On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:07:20 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

What's funny is that the old time mobs had more integrity than many of
today's corporations.

Tell that to Paul Costellano, Sam Giancana, et. al.

Heh. They knew going in what was in the "separation" agreement.

"Big Pauly" had good taste in restaurants though . He was whacked in
front of one of my favorite NY steak houses.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.



Translation: We sucked everything out of you we could, now we're
cutting you loose and we're not going to keep the commitments we
made about your retirement, either.

Thank you, and f*ck you.

Your Friends

The Golden Parachutes at Management and Our Buddies, the Shareholders.

I thought you had a sweetheart employment contract at Ullico? Weren't
you on the golden boy list at that ah small company? Didn't you get
in on some killer stock deals with MCI, Tyco, Enron, and a few
others. Isn't that why you can afford the double wide manufactured
home in Calvert County?




Drinking again?


No, I've actually been working hard since 6:30 AM today. My first
con-call with my India team.



Figures you'd be involved in exporting jobs. Slime.

"JimH" wrote in message
...



It is not uncommon to move from company to company during your climb up
the job status or pay increase ladder. The days of sticking around with
one company your entire lifetime died in the 1960's.


Which, BTW, is the other side of the story that Harry doesn't speak to in
his routine anti-corporation rhetoric.
A company typically invests in a new employee, particularly during the first
year or so before he/she has acquired all of the skills and knowledge to
have a positive influence on the bottom line.

The 60's-70's trend towards mobility in one's career, often leveraging
experience and knowledge gained at one company for higher pay or status at
another has now become very commonplace. Why is loyalty to employees by the
company expected but not employee loyalty to the company?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...
It is not uncommon to move from company to company during your climb up
the job status or pay increase ladder. The days of sticking around with
one company your entire lifetime died in the 1960's.


Which, BTW, is the other side of the story that Harry doesn't speak to in
his routine anti-corporation rhetoric.
A company typically invests in a new employee, particularly during the first
year or so before he/she has acquired all of the skills and knowledge to
have a positive influence on the bottom line.

The 60's-70's trend towards mobility in one's career, often leveraging
experience and knowledge gained at one company for higher pay or status at
another has now become very commonplace. Why is loyalty to employees by the
company expected but not employee loyalty to the company?

Eisboch




Well, someone got it. Which is why I suggested that the day a
corporation hires you is the day you should update your resume and have
it ready to go. Screw the corporation before it screws you.

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.



Translation: We sucked everything out of you we could, now we're
cutting you loose and we're not going to keep the commitments we
made about your retirement, either.

Thank you, and f*ck you.

Your Friends

The Golden Parachutes at Management and Our Buddies, the Shareholders.

I thought you had a sweetheart employment contract at Ullico?
Weren't you on the golden boy list at that ah small company? Didn't
you get in on some killer stock deals with MCI, Tyco, Enron, and a
few others. Isn't that why you can afford the double wide
manufactured home in Calvert County?




Drinking again?


No, I've actually been working hard since 6:30 AM today. My first
con-call with my India team.



Figures you'd be involved in exporting jobs. Slime.

It is my corporate overlords not me who made the decision to off-shore
the jobs.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.



Translation: We sucked everything out of you we could, now we're
cutting you loose and we're not going to keep the commitments we
made about your retirement, either.

Thank you, and f*ck you.

Your Friends

The Golden Parachutes at Management and Our Buddies, the
Shareholders.

I thought you had a sweetheart employment contract at Ullico?
Weren't you on the golden boy list at that ah small company? Didn't
you get in on some killer stock deals with MCI, Tyco, Enron, and a
few others. Isn't that why you can afford the double wide
manufactured home in Calvert County?




Drinking again?


No, I've actually been working hard since 6:30 AM today. My first
con-call with my India team.



Figures you'd be involved in exporting jobs. Slime.

It is my corporate overlords not me who made the decision to off-shore
the jobs.


But you willingly facilitate them.

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...
It is not uncommon to move from company to company during your climb up
the job status or pay increase ladder. The days of sticking around with
one company your entire lifetime died in the 1960's.


Which, BTW, is the other side of the story that Harry doesn't speak to in
his routine anti-corporation rhetoric.
A company typically invests in a new employee, particularly during the
first year or so before he/she has acquired all of the skills and
knowledge to have a positive influence on the bottom line.

The 60's-70's trend towards mobility in one's career, often leveraging
experience and knowledge gained at one company for higher pay or status
at another has now become very commonplace. Why is loyalty to employees
by the company expected but not employee loyalty to the company?

Eisboch


Well, someone got it. Which is why I suggested that the day a corporation
hires you is the day you should update your resume and have it ready to
go. Screw the corporation before it screws you.

I guess all I can say is with that philosophy, you deserve to get screwed.

Eisboch

"HK" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.



Translation: We sucked everything out of you we could, now we're cutting
you loose and we're not going to keep the commitments we made about your
retirement, either.

Thank you, and f*ck you.

Your Friends

The Golden Parachutes at Management and Our Buddies, the Shareholders.

I thought you had a sweetheart employment contract at Ullico? Weren't you
on the golden boy list at that ah small company? Didn't you get in on
some killer stock deals with MCI, Tyco, Enron, and a few others. Isn't
that why you can afford the double wide manufactured home in Calvert
County?




Drinking again?


Again??
Did he ever stop?

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...
It is not uncommon to move from company to company during your climb up
the job status or pay increase ladder. The days of sticking around with
one company your entire lifetime died in the 1960's.

Which, BTW, is the other side of the story that Harry doesn't speak to in
his routine anti-corporation rhetoric.
A company typically invests in a new employee, particularly during the
first year or so before he/she has acquired all of the skills and
knowledge to have a positive influence on the bottom line.

The 60's-70's trend towards mobility in one's career, often leveraging
experience and knowledge gained at one company for higher pay or status
at another has now become very commonplace. Why is loyalty to employees
by the company expected but not employee loyalty to the company?

Eisboch

Well, someone got it. Which is why I suggested that the day a corporation
hires you is the day you should update your resume and have it ready to
go. Screw the corporation before it screws you.

I guess all I can say is with that philosophy, you deserve to get screwed.

Eisboch




Are you suggesting that one be loyal to the corporation because that
will *ensure* loyalty to you?

"HK" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.



Translation: We sucked everything out of you we could, now we're
cutting you loose and we're not going to keep the commitments we
made about your retirement, either.

Thank you, and f*ck you.

Your Friends

The Golden Parachutes at Management and Our Buddies, the
Shareholders.

I thought you had a sweetheart employment contract at Ullico? Weren't
you on the golden boy list at that ah small company? Didn't you get
in on some killer stock deals with MCI, Tyco, Enron, and a few
others. Isn't that why you can afford the double wide manufactured
home in Calvert County?




Drinking again?


No, I've actually been working hard since 6:30 AM today. My first
con-call with my India team.



Figures you'd be involved in exporting jobs. Slime.

It is my corporate overlords not me who made the decision to off-shore
the jobs.


But you willingly facilitate them.

Bertie looks after Bertie......
Tough **** about anyone else!