On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:51:31 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:26:43 -0500, wrote:

I don't want to say who is right or wrong but IBM was very clear with
me that their job was to return profits to the stockholders, not look
out for employees. If the two were not contradictory they did both but
when push came to shove, they "shoved" the employee. In my case (and
about 20,000 of my peers) that shove was out the door. Then they
regeged on most of the promises they made about our retirement.

IBM and several other companies like AT&T found themselves with a
surplus of highly trained folks left over from the days of
electro-mechanical hardware. They tried to retred as many as possible
into software development and other related areas but the numbers
involved were just too large, and the new generations of all digital
equipment were just too reliable and easy to maintain.

OK, but that get's away from the question. Why are liberals so
anti-corporation, and what is their alternative?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."