"HK" wrote in message
...
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?

Of course not. I am merely making the point that the decline of mutual
loyalty has been a two way street.

Eisboch

Don White wrote:
"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!



Correct.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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


Which came first........the chicken or the egg?

If an employee hits a glass ceiling with pay increases or promotions why
not try to better himself by searching the market? Heck, they could be
history the next day due to any number of reasons.

After employees have seen layoffs and sites being shut down they really
have no choice but to keep their options open and better themselves if the
opportunities arise. Loyalty to any company is dead and the corporations
caused it.


And 40 years ago anybody who held more than 2 or 3 different jobs in their
career by choice was considered a loser.

The current trend is to obtain employment in a particular business sector,
learn all you can about it, it's markets and maybe even it's customer base,
then quit and start up a competing business. People who do this usually
get their asses sued, as they should.

Eisboch

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 18:37:18 -0500, "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


Company loyalty to employees went out of fashion first. Ask any "computer
consultant"



The changes in work ethics and culture (both employer and employee) went out
the window long before the computer industry became big.

Eisboch

HK wrote:
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.

Harry,
While I don't believe you represent any corporations or have ever
represented any corporations, if you did, you are just as guilty of
facilitating them.

HK wrote:
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.

It is not a facilitation it is an agreement. I do what they ask me to do
and in return they give me a bag of gold every two weeks. The
interesting thing is that I can leave anytime I want with just a moments
notice and they can do the same. What could be better? I haven't been
fired since I worked at McDonald's as a teenager. When was your most
recent termination for cause?

JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"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


Which came first........the chicken or the egg?

If an employee hits a glass ceiling with pay increases or promotions why not
try to better himself by searching the market? Heck, they could be history
the next day due to any number of reasons.

Have you given any thought as to who put that "glass ceiling" in front
of the aspiring CEO? Most of the time it is the aspiring CEO himself due
to his own lack of ability technically, politically or socially to
maneuver the corporate culture.

After employees have seen layoffs and sites being shut down they really have
no choice but to keep their options open and better themselves if the
opportunities arise. Loyalty to any company is dead and the corporations
caused it.

Are you owed a job. Once you get a job should you have a right to that
job for the rest of your life regardless of how your perform? You would
have made a great government bureaucrat. You trudge into work each day,
do just enough to keep you job and when the clock strikes five race out
the door and run over everyone in your way.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.

It is not a facilitation it is an agreement. I do what they ask me to do
and in return they give me a bag of gold every two weeks. The
interesting thing is that I can leave anytime I want with just a moments
notice and they can do the same. What could be better? I haven't been
fired since I worked at McDonald's as a teenager. When was your most
recent termination for cause?

Uh. Never.

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.

It is not a facilitation it is an agreement. I do what they ask me to
do and in return they give me a bag of gold every two weeks. The
interesting thing is that I can leave anytime I want with just a
moments notice and they can do the same. What could be better? I
haven't been fired since I worked at McDonald's as a teenager. When
was your most recent termination for cause?

Uh. Never.

With your belligerent attitude I find that hard to believe. Or, you
could be one of those bosses toady's who follows him around say yes and
wiping his ass when needed. You would get fired you would get layed off
when you boss gets fired.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:


Uh. Never.

With your belligerent attitude I find that hard to believe. Or, you
could be one of those bosses toady's who follows him around say yes and
wiping his ass when needed. You would get fired you would get layed off
when you boss gets fired.


Jesus, Bertie. You were a failure in the military, and you are
speculating on the work lives of others?