About Us

Wayne.B

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.

HK

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.

BAR

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?

HK

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?

BAR

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.

HK

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.

BAR

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.

Don White

"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?

Dan

Don White wrote:
"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?

Down, boy. Good puppy!

John H.[_3_]

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."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Genmar announces Boat Rental/Lease Program	JimH	General	2	February 12th 05 12:17 AM
Evinrude quits when it warms up	Robert Olson	General	3	June 8th 04 01:51 AM
Genmar hires the GB designer	Gould 0738	General	5	January 13th 04 02:20 AM
Engine News from Genmar	Gould 0738	General	8	October 27th 03 04:47 PM

Menu

About Us