| From: | TopCat <topcat@******.net> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Killing in Shadowrun... |
| Date: | Sun, 26 May 1996 02:56:50 -0500 |
>>>invent the term "downsizing"?
>>Downsizing has never (in any circumstance that I know of) led to a decrease
>>in security. It has led to a whole lot of early retirement programs and
>>pink slips for people too old, stubborn, or stupid to learn the new
>>techniques that the corp/org was using. I've seen this dozens of times and
>>I applaud the effort wholeheartedly. It is the cutting away of dead flesh
>>from the corp/org.
>No it isn't, and again I speak as a veteran. What happens is that those
>people with bright ideas that were troublesome find themselves
>jettisoned: those "careful" plodders who never offended anyone entrench
>themselves. The capable and competent seek jobs elsewhere, and you find
>yourself left with those who can't or won't go elsewhere. Which are the
>old and the stubborn and the stupid: the smart vote with their feet.
And I speak as the son of a Vice President of a large consulting firm and a
Union/Management & User/Programmer Liason for the Illinois Department of
Revenue. I've watched downsizing for YEARS and have seen it illustrate my
previous material (see above) unerringly.
>>But,
>>once again, I have never seen it hit security.
>The point remains - if employees are "assets" why get rid of them?
Employees are only assets if they can do the job. If they can't, then they
become liabilities. It is actually possible for one employee to be an asset
while another is a liability. Liabilities get nailed in downsizing.
>>Your market is a dangerous one to play in. And you only deal in that
>>market. Megas handle every market, most handle some markets more than
>>others, but they all have their fingers in every pie they can get a hold of.
>>They deal in limited demand markets as well as high demand markets and
>>min/max their efforts to produce net worth. Doesn't sound like your company
>>min/max'd for their market very well or they missed a trend that others saw.
>>That's not an accountant's fault, but he can tell you the end result.
>We saw a trend everyone saw. That was the collapse of the Soviet Union
>and the peace dividend.
You reacted to it late, then.
>Unfortunately, it happened a little rapidly for anyone to be able to do
>much about it.
Someone made money off the deal somewhere. Every time money is lost
somewhere, somewhere else pulls in a gain.
>The point remains: accountants merely tell you where you were and where
>you are. They are no use at all at telling you where to go next.
If that's all you believe accounting is good for, I can see why the company
failed.
-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
