lol please detail what exactly your ideal president would have done to fix all this. By the way if tea party idealists had their way this is what is supposed to happen.... Government gets out the way and lets businesses fail and "hopefully" new and better ones rise up that are "hopefully" not ran by China.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Cisco to Cut Workforce by 11,500
- Thread starter CommanderFrank
- Start date
lol please detail what exactly your ideal president would have done to fix all this. By the way if tea party idealists had their way this is what is supposed to happen.... Government gets out the way and lets businesses fail and "hopefully" new and better ones rise up that are "hopefully" not ran by China.
Valshistixol
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,809
Communism.
EchtoGammut
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 4,057
As someone who was responsible for doing analysis work that led the layoff of over a thousand people from a top Fortune 500 financial firm, I can say that most of the times these layoffs have nothing to do with keeping the business running and everything to do with meeting quarterly numbers. I was promoted out of my department, into this position and given a number they wanted so they they could beat the projected numbers that financial analysts guessed the company should meet or beat.
I pretty much told them to change the light bulbs (increases productivity) and layoff x number of people. It worked, although only for a short while and most of those positions were rehired within 3-4 months. This was part of why I left and started my own business. So for people who are working in large companies, if the maintenance guys all of a sudden start changing fixtures that have previously haven't been touched, start brushing up on your resume.
I pretty much told them to change the light bulbs (increases productivity) and layoff x number of people. It worked, although only for a short while and most of those positions were rehired within 3-4 months. This was part of why I left and started my own business. So for people who are working in large companies, if the maintenance guys all of a sudden start changing fixtures that have previously haven't been touched, start brushing up on your resume.
What group do you work for?
TwistedAegis
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2009
- Messages
- 8,958
Good luck to those of you at Cisco. I went through this a couple years back (biggest bank failure in American history, hooray!) and know what a crappy feeling it is. Thankfully it seems like the job market is a bit better right now than it was back then.
Unexploded
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 265
This is why you never want to work for a publicly-traded company. All of their moves are typically short-sighted and geared towards making this quarter's number look good (their bonus is tied to it) with pretty much total disregard to the long-term outlook or employee casualties.
Might not be a business failure, but it's certainly an ethics failure. Doesn't seem to be doing much for your middle-class either.
That's because we elected a moron for a governor here. I hate living in a state filled with rednecks and the elderly.
Hope and change at work.
Excessive regulations, energy costs & taxes have that effect on business.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
More like cheap labor. We could have no regulations, zero taxes and free energy and it would still be cheaper to offshore and outsource labor.
Really, as bad as the economy is look at how many companies are doing better than ever and still aren't hiring. We can give companies and corporations everything they want, no taxes (a lot don't even pay much in taxes) and no regulations, which didn't seem to help AIG, the division that destroyed that company wasn't regulated, the strong and viable insurance businesses are heavily regulated, they'll take the money and run to the cheapest labor they can find still.
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
jeremyshaw
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,511
Cisco, a leading developer of long distance communications equipment (this is an extremely simplified way of describing what they do), requiring localized upper management for their manufacturing arm, which is seperate from the R&D/software divisions? That's funny.
BTW, Mexico isn't some poor shantytown, lol. Especially once you get closer to the capital.
Steve Wynn and several other business leaders don't agree with your assessment.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7
"And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration"
KnishofDeath
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,090
Which explains why Canada has been surviving the recession better than almost anyone right?
Logic fail.
Which explains why Canada has been surviving the recession better than almost anyone right?
Logic fail.
Logic fail indeed!
ShadowStriker
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,669
Which explains why Canada has been surviving the recession better than almost anyone right?
Logic fail.
Canada's surviving the recession better because they didn't give mortgages to people who work part-time at McDonalds.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
And yet too much regulation is killing American business. I'm not saying that there aren't problems with over regulation but over regulation doesn't tend to lead to economic disasters were under regulation tends to lead to all kinds of calamity including needless death.
Valshistixol
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,809
Companies are making record profits and still laying off workers. I don't think regulation is the problem.
Or don't work at all.
Never run a business have you?
The amount of regulations on the state and federal level is insane, at our single facility we have four full time people who do nothing but check paperwork to insure we are in state compliance.
And that is just for the nursing staff.
I have to answer to the state and local fire marshal, OSHA, Homeland Security and a dozen or so other places I can't think of off the top of my head.
Plus document everything, and this is just for Physical Plant.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Exactly, the issue with jobs in the US and other developed countries is far more difficult than what mere regulation and tax changes could fix.
A real independent voice
Lets see if the CEO of Exxon "believes" in global warming.
This whole non sense of cutting taxes does not lead to more jobs. Demand leads to more jobs and when no one has any money, well then jobs will not grow. Why would a business who has more money because of tax cut hire anyone when there is no work for new employees?
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
And during this same call he goes on about how much money he made, record profits. Yeah, Obama been really, really bad for Mr. Wynn, you know, the guy that accidentally punched a hole in a 137 MILLION dollar Picasso: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Oct-17-Tue-2006/news/10274785.html
Valshistixol
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,809
Really? OHSA and the fire marshall? I'm so sorry the safety of workers is important.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I hate to have over regulation kill jobs but I much prefer that under regulation killing people. This was a very sad story that I remember well: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire"]Hamlet chicken processing plant fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Imperial_foods_-_plant_front.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Imperial_foods_-_plant_front.jpg/300px-Imperial_foods_-_plant_front.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/18/Imperial_foods_-_plant_front.jpg/300px-Imperial_foods_-_plant_front.jpg[/ame]
Regulation is a tough balancing act, let's face it, those who need regulation are NEVER going to want it. But there's TOO many examples of needless death and destruction when people, yes and that includes the "job makers", are not supervised and aren't held accountable for their actions.
Never had to deal with them have you blinky? Interesting point of view you have there- "well your anti-osha so you must hate your co-workers" The rules protect me as well but there is a lot of people who feel the need to justify their positions and will just make sh*t up.
Its no laughing matter either as one year we got hit with 50k in fines (reduced to 25k on review)
And what did osha find? A standard Fluke meter that didn't state "class III."
A floor buffer missing a ground pin.
We have a fire marshal complain that a dementia unit having electronic locks.
No duh, its a *dementia unit* fool to keep them from wandering out into the street.
Excess regulations do indeed cost business cash that could be better spent on more help or capital improvements..
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
You won't any argument from me there. And lax regulation gets people dead. I can understand not wanting excessive regulation but I would hope that you can understand that if your regulator is doing exactly what YOU want them to do that perhaps you're not being regulated properly. Sure it's not the most efficient business process but there's something inherently not right when a business is comfortable with their regulator. There should be some tension and fear there as there is in any normal relationship where there's accountability to someone or something else.
You are putting forth an unrealistic strawman argument.
If I'm against regulation therefore I (or others) must be for no regulation which just isn't the case.
This isn't some victorian dark era were 10 year olds fall into machines were discussing, but a present day work place which is getting buried under increasing layers of paperwork and stupid decrees by unelected bureaucrats.
I'll give you another example- My boss just came back from a meeting and the state has decreed that we must have battery operated lighting in our main electrical room. We have not had to have lighting there (or even battery operated exit signs) since our facility has a back up generator (operated 5 times a month of course, how much fuel does that waste and pollute?) the only time these lights would operate is if the mains are down AND our generator fails. Which is checked daily and logged by yours truely. Battery condition, coolant temp (block heater of course running 24/7) fluid levels, run switch position, main breaker position and sub-panel condition with status.
How stupid is that? If the mains are down AND the generator fails there is NOTHING to do in the main electrical room (which only two people have access and we carry flashlights), you are already screwed. And since you have no backup lighting in the rest of the building, it will be pitch black outside of that single room.
The bottom line is these "inspectors" have to find something or make something up to justify their jobs, seen it time and time again.
How much will it cost my employer to install these lights? (which of course will now have to be inspected weekly and have their own log sheet showing it has been done) now multiply that times every healthcare facility in the state.
Valshistixol
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,809
Yes it is, look all around the world. This shit still happens
Which is that nations problem, which the inhabitants can change as they see fit.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Never said this. Of course regulations shouldn't be overly burdensome and cause serious business inefficiency. But at the same time if a business is perfectly happy with their regulators then something is wrong there. The relationship between a business and it's regulators SHOULD be adversarial at some level. Yes businesses should work with their regulators, point out stupid rules and procedures and try to make reporting and accountability more transparent and efficient but it business should NEVER be perfectly happy with it's regulators. That's a telltale sign of lax oversight and accountability.
This makes no sense. If people didn't get killed, injured and swindled by companies why would anyone care about or want regulation? Government regulation is almost ALWAYS reactive to catastrophic events. Just look at the last round of banking regulations. You have the biggest economic meltdown of a lifetime and low and behold you find large numbers financial institutions RIDDLED with risky and unregulated behavior and as a result there's pressure on politicians to prevent this from happening again. This story is repeated throughout history.
If businesses weren't cutting corners and committing fraud on a large scale very few regulations would ever come into being. Businesses bring a lot of this on themselves. And not it's not all businesses that do these things but you know the old cliche, one rotten apple spoils the bunch. If businesses did better job of policing themselves they'd face fewer regulations.
I'm certainly not saying that regulatory processes shouldn't be continuously improved and streamlined and made transparent to improve business efficiency but it's tough to argue wholesale that regulations are job killing without specifics when the trail of disaster left behind by corporations doing what they want is so obvious.
Actually you did- "And lax regulation gets people dead."
Ah but they do and worse they don't fix the problem. People tailor "solutions" to make the regulators happy rather than fix a problem.
Another example-
Old people fall, it is just the way it is. No one can be at their room at 3AM when they want to get up and take a whiz. Sure they can call for a nurse but a number of them do NOT for any number of reasons. They get up, trip over an O2 line/no grippy socks/to weak and land up on thier bum or worse.
The state wishes to see a *documented intervention* to prevent the problem from happening again. Sounds great right? But when your dealing with a 90 year old who either can't remember one day to the next or is too proud to ask for help your intervention goes right out the window.
But the state still demands you take steps, if the resident wants it or not.
Again you are putting for an either/or situation.
I do my job as mandated, the state is the one who keeps moving the goal posts. Often without warning and with shifting targets.
Some people I deal with are professional and polite, others are raging dicks on a power trip. Imagine the worst sort of individual you have met at the Dept of Motor Vehicle, x3
Because they are told its for thier own good from day one yes? Look at New York city, wanting to ban trans fats and salt and smoking, etc. Nanny state gone wild.
Having freedom also means the freedom to make mistakes.
Rarely in my business, it creeps along one notch at a time. People coming up with stuff to justify their cushy jobs.
Lots of cronyism there, could write a book about that. Has less to do with "protecting the little guy" and more to do with the big guys getting grease on the palms.
You mean like the government forcing banks to issue home loans to people who could not pay them back?
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I never said that he was against ALL regulation. And no one can rationally argue that lax regulation doesn't get people dead.
Sounds like you're the one arguing its either or. So you're saying the State's procedures are overly burdensome. Okay let's say that you're correct. So then what do you propose? Are you saying that its just too difficult to track this and that no effort should be made?
And its the regulator's job to make sure that you actually do your job and you're not supposed to be perfectly happy with it. You're regulator should be more your adversary than your friend.
I worked in home mortgage loss mitigation for a couple of years just before the bust and I know quite a lot about the patterns that occurred in this mess and this wasn't one of them and shows a major contradiction in your cynicism. The banks have all of this corrupt power over politicians greasing their palms by your own words and these very same politicians then force banks to give loans to people that can't pay them back? Can you explain why anyone would be bribing a politician to screw themselves? That can be had for free.
Were past the point of declining returns.
Yes.
Short of taking over the government nothing will change. The current setup is geared to towards making goverment larger and larger.
This state has no interest in "making things better" union employees would have little to do and fines enrich the states coffers. Money goes into the general fund where it is pissed away at an astounding rate.
Gas taxes? General fund. Casino money? General fund. tobacco settlement money? General fund. state income tax? General fund.
Get the idea?
And again you miss the point- I DO my job. It is the state that continues to move the goal posts as to just what my job is and it isn't unusal for them to not tell you.
Another example- A marshal at any time can write up that a fire door closes too slowly, when pressed as to what is an acceptable rate of speed the marshal states there isn't one, its at his discretion.
The community reinvestment act FORCED banks under threat of FBI investigation while Clinton was in office to loan money to people who had no chance in hell of paying it back. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank made it very clear they didn't give a damn if banks went belly up.
Thats why Dodd jumped ship rather than run for office again and Franks is peddling like mad in reverse trying to save his own skin.
Valshistixol
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,809
If you just did everything according to regulations you wouldn't be so upset. Just stop cutting corners and the inspectors won't give you any shit.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I would agree. It looks like you're saying that all regulation is bad and government is totally corrupt. When I pointed out that lax regulation has led to people dying it was called a straw man argument, never directly acknowledging that lax regulation has led to human death. It looks like you've never met ANY regulation that you like. If I'm wrong then it should be simple point out something that works, this isn't the Victorian age after all, some regulations must have improved something correct?
All I can say is this. CRA loans had a VERY low rate of default because they followed conventional underwriting standards. If you think banks lost money on these loans you're just wrong about that. I'm not saying there weren't any problems but nothing anywhere the level to cause the housing crisis that we are in. The loans that gave us trouble where almost always the unconventional ones with zero down payment with a balloon ARM or some other exotic loan product, predatory loans that indeed the CRA actually prevented overall. Financial institutions didn't mind making these loans because investors loved the return rates and even expected many borrowers to default with the assumption that they could flip the house at a profit and this worked out just dandy when housing pricing were skyrocketing.
Financial institutions didn't get to sit on billions in cash and trillions in assets giving money money to poor people and moochers and not getting their money back with interest.
No on the first and very close on the second.
As far as regulations go we are very much at the point of declining returns. Anyone could infer from that statement alone I don't have a problem with regulations, just regulations to excess.
You implied the choices were full regulation or no regulation at all, which isn't the case.
Consider that the state has a mandated inspection program for vehicles. Since this gets the junkwagons that are unsafe off the road I'm all for it. I would not be all for it if the state mandated inspections every 6 months and the inspections were harder to pass each time.
I just gave you a perfect example above, which considering I own several vehicles impacts my life directly.
You seem to miss the point I have been trying to make which is puzzling as I have given several examples. I'm not against rules and regulations, the bulk of them are based off common sense and are good for business.
Your kidding right? In 2009 alone 50% of all sub-prime adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) were in arrears or foreclosure.
http://davidkirkpatrick.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/mortgage-default-rates-stunning/
The banks bundled the loans and got rid of them, they knew the loans were bad.
If I cut corners at my job I'd no longer be employed.