if you cannot make yourself needed by a company, then you should not be employed by that company. it is you who represents everthing that is wrong with this country. i do not ask for you, a company, nor the government to take care of me, yet you demand that everyone provide you with something without a fair exchange of services from you. you take and take from society, while not providing a fair exchange in return. no one is forcing you to work for that company, but you believe it is your right to work for that company under whatever terms you see to fit you. if you don't like it, leave, and find another company or form your own business. but, i'm guessing that you like the security of working for the company, hence there is some tradeoff, like the lack of freedom. yet, you expect all companies to bow down for you, to hold your job even if there is someone who can do it better, even if you do it poorly, even if you have a horrible attitude at work that spreads to others and provides a bad working environment. good thinking. you are the cancer of society that is spreading.
Fist of all I never said anything about gauranteed employement etc. And I agree: You are free to leave any company and work elsewhere. Since I run two companies and approve the hiring and firing your statements are just wrong. My suggestion to you is to get a bit better informed about how large companies are run by getting a bit more experience at a senior level in several major corporations before you continue your diatribe. You need to get a better view from the top of a major coporation rather from the bottom of the pile.
perhas this is not you, but the attitude that a company exists to provide them with a job is pervasive throught the country and throughout union halls everywhere.
Personally, that is really good news. I suspected that. I work in a commoditisation atmosphere and it is terrible. I am seeing the company I really loved and worked hard for go to a much lower state of organization over the last few years after a takeover. The funny thing is that my line of work means I am quite difficult to replace. I have spent the last few years researching the markets at work and daring people to fire me!! It is all paying off right now, profitable strategies are emerging for me and the bosses still run from me. It really pays to step back and assess your situation once in a while. When they reduced my benefits and froze my pay I made a list "what can I get out of this place before I get out of this place". That was a radical departure from "what can I do for this place". That is why the companies disintegrate fast when they commoditise. I worked in a start up that changed the deal on everybody about the time they were seeing profits on the hoizon. We destroyed the place in a matter of months, pretty much gave the owner the finger as we were leaving. He was broke. All he had to do was treat us well and he had it made, but he just could not do that. He had a staff of people with University professor backgrounds, a technician that was a member of Mensa and a product that could have been fixed up and marketed and he decided to treat us like replaceable commodities and change the stock option contract. What a day that was!! I recall the meeting like it was yesterday. That guy actually went out in the playground and chose off the gang of the smartest people in the school!! We went after him with murderous hatred. We used up his development money like it was going out of style, there were probably big kickback schemes initiated that day for sure. Nothing ever quite worked after that. I recall getting some molds back from the foundry after the engineer that designed them had found a new job. They were spec'd in thousandths of an inch and were off by a half inch!! He had swindled the drawing checker guy and gotten a signoff. It was just sabotage time and we really all kind of enjoyed it. Employers don't get it typically. The employees have much, much more that they can pull out of the deal than the employers. Max
You dont need experience in a large corporation to know that when you treat employees badly the company will suffer. Your behaviour is the norm in every company in whcih I have worked: When the employees had their pay frozen and were asked to do more work as people were fired they universally began to plan their exit strategies. As the economy continues to improve the companies that have treated their employees poorly will have much more trouble retaining their existing workers.....
Oh yeah, they are already looking ahead to the part of the business cycle where we can all get jobs. Our super gave us a box of cookies and a thank you card for all our hard work at Christmas!! The personnel dept. has a "care and feeding of employees" hand book and they refer to it often!!
caltrader- your really did not address the points being made by dafugginman. ( at least the posts i reviewed) You told him he needed to be an executive to have a valid opinion but what is your opinion. To go back through comments in the thread. I read the following as negative attributes. Wanting already trained employees wanting employees who were spoke english indirectly wanting non minorities wanting good looking women Well when the world is ready to poach your best employees, it seems like a waste of resources to train them with your own resources. Also, When technology changes so fast, what is your best plan regarding training. Wanting employees who speak without accents, well what do you expect when corporation are being accused of not hiring americans. Also I do not know about you but I took some classes in the enginerring school at my university. That place stank so bad I had to sit near a window and got in arguments with people during the winter about the window being open so I did not go to school. Hygene is a factor in the workplace. Not having an accent is a good filter for americanization. When you hire and employees you want to be able to fire them if they do not work out. Fighting disgruntled minoriites in court and dealing with the eeoc is very expensive and wastes a great deal of human capitall. One way to avoid that is to hire from non protected classes. As an executive consultant I am sure you know this, because in the past as an attorney I called retired guys like you as experts. I can think of a single business that is not succesful that has good looking women can you? Have you seen the sales reps for companies that sell to doctors like pharmaceutical companies? That is market driven. Now dafugginman says let the market dicatate to business what should be done. I believe that---- but I am wondering if perot was right, what say you. I was going to correct for grammer but I have to get back to trading sorry.
I for one am glad for this cerebral discourse on the current state of discord. It distracts me from the fact that we are one humanity floating on a rock in a vaccuum with nowhere to go.
why do you need me? look at how Greenspan, who was essentially called before the world stage in Europe to account for the declining dollar....to explain the US Economy's situation... look at how all the other commentators on this board are at complete odds with your conclusions.... I beg the question, identify something about your secular experience before becomming a trader that you base your polarizing comments upon.... If for example you base your conclusions on some Forbes opinionated article or Business Week or other basis, then state so, and we can at least respect you for that. Ignorance is deceptive in that it leaves one thinking that: 1) their conclusions are the highest, brightest, best-est 2) lack of working in the profession that one obtained one's advanced college degree does the same thing 3) Academics who expound theorums from the collegiate pulpit but do not (ever) survive in a corporate real world scenario (and hence learn that their cherrished beliefs aren't worth the aire that it takes to state them) also have a similarly ignorant viewpoint. At this point, without offending you, I believe you fit into one of those respectible three (3) definitions of ignorant, especially of the issues being discussed on this thread. For example, I readily acknowledge that my insights are limited and actively provoke stimulating or controversial conversations on these boards from the economic perspective so that I can primarily improve my trading style. A by product of those discussions are the friendships I have developed with other like minded individuals or veterans (from the corporate battlefields of valour). I consider these boards to be better than my Alumnus reunions and meetings, however, every now and then incalcitrant viewpoints not substantiated by either direcet experience or relative knowledge of the facts comes to the fore, such as some of the conclusions that you've drawn. So, again I ask, what industry did you come from?, and from what perspectives are you talking about these viewpoints?
all i said was that my theory that the labor market is exactly inline with what greenspan said today, what kudlow has said before, and somehow this is ignorant and out of line with every other economist in the country - laughable. yes, i read. yes, i majored in economics, and yet, this makes me ignorant? what do you read, nothing? yet, that somehow makes you more intelligent. gotcha. the bottom line is you have done nothing to counter any argument i've put forth, so you have to resort to name calling and question where i come from. why don't you put forth a rational well thought out argument to refute what i've said on unions, the current situation of the labor market and why it will never improve (according to you), and globalization. once again, someone went out on a tangent when cal trader picked on one minor minor minor point i made on how comapanies treat workers. you did nothing to address the major points i made on taxes, the economy, unions, and globalization. no one has refuted ONE point i've said on here. all i here is you're ignorant and are what is wrong with the country. you can't come up with arguments on your own, so you resort to name calling. i'm done here.