many people lost their retirement, their lives? I'm not endorsing criminal behavior. Obviously criminal behavior should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in the case of Enron, (I know I'm gonna get flamed for saying this), but I have to say that a big chunk of responsibility needs to be doled out to the workers themselves. Obviously not all the responsibility goes to them, but you simply can't say that they were blameless on this score. The 'problem', if you will, with the Enron scandal is that a lot of workers chose to fully stack their 401k's with Enron stock, and then those 401k's tanked as Enron stock tanked. But first of all, nobody's entitled to a 401k - Enron was offering it as a perk. There are millions of Americans who don't get a 401k or any other kind of retirement package. Secondly, those Enron workers who got hurt the most were the ones who chose to fully stack their 401k's purely with Enron stock. They didn't have
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
No one said that you can make money without providing a service. The point was that most people do not start businesses simply to provide a service. In fact, they need to make money to provide for themselves and their families so they start a business that offers a service that they know how to provide.It's an exchange of value; money is expected in exchange for the service provided. The supreme goal, however, is to make money. Providing a service is simply the means. Regards, John Mark E. Hayes 6/20/03 12:56:35 PM I have to admit that yes, I do have some leighway there. Not much though. I might actually start losing some weight here. I really don't understand how you can start a business without providing a service first. Heck I wish I could. But I know of no other way to start the checks rolling in. -Original Message- From: Jeff Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:01 PM To: Mark E. Hayes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] If you are starting a business to provide a service first then you must be one of the fortunate people that do not have to worry about income. I would dare say that most business owners start a business to make a profit and the service provided is a way of reaching that end. From: Mark E. Hayes To: Jeff Smith , Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:51:01 -0500 I'm starting a business to provide a service first. If the service is good, then hopefully I will make money. No one will give you money solely for the purpose of giving you money, unless you run a charity. Even then a charity is a service to someone. Companies founded for social reasons are still providing a service. -Original Message- From: Jeff Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:43 PM To: Mark E. Hayes; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. How do you figure that? Besides some businesses that exist for strictly social reasons, money is the sole reason people go into business. If there were no money in it, the service would no longer be provided. Businesses provide whatever services they do because it is profitable, simple as that. From: Mark E. Hayes Reply-To: Mark E. Hayes To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:30:28 GMT Nope, don't own any 401k's now. Times have been tough. It's easy to pontificate on the virtues of capitalism when you are doing well. Yes, we all have to future- proof ourselves. Most companies exist to provide a service, hopefully making money at the same time. They are not there to simply make money devoid of any marketable service. Yes there are exceptions like holding companies. I guess I'm am an idealist discussing ethics with someone who endorses amoral business activities. It's funny how businesses try to sound like they care about their people through bogus mission statements and core values, then turn around and stick it to the employees every chance they get. There's nothing like looking at the company you work for's (bad grammar) latest deforestation project called a mission and core values statement as you just saw someone get the axe because they had another needed operation. Or you get asked to leave because you have been taking time off while your mother is dying. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 7:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: My basic point is this, however moot. I am not talking about NOT hiring foreign workers. I have no beef with that. My beef is with CORPORATE GREED. You claim to be a free-market capitalist. Are you a business owner? Or do you invest in the market, or both? Well, yes and yes. And apparently, so are you, at least on the first question. You stated yourself in a previous post that you are starting your own business. Furthermore, you probably own stock of some form or another, perhaps in a 401k. Maybe I should have said this in my previous post. My disgust in Corporate America stems from the total lack of morals and sense of responsibility to the people who put them where they are, their workers. But that's not really the purpose of companies. Companies are amoral, which is not the same as immoral. Simply put, companies exist to make profit. Period. There simply is no other reason for a company to exist. Rough as this may sound, we both know that businesses do not exist for the purpose
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
At 7:53 PM + 6/20/03, John Neiberger wrote: No one said that you can make money without providing a service. The point was that most people do not start businesses simply to provide a service. In fact, they need to make money to provide for themselves and their families so they start a business that offers a service that they know how to provide.It's an exchange of value; money is expected in exchange for the service provided. The supreme goal, however, is to make money. Providing a service is simply the means. Regards, John Agreed that business is there to make money, and you make money principally by providing service. I say principally, as there is the distinction between cash and non-cash money. Certainly, goodwill is recognized in accounting, and employee knowledge is an asset (if hard to put in a balance sheet). Depending on the industry, long-term profitability and short-term cash output optimization may not go hand in hand. I'm not talking about broad social goals that can't be explained to stockholders, but the increased corporate value that may not express itself in immediate stock price or cash in. I do find it fascinating how this thread title has become truncated, when we consider UK usage -- there's much to suggest our industry is flushing itself down the loo. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71028t=70953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Blame it on the dot.conners Jamie, ex-dotter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] At 7:53 PM + 6/20/03, John Neiberger wrote: No one said that you can make money without providing a service. The point was that most people do not start businesses simply to provide a service. In fact, they need to make money to provide for themselves and their families so they start a business that offers a service that they know how to provide.It's an exchange of value; money is expected in exchange for the service provided. The supreme goal, however, is to make money. Providing a service is simply the means. Regards, John Agreed that business is there to make money, and you make money principally by providing service. I say principally, as there is the distinction between cash and non-cash money. Certainly, goodwill is recognized in accounting, and employee knowledge is an asset (if hard to put in a balance sheet). Depending on the industry, long-term profitability and short-term cash output optimization may not go hand in hand. I'm not talking about broad social goals that can't be explained to stockholders, but the increased corporate value that may not express itself in immediate stock price or cash in. I do find it fascinating how this thread title has become truncated, when we consider UK usage -- there's much to suggest our industry is flushing itself down the loo. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71037t=70953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
