PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Verizon to cut 13,000 jobs!


petegz28
01-26-2010, 08:29 AM
For those who care, Verizon will be adding 13,000 people to the unemployment numbers.

mlyonsd
01-26-2010, 08:32 AM
About 2500 packing house workers in eastern Iowa were notified their plants were closing last week.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 08:35 AM
From reading on this they cut 13,000 jobs last year too. But they had an increase in sales by almost 10%.

Bwana
01-26-2010, 08:36 AM
Smurfit-Stone forced to close its' doors in Western MT. 463 workers lose their jobs.

More HOPE and CHANGE.

headsnap
01-26-2010, 08:40 AM
Smurfit-Stone forced to close its' doors in Western MT. 463 workers lose their jobs.

More HOPE and CHANGE.

OUCH!

My Dad was the Plant GM for them at their Dallas Plant and then here in the Louisville Plant...

KC native
01-26-2010, 08:42 AM
From reading on this they cut 13,000 jobs last year too. But they had an increase in sales by almost 10%.

This is one of the reasons that I think we are headed for a double dip. Companies aren't going to be able to cut much more and still run their business. Right now we're seeing quite a few disappointments on revenue growth but companies are still hitting analyst estimates due to cost cutting.

Sure-Oz
01-26-2010, 08:43 AM
Verizon has enough fucking commercials, that sucks for their workers

KC native
01-26-2010, 08:43 AM
Smurfit-Stone forced to close its' doors in Western MT. 463 workers lose their jobs.

More HOPE and CHANGE.

Just how were they "forced" to close their doors?

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 08:45 AM
This is one of the reasons that I think we are headed for a double dip. Companies aren't going to be able to cut much more and still run their business. Right now we're seeing quite a few disappointments on revenue growth but companies are still hitting analyst estimates due to cost cutting.

Verizon didn't hit their estimates. It was projected they would make $27.3 billion they made $27.1 billion.

blaise
01-26-2010, 08:50 AM
That sucks. They should have fired whoever keeps running those stupid map commercials.

KC native
01-26-2010, 08:52 AM
Verizon didn't hit their estimates. It was projected they would make $27.3 billion they made $27.1 billion.

That's close enough. A $200 million dollar miss on $27 Billion in revenue isn't much of a miss.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:02 AM
That's close enough. A $200 million dollar miss on $27 Billion in revenue isn't much of a miss.

Not enough to justify laying off 13,000 more people. The greed on "The Street" is killing this economy.

KC native
01-26-2010, 09:04 AM
Not enough to justify laying off 13,000 more people. The greed on "The Street" is killing this economy.

I agree. Again, we're back to modern CEO's focus on the next quarter so they can get their bonuses. Yet another glaring example of why CEO compensation needs to be drastically altered. I have no problem with the level of their compensation but I have huge problems with the structure of it.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:04 AM
That's close enough. A $200 million dollar miss on $27 Billion in revenue isn't much of a miss.

Moreso, who had the miss? The company or the Wall St. analyst? I am sure there is a combo of both but my guess is the guy outside the company was the one more in the wrong.

KC native
01-26-2010, 09:13 AM
Moreso, who had the miss? The company or the Wall St. analyst? I am sure there is a combo of both but my guess is the guy outside the company was the one more in the wrong.

The thing is with estimates and the way they are reported is that they are averaged and always include even the poor ones. I bet if they threw out the crappier analyst estimates then this revenue was probably closer than meets the eyes.

Beyond that, most analyst estimates are in a fairly tight range because they use the same models to predict revenues, costs, earnings, etc.

jjjayb
01-26-2010, 09:21 AM
13,000 people!?! Is there a map for that?

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:25 AM
The thing is with estimates and the way they are reported is that they are averaged and always include even the poor ones. I bet if they threw out the crappier analyst estimates then this revenue was probably closer than meets the eyes.

Beyond that, most analyst estimates are in a fairly tight range because they use the same models to predict revenues, costs, earnings, etc.

Very true. But it all goes back to the impatience of Wall St. and thus the boardrooms.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:28 AM
What I don't get is they missed by less than 1% on revenue and they are laying off 9% of their workforce. That is just ****ed up.

HonestChieffan
01-26-2010, 09:32 AM
I doubt that one led to the other.

dirk digler
01-26-2010, 09:32 AM
What I don't get is they missed by less than 1% on revenue and they are laying off 9% of their workforce. That is just ****ed up.

Yep though since they cut the same amount of people last year could these people be seasonal workers?

KC native
01-26-2010, 09:33 AM
What I don't get is they missed by less than 1% on revenue and they are laying off 9% of their workforce. That is just ****ed up.

Well, that's how they only missed by 1%. As soon as they know those layoffs are coming they can account for them (depending on when they happen governs the accounting treatment). Deferred compensation, contributions to retirement accounts and health insurance premiums are examples of what they no longer have to account for. I would bet that they knew these lay offs were coming as soon as the first ones were done.

KC native
01-26-2010, 09:36 AM
Yep though since they cut the same amount of people last year could these people be seasonal workers?

Doubt it. Cutting seasonal workers wouldn't do much for them. Cutting full timers means the company gets rid of health insurance premiums, retirement contributions, tuition reimbursement (if they have it), and well you get the point.

morphius
01-26-2010, 09:37 AM
I think the big thing in the phone company world is per user revenue, and if they start to fall back on that they end up cutting people, whether they are making a revenue or not. It is a shame that employees are seen as a cost and not an asset, if wall street saw it this way companies would be punished for losing assets not rewarded for laying people off. Especially with companies that deal directly with customers, because there is a good chance that person that you just laid off was one of your best customers, and it is possible that his entire family may switch phone carriers because you laid them off.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:44 AM
Yep though since they cut the same amount of people last year could these people be seasonal workers?

No, they are not seasonal. They are wireline based employees. Companies like Sprint and Verizon rarely if ever hire "seasonal" employees. If they do it would be for their retail stores during the Christmas season.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:45 AM
I think the big thing in the phone company world is per user revenue, and if they start to fall back on that they end up cutting people, whether they are making a revenue or not. It is a shame that employees are seen as a cost and not an asset, if wall street saw it this way companies would be punished for losing assets not rewarded for laying people off. Especially with companies that deal directly with customers, because there is a good chance that person that you just laid off was one of your best customers, and it is possible that his entire family may switch phone carriers because you laid them off.

This is exactly right. They have an acronym they use called "ARPU". Average Revenue Per User. The hypocritcal part of Wall St. is they justify these large contracts and pay packages for Execs based on the "you won't get good people otherwise" concept. But when it comes to the workforce they are expendable numbers.

Also to add about the customers you are correct. There is indeed a domino effect. You cut me? Well, I won't use you and now my family and friends who care about me will be dumping you too. I have seen it happen with Sprint a lot. Once my severance is up all my family and friends on Sprint are gone and the are not going to renew with Sprint.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 09:47 AM
Well, that's how they only missed by 1%. As soon as they know those layoffs are coming they can account for them (depending on when they happen governs the accounting treatment). Deferred compensation, contributions to retirement accounts and health insurance premiums are examples of what they no longer have to account for. I would bet that they knew these lay offs were coming as soon as the first ones were done.

Yea, I guess I didn't realize they could write that crap off the second they realize, not announce but realize they are going to layoff workers.

KC native
01-26-2010, 09:53 AM
Yea, I guess I didn't realize they could write that crap off the second they realize, not announce but realize they are going to layoff workers.

Welcome to the fun world of accounting and material amounts. There's so much grey area that goes into this. If the amount wasn't material and relevant then they don't have to do anything special to disclose it. Also, the auditors and company decide if an amount is material and relevant so there is a lot of leeway there. If it was material and relevant then they can play games with when the decision was actually made (which would dictate the accounting treatment). My guess is that they didn't consider the compensation that they saved to be material so they just announced it with their quarterly earnings to try and juice the stock price a little because the market loves layoffs.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:04 AM
Welcome to the fun world of accounting and material amounts. There's so much grey area that goes into this. If the amount wasn't material and relevant then they don't have to do anything special to disclose it. Also, the auditors and company decide if an amount is material and relevant so there is a lot of leeway there. If it was material and relevant then they can play games with when the decision was actually made (which would dictate the accounting treatment). My guess is that they didn't consider the compensation that they saved to be material so they just announced it with their quarterly earnings to try and juice the stock price a little because the market loves layoffs.

My Grandfather has never, ever invested in the stock market directly. If anything it was through a life insurance policy or something that may have held mutual funds. I never understood why he didn't. He said "because everytime people lose their job the market goes up and that is just bad for everyone". It took me almost 38 years to agree with that but it is true. He always reminded me about the tortise and the hare. As well as the principle of a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush.

Corporations these days are the epitome of the hare always going for the 2 birds in the bush.

fan4ever
01-26-2010, 10:08 AM
This is one of the reasons that I think we are headed for a double dip. Companies aren't going to be able to cut much more and still run their business. Right now we're seeing quite a few disappointments on revenue growth but companies are still hitting analyst estimates due to cost cutting.

I've believed some time that the other shoe is going to drop before we climb our way out of this.

Politics aside, it saddens me to read about more and more layoffs...truly desperate times.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 10:09 AM
Large companies are taking massive advantage of the poor employment situation. Hiring freezes remain in effect and the "increased productivity" stats is due to many workers being generally overworked as business is recovering, but hiring is stagnant. The motto is "be glad you have a job" or "alot of people would love to be in your shoes", as the companies squeeze the shit out of their workforce in the name of increased profits.

Offshoring continues to drain jobs out of the American economy. Increasingly those jobs are service-sector oriented, rather than just the traditional manufacturing. All of us will recognize this when we call for customer service and get someone in India or the Phillipines.

Globalization is a real problem for the American workforce, especially the unskilled or minimally skilled. There is no obvious answer to the problem either, as the underlying problem -- far cheaper labor offshore -- is not one that we can rectify.

Chief Faithful
01-26-2010, 10:09 AM
No, they are not seasonal. They are wireline based employees. Companies like Sprint and Verizon rarely if ever hire "seasonal" employees. If they do it would be for their retail stores during the Christmas season.

All the large Telecom carriers are reducing the wireline workforce. At AT&T they are trying to relocate wireline workers into growth areas, but it is difficult because they have different skill sets and many Union workers do not want to move to non-Union jobs. Plus, finding jobs for surplused workers mean no jobs for more skills workers on the street looking for jobs.

Wireline revenues across the industry dropped by 18% last year. People are dropping their phone lines for mobile phones. That is why you can now get AT&T DSL without a phone line.

Chief Faithful
01-26-2010, 10:15 AM
Large companies are taking massive advantage of the poor employment situation. Hiring freezes remain in effect and the "increased productivity" stats is due to many workers being generally overworked as business is recovering, but hiring is stagnant. The motto is "be glad you have a job" or "alot of people would love to be in your shoes", as the companies squeeze the shit out of their workforce in the name of increased profits.

Offshoring continues to drain jobs out of the American economy. Increasingly those jobs are service-sector oriented, rather than just the traditional manufacturing. All of us will recognize this when we call for customer service and get someone in India or the Phillipines.

Globalization is a real problem for the American workforce, especially the unskilled or minimally skilled. There is no obvious answer to the problem either, as the underlying problem -- far cheaper labor offshore -- is not one that we can rectify.

Nice rhetoric, but doesn't really fit the Verizon case. The challenge with all Telecom carriers is what to do when the largest part of your workforce is Union supporting a dying technology while the more profitable areas are smaller non-Union workforce. When was the last time you used a pay phone? Do you still have a dialup or POTS line to your home?

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:17 AM
All the large Telecom carriers are reducing the wireline workforce. At AT&T they are trying to relocate wireline workers into growth areas, but it is difficult because they have different skill sets and many Union workers do not want to move to non-Union jobs. Plus, finding jobs for surplused workers mean no jobs for more skills workers on the street looking for jobs.

Wireline revenues across the industry dropped by 18% last year. People are dropping their phone lines for mobile phones. That is why you can now get AT&T DSL without a phone line.

I understand that. But that is indicative of a few things:

1. Piss-poor planning by the over-paid execs
2. Fantasy expectations by Wall St.
3. The lack of investment by companies in their workforce to train them


Here is a story you will rarely if ever hear these days. True story.

My Dad started as an Usher at AMC Theaters when he was 15 years old. Over the years he worked his way up to Asst. Manager at 2 of the theaters (they were down the street from each other) and eventually Manager. Then they paid for him to learn how to be an engineer and put the equipment in as well as repair it. Then they paid for him to go to school to get his degree and promoted him to VP. Then they promoted him to AVP over construction of all of the new theaters in the country. Then they paid for him to get his Master's and promoted him to Senior VP over construction of all the theaters world wide.

Here comes the sad part. Stan Durwood, who founded AMC Theaters died. The company was eventually sold out to JP Morgan. They came in with their full-on corporate mentality and fired him after 34 years of service only to replace him with someone with half the experience and half the cost.

This country needs more Stan Durwoods'. BTW, the P&L District so many of our youth enjoy today was a dream of and was started by Stan. The man realized the value of people, employees and his community. And I am sure he rolled over in his grave when he saw what JP Morgan did to his company.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:19 AM
Nice rhetoric, but doesn't really fit the Verizon case. The challenge with all Telecom carriers is what to do when the largest part of your workforce is Union supporting a dying technology while the more profitable areas are smaller non-Union workforce. When was the last time you used a pay phone? Do you still have a dialup or POTS line to your home?

Here is the thing though. If comapnies such as AT&T are willing to re-train Union wokers and the Union workers don't want to move then that is on them. I can't hang that on the company, they made an effort to keep your job and re-tool you as an employee.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 10:20 AM
Nice rhetoric, but doesn't really fit the Verizon case. The challenge with all Telecom carriers is what to do when the largest part of your workforce is Union supporting a dying technology while the more profitable areas are smaller non-Union workforce. When was the last time you used a pay phone? Do you still have a dialup or POTS line to your home?

The rhetoric isn't really rhetorical, it's factual regardless of whether it applies to Verizon in particular.

I do have a hard line phone into the house, though I argued with my wife about this -- I didn't see the point to be honest, but she wanted to keep it.

KC native
01-26-2010, 10:21 AM
Large companies are taking massive advantage of the poor employment situation. Hiring freezes remain in effect and the "increased productivity" stats is due to many workers being generally overworked as business is recovering, but hiring is stagnant. The motto is "be glad you have a job" or "alot of people would love to be in your shoes", as the companies squeeze the shit out of their workforce in the name of increased profits.

Offshoring continues to drain jobs out of the American economy. Increasingly those jobs are service-sector oriented, rather than just the traditional manufacturing. All of us will recognize this when we call for customer service and get someone in India or the Phillipines.

Globalization is a real problem for the American workforce, especially the unskilled or minimally skilled. There is no obvious answer to the problem either, as the underlying problem -- far cheaper labor offshore -- is not one that we can rectify.

I agree on the first two paragraphs. The last one is where I disagree. The cheaper labor offshore wouldn't be as cheap if manufactured competitive advantages (currency manipulation and no labor standards) are severely punished. Right now, the US should be reaching out to Europe to confront China and others who abuse these areas. Europe is getting just as pissed as we are at the Chinese manipulation of their currency and their continuing attempts to gain trade by manipulating just about everything they can. I think if the US and Europe really pushed hard they would be able to get Russia on board and actually do something to reverse the anti-worker trend of the last 30 years.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:24 AM
I agree on the first two paragraphs. The last one is where I disagree. The cheaper labor offshore wouldn't be as cheap if manufactured competitive advantages (currency manipulation and no labor standards) are severely punished. Right now, the US should be reaching out to Europe to confront China and others who abuse these areas. Europe is getting just as pissed as we are at the Chinese manipulation of their currency and their continuing attempts to gain trade by manipulating just about everything they can. I think if the US and Europe really pushed hard they would be able to get Russia on board and actually do something to reverse the anti-worker trend of the last 30 years.

True. But our Fed Gov needs to become more job friendly by creating an environment that is more business friendly to companies in this country. That may mean you can only have 3 TV's in your house instead of 4, I know. We need to eliminate or at least drastically reduce taxes on businesses. But we need to have some ties to those tax cuts so the fat cats don't pocket the difference and still run off to China, India, Vietnam, etc., etc.

Chief Faithful
01-26-2010, 10:24 AM
Here is the thing though. If comapnies such as AT&T are willing to re-train Union wokers and the Union workers don't want to move then that is on them. I can't hang that on the company, they made an effort to keep your job and re-tool you as an employee.

AT&T will cut 12,000 jobs this year and most of those will be wireline. There will be some non-wireline jobs lost with restructuring.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:27 AM
If we put tarrifs on imported goods to the point that the difference between Wal-Mart and Sam's Local Store is minimal it would be better for the country. Yes, you may not consume as much as you are now due to slightly higher prices. But it would create better jobs for people in this country in the long run.

I would rather have 10 companies employing 1,000 workers and selling TV's at $1,000 than 1 company employing 500 workers and selling TV's at $700.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:27 AM
AT&T will cut 12,000 jobs this year and most of those will be wireline. There will be some non-wireline jobs lost with restructuring.

That's a damn shame.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 10:28 AM
I agree on the first two paragraphs. The last one is where I disagree. The cheaper labor offshore wouldn't be as cheap if manufactured competitive advantages (currency manipulation and no labor standards) are severely punished. Right now, the US should be reaching out to Europe to confront China and others who abuse these areas. Europe is getting just as pissed as we are at the Chinese manipulation of their currency and their continuing attempts to gain trade by manipulating just about everything they can. I think if the US and Europe really pushed hard they would be able to get Russia on board and actually do something to reverse the anti-worker trend of the last 30 years.

I agree regarding currency manipulation, though forcing other countries to do much about it is not an easy thing.

I also agree regarding labor standards to a degree, but even if you corrected that issue, you would still have vastly lower labor costs offshore than here in the US. I don't see anyway to change that in the short term.

KC native
01-26-2010, 10:28 AM
If we put tarrifs on imported goods to the point that the difference between Wal-Mart and Sam's Local Store is minimal it would be better for the country. Yes, you may not consume as much as you are now due to slightly higher prices. But it would create better jobs for people in this country in the long run.

I would rather have 10 companies employing 1,000 workers and selling TV's at $1,000 than 1 company employing 500 workers and selling TV's at $700.

Tariffs are dangerous territory. They can spark trade wars and if they aren't done by everyone they do nothing to solve the problem.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:28 AM
Tariffs are dangerous territory. They can spark trade wars and if they aren't done by everyone they do nothing to solve the problem.

I agree. But the fact is China has already started a trade war. And they are winning.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 10:29 AM
If we put tarrifs on imported goods to the point that the difference between Wal-Mart and Sam's Local Store is minimal it would be better for the country. Yes, you may not consume as much as you are now due to slightly higher prices. But it would create better jobs for people in this country in the long run.

I would rather have 10 companies employing 1,000 workers and selling TV's at $1,000 than 1 company employing 500 workers and selling TV's at $700.

What do you do about the tariffs that other countries put up in retaliation that will cost our country jobs? (I note that, obviously, we import more than we export, but still, we do have alot of exports).

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 10:31 AM
I agree. But the fact is China has already started a trade war. And they are winning.


There is some truth to that, espeically in the currency manipulation noted by KC Native.

Chief Faithful
01-26-2010, 10:36 AM
I understand that. But that is indicative of a few things:

1. Piss-poor planning by the over-paid execs
2. Fantasy expectations by Wall St.
3. The lack of investment by companies in their workforce to train them




Not in the Verizon and AT&T case although point 1&3 does apply to some degree with Sprint.

1. Executives may or may not be over-paid, but the layoffs are due to changes in the market place. I think the Verizon and At&T have done an outstanding job of keeping the lay-offs to such a small number.

2. Telecom stocks have been depressed and stable since 1996 with little relative change up or down.

3. Even training does not change the fact that the majority of your workforce is in a dying sector. Where are you going to move them? Mobility only takes a fraction of the workforce. DSL, TV, and other growth areas are fully staffed. Almost all the job openings already go first to surplused employees so very few people get hired from outside. Besides, everyone of these companies have tuition reimbursement so any of these workers have available to them the means to retrain themselves.

Cannibal
01-26-2010, 10:37 AM
If we put tarrifs on imported goods to the point that the difference between Wal-Mart and Sam's Local Store is minimal it would be better for the country. Yes, you may not consume as much as you are now due to slightly higher prices. But it would create better jobs for people in this country in the long run.

I would rather have 10 companies employing 1,000 workers and selling TV's at $1,000 than 1 company employing 500 workers and selling TV's at $700.

Agreed.

KC native
01-26-2010, 10:38 AM
I agree regarding currency manipulation, though forcing other countries to do much about it is not an easy thing.

I also agree regarding labor standards to a degree, but even if you corrected that issue, you would still have vastly lower labor costs offshore than here in the US. I don't see anyway to change that in the short term.

Yes it will be tough but right now is the time to start because Europe is just as frustrated as we are with the Chinese and others.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:38 AM
What do you do about the tariffs that other countries put up in retaliation that will cost our country jobs? (I note that, obviously, we import more than we export, but still, we do have alot of exports).

I agree it is not an easy path to go down. But the fact is you have to level the playing field somehow. Of course, a good start to that would be for us to quit borrowing trillions of $'s from the Chinese.

Chief Faithful
01-26-2010, 10:38 AM
What do you do about the tariffs that other countries put up in retaliation that will cost our country jobs? (I note that, obviously, we import more than we export, but still, we do have alot of exports).

Japan is one of the biggest offenders. They protect their businesses at home through license and distribution protections then compete with other companies in the foreign market. I would love to see the US use the Japanesse model.

petegz28
01-26-2010, 10:44 AM
Not in the Verizon and AT&T case although point 1&3 does apply to some degree with Sprint.

1. Executives may or may not be over-paid, but the layoffs are due to changes in the market place. I think the Verizon and At&T have done an outstanding job of keeping the lay-offs to such a small number.

2. Telecom stocks have been depressed and stable since 1996 with little relative change up or down.

3. Even training does not change the fact that the majority of your workforce is in a dying sector. Where are you going to move them? Mobility only takes a fraction of the workforce. DSL, TV, and other growth areas are fully staffed. Almost all the job openings already go first to surplused employees so very few people get hired from outside. Besides, everyone of these companies have tuition reimbursement so any of these workers have available to them the means to retrain themselves.


Greed in the boardroom is also a factor. Take Sprint for example: They laid off over 12,000 people this year alone yet they can afford to give their CFO a $50k a month BOUNS. Nevermind over the last 3 years they froze raises, eliminated 401k matching, eliminated tuition reimbursment, changed their bonus payouts to annual and raised insurance costs. Oh yea, and as they hand out said bonus to the CFO, their stock is at $3.46. I am sure the shareholders are pleased about that.

Dayze
01-26-2010, 10:49 AM
as Carlin said "There's no lower form of life, than a piece of sh*t bizzzzzness man"

Chief Faithful
01-26-2010, 11:01 AM
Greed in the boardroom is also a factor. Take Sprint for example: They laid off over 12,000 people this year alone yet they can afford to give their CFO a $50k a month BOUNS. Nevermind over the last 3 years they froze raises, eliminated 401k matching, eliminated tuition reimbursment, changed their bonus payouts to annual and raised insurance costs. Oh yea, and as they hand out said bonus to the CFO, their stock is at $3.46. I am sure the shareholders are pleased about that.

As I stated before, many at Sprint lose their jobs due to poor management. Verizon and AT&T do a much better job.

Inspector
01-26-2010, 02:02 PM
I agree. Again, we're back to modern CEO's focus on the next quarter so they can get their bonuses. Yet another glaring example of why CEO compensation needs to be drastically altered. I have no problem with the level of their compensation but I have huge problems with the structure of it.


Yep....Unless of course it's a private industry. In those cases I think the company creates their own pay treatments. The only people who would have power to alter that would be the owners / stock holders. At least I think that's how it works but I'm not positive.

Inspector
01-26-2010, 02:17 PM
AT&T will cut 12,000 jobs this year and most of those will be wireline. There will be some non-wireline jobs lost with restructuring.

Yep, I'm seeing them come out of layoff meetings the last couple of days. The 4th floor of my building was full a couple of months ago (marketing folks) and now it's more than half empty. India however has been increasing their workforce for them though.

whatsmynameagain
01-26-2010, 09:50 PM
Large companies are taking massive advantage of the poor employment situation. Hiring freezes remain in effect and the "increased productivity" stats is due to many workers being generally overworked as business is recovering, but hiring is stagnant. The motto is "be glad you have a job" or "alot of people would love to be in your shoes", as the companies squeeze the shit out of their workforce in the name of increased profits.

Offshoring continues to drain jobs out of the American economy. Increasingly those jobs are service-sector oriented, rather than just the traditional manufacturing. All of us will recognize this when we call for customer service and get someone in India or the Phillipines.

Globalization is a real problem for the American workforce, especially the unskilled or minimally skilled. There is no obvious answer to the problem either, as the underlying problem -- far cheaper labor offshore -- is not one that we can rectify.

i netted my company about 135k in profits last year. im on salary/commission and was asked this week to come in an hour early or stay an hour late everyday that i can. its fuckin crazy how these companies are trying to fuck the little guy anyway they can. i said i couldnt and had my job threatened. 5 years at this company and have made them over 550k in profit.
Posted via Mobile Device