backtop


Print 54 comment(s) - last by wallijonn.. on Feb 24 at 1:45 PM

Union says HP wants to cut pay to 300,000 global workers and profits grew

HP along with many other computer makers has been hit hard by the poor global economy. Some computer makers have announced losses over the last several quarters with many of the firms reporting their first loss in many years.

HP has fared better than many and has still reportedly posted revenue growth of a modest 1%. A workers union for high-tech workers in the UK called Unite has released a statement today expressing astonishment that HP has announced it plans to cut the salary of 300,000 of its global workers.

The reason the union is shocked about the announcement is that HP didn’t post a loss; profits still grew. According to the union, HP reported its numbers for the first quarter of 2009 and had a revenue growth of 1% amounting to GBP 20B and profits of GBP 1.3B.

Unite national officer Peter Skyte said in a statement, "UK employees who have made a key contribution to the doubling of the HP services revenue and borne the brunt of redundancies in Europe will be astonished that a company that is increasing revenue and still making substantial profits is seeking a pay cut from its UK workforce. Whilst the basic pay of senior executives is being cut, they will more than make up any reduction in basic pay by increases in their executive bonuses brought about by reductions in everyone else's basic pay."

Skyte goes on to say that HP has told the union that pay reductions will be made only with employee agreement and that coercion won't be used. The union says it is waiting to get those claims in writing. HP announced this week that its profits has dropped by 13% and cut its 2009 forecast.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The spiral continues...
By SectionEight on 2/20/2009 1:50:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The reason the union is shocked about the announcement is that HP didn’t post a loss; profits still grew.


True, but the profits didn't grow as much as some analyst on Wall Street thought they should, so therefore cut the payroll to make up for it. Of course, that means less money in the hands of potential customers, so less of their products are sold, therefore profits are less than expected next quarter, so more payroll cuts are needed, and so on...




RE: The spiral continues...
By oab on 2/20/2009 1:55:31 PM , Rating: 5
It is a global recession, no better time to do some union busting (or just cut wages so that you can increase profits).


RE: The spiral continues...
By PhoenixKnight on 2/20/2009 2:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
By cutting the employees' wages, that means less money will be going into the local economy, which means less money for people to spend on other things, thus hurting businesses those HP employees would have used. Therefore, isn't this technically bad for the economy? This just seems like an excuse for HP to increase their profits and undermine the union.


RE: The spiral continues...
By Steve1981 on 2/20/2009 2:27:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
By cutting the employees' wages, that means less money will be going into the local economy, which means less money for people to spend on other things, thus hurting businesses those HP employees would have used. Therefore, isn't this technically bad for the economy?


It's a conflict of macroeconomics and microeconomics. It rarely companies to trim the fat; it makes them better able to compete. It only becomes a problem when everyone does it at once, and frankly HP can't do much about it. Given that they expect their revenue to trend lower in the upcoming year, it makes sense that they are going to try and cut their costs.

quote:
This just seems like an excuse for HP to increase their profits and undermine the union.


Businesses are not charities. They exist to generate returns for their investors. If they do not generate sufficient returns, the investors go to greener pastures.


RE: The spiral continues...
By Steve1981 on 2/20/2009 2:38:40 PM , Rating: 1
Correction:

It rarely hurts companies to trim the fat


RE: The spiral continues...
By just4U on 2/21/2009 2:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'd much rather see a cut in pay then a dismissal. HP is going about this in a half ways decent way with some concern to their work force.

Good for HP.


RE: The spiral continues...
By Targon on 2/21/2009 5:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. There are MANY companies that are just cutting jobs across the board, so, cut pay or eliminate workers...maybe if there was a round of layoffs that will follow this, people will get the hint that if you don't take a pay cut, a job loss may follow.


RE: The spiral continues...
By ICE1966 on 2/21/2009 6:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree just4u, some companies would just lay people off. As for the comment about busting the unions, I say go for it. unions are a problem here in the USA. we need to get rid of them.


RE: The spiral continues...
By JAlbatross on 2/21/2009 7:13:40 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, what have unions ever done for this country...?

Besides the 40 hour work week, I mean.

And Living Wages. And safe working conditions. And retirement benefits. And child labor restrictions.

Get rid of them all, I say...


RE: The spiral continues...
By ekv on 2/22/2009 1:22:47 AM , Rating: 3
I work for a union shop. Unions may have historically been quite necessary. The current state of affairs ... it's hard to get rid of an "underachiever", shall we say, since the union will impede management's perogatives. There's no way to implement merit-pay, since underachievers will be discriminated against, so says the union. Etc. You've heard this before.

Living Wages ... hah! There's a local business that can't afford to pay such a huge wage when it is way over what other workers are getting in the area. So the union is effectively putting such a company out of business. Does the union care? The Judge sided with the union. Bye bye jobs for everybody.

Safe working conditions ... OSHA. Which is an absolute convoluted nightmare, but OSHA can really screw a company over. Not to mention the local TV station, who's always looking for an angle. Retirement benefits ... the money I don't pay on dues could be going toward health insurance and also towards an IRA or 401K, etc. I know how to spend my money better than the union does. Especially when it concerns supporting politicians, against my desires.

I understand your sarcasm. A lot of the guys are real gungho union types. Can't change their minds, cause "it's the way we've always done things." To them, the union is the greatest thing since sliced bread. And of course, they loaf their sorry asses around. Because they can.

Given the current market conditions, a union just doesn't help a U.S. company be competitive in a "global" environment. Judging from the U.K. union's response, they don't even understand that HP has a profit motive in mind and they answer to shareholders, etc.


RE: The spiral continues...
By JAlbatross on 2/22/2009 10:26:10 PM , Rating: 1
In response to your points...

Part of the reason it is hard to get rid of the a-holes that don't work is because managers are too week kneed to take on the union and the a-hole. Unions don't want these guys, they give everyone else a bad name, but how can you get rid of someone who gets satisfactory reviews because his non-union supervisor is a big pussy (cat)?

As far as living wages, I don't understand, why is it way more than other workers in the area?

OSHA is not a union.

Local TV News does one good story for every 5000 horrible, ambulance-chasing, scare-mongering, or heart-string-pulling stories. It's the ORIGINAL reality TV. I can't watch it.

Everyone should have a pension. A pension is compensation for the work you do. YOUR money, that is, money that you would (in theory) be paid if it wasn't going to pay for your pension, goes in, and in return you are promised benefits. When pensions disappear it is because ownership/management has broken that promise.

Health insurance is also compensation for work and should be required by law or supplied by the government, simple as that. (Most countries worth living in can afford it, we can too.)

As far as money going to political parties that you don't like, yeah, that is a problem. It's unfortunate that we have only two viable political parties in this country. It should be unconstitutional (it would be if the founders had foreseen them). There should be a labor party, a business party, a green party, a moral values party, a this party, a that party (the president would not be nearly so powerful in such a poly-party system, I bet). The more the merrier, I say. BUT as it is the Dems get 95% of union money. (probably 100% at the federal level)

Unions HAVE historically been necessary and beneficial to this country. I think a big part of the SOME of the problems that this country has is related to the decline of unions. I think we need more unions, not fewer.


RE: The spiral continues...
By ekv on 2/23/2009 12:48:41 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know where the "non-union" manager is, in the chain of command, hence I have no idea whether he/she is a pussy (um, cat) or not. That may be irrelevant since the point I'm trying to convey is that the union is responsible for impeding the managerial decision making process. An impediment that is not helping.

Are you asking me why the particular local union is forcing, with the weight of Congress behind them, a business to pay a high Living Wage? or are you asking why that Wage is so much higher than the average?

As far as safe working conditions, I must not have communicated well enough. OSHA is not a union. It is a government entity. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was an absolute nightmare for businessmen that I knew had their paths crossed by them. Those businessmen did not want to even hear the word OSHA spoken. Get the picture?

How does a union make working conditions safe? I don't think a union is necessary to make working conditions safe, especially when OSHA is around. Furthermore, if OSHA fails, a disgruntled employee could call on a TV reporter and an expose -- 60 Minutes style -- would likely be in short order. Unions are no longer necessary for safe working conditions. TV can have a far greater impact, far more quickly than a union ever could.

I agree everyone should have a pension. Where we disagree is whether the government ought to be involved. Btw, you have also slightly twisted my meaning here. I would rather not pay union dues, but rather take that money and apply it toward a pension. I'm a saver. I invest. I'd like to start a family. My money, as you point out, paid to me, so I can then put it into a 401K or IRA account. Of my choosing. Not the companies' or the union's choosing.

The Federal government is currently targeting the entire health care industry for takeover, just like Hillary secretly planned circa 1994 (or so). More Socialism coming your way. We cannot afford it. Why does the president keep talking about "crisis" this, and "crisis" that? If it's a crisis then we do NOT have the money. Period.

It used to be that union dues could not go to a political party that you didn't want it to go to. No more. The union can spend, spend, spend on whatever political machination pops randomly into their brain. That's my money, being used against me. Forcibly. [Not exactly in the Constitution is it].

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Unions are not helping. If they were, why would Congress be trying to force them down our throats?

A business like HP has a profit motive in mind. They have a better idea of their forward-looking earnings than a union. Unions typically want management to divulge that information, so that the union may take their "fair share", which they determine irrespective of market conditions. That UK union apparently doesn't even know there is a global recession under way. Hello?!


RE: The spiral continues...
By arazok on 2/20/2009 2:42:30 PM , Rating: 5
If HP was smart, they would give everyone a 5 BILLION PERCENT pay hike. This would increase profits by stimulating the economy. </scarcasim>

A pay raise/cut does nothing to help or hurt the economy. It just moves the money out of one persons pocket, and into another’s. For example, by cutting pay and (presumably) increasing profits, HP could issue a higher dividend, putting more money into shareholders pockets (possibly yours if you own some). Alternatively, they might choose to invest in new equipment, resulting in someone else getting a job.

Ultimately, economic growth is the result of our ability to produce things, and how efficiently we use them. Everything else is just a shell game.


RE: The spiral continues...
By Steve1981 on 2/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: The spiral continues...
By C'DaleRider on 2/20/2009 6:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
While our ability to produce things is important, it's worthless if no one can buy said produced things. You can increase production all you want, without the attendant demand to consume the production, said production is worthless.


RE: The spiral continues...
By gerf on 2/20/2009 7:23:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if all companies cut costs, they could presumably cut prices. Thus, people can afford the products due to their lower prices, even if they don't have as much money to spend.

It's deflationary, which economists are skerred of.


RE: The spiral continues...
By sinful on 2/21/2009 7:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, if all companies cut costs, they could presumably cut prices.


They *could*, but they generally don't. Instead, they just give the CEO a bigger bonus....


RE: The spiral continues...
By ekv on 2/21/09, Rating: 0
RE: The spiral continues...
By teckytech9 on 2/20/2009 11:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
The consumer drives economic growth. The economy thrives on consumer spending. If everyone bought an HP ink jet printer every three months, when the ink included with the machine was spent, then HP's profits would soar. Realistically, that would not be good for the local landfills as HP gets a good portion of their profits on their ink cartridges.

Presently, the consumer is saving more, thus spending less. The pay cuts could also be reflective in anticipation of lower profit margins that the company foresees in the future.


RE: The spiral continues...
By sinful on 2/21/2009 7:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A pay raise/cut does nothing to help or hurt the economy.


Bzzzzttt!!!
70% of the economy is consumer spending. If consumer spending drops, it hurts the economy. If consumers have less money, they spend less. Henry Ford recognized this when he paid his employees substantially more than he had to. What happened? Some of his best customers were his own employees. If you price your products out of reach of most consumers, you're not going to survive.

quote:
It just moves the money out of one persons pocket, and into another’s.

You may be right that it's a shell game, but the circulation of money is what drives the economy.
You could take $1000 out of your bank and give it directly to Bill Gates, -OR-, you could buy a new PC, spreading the money to Dell, Nvidia, Intel, etc etc etc.
Both are "shell games" of where your money goes, but in the latter case the distribtion keeps others employed, people working, etc. Additionally, those companies that benefitted can now invest that money in R&D, new equipment, etc. In the latter case, Bill Gates might just sit on that money.

quote:
Ultimately, economic growth is the result of our ability to produce things, and how efficiently we use them. Everything else is just a shell game.

The shell game influences our ability to produce things and how efficiently we use them, though.


RE: The spiral continues...
By supergarr on 2/20/2009 8:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
yea but think of it this way. A blanket pay cut vs. some layoffs. The layoffs would affect local economies more especially if some of them have mortgages. At least with a blanket pay cut (thats not draconian) you can shift spending habits.


RE: The spiral continues...
By rudy on 2/20/2009 4:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, and the union forgets that HP a smart company is cutting pay as a forcast much better then laying people off after the damage has been done like the Auto industry and then unable to bounce backs risks everything. Ford looked ahead and made decisions and they are in better shape HP is doing the same don't cry about it be glad you still have a job.


RE: The spiral continues...
By Regs on 2/20/2009 9:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
The better the balance sheet/income statement - the better you look in future business deals and loans (growth). HP wants to take the upper hand when this recession ends or make enough profit next year to reinvest in growth opportunities.


RE: The spiral continues...
By AntiM on 2/20/2009 2:37:13 PM , Rating: 3
I would happily take a 10 to 15 percent pay cut rather than get laid off. However, if execs get pay raises or bonuses at the same time workers are taking a pay cut, there's not much that can be done about that other than publicly criticize them. I think people are fed up with this kind of crap.
Like that American Airlines fiaso >>
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/04/19/american.labo...


RE: The spiral continues...
By Spuke on 2/20/2009 7:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
10% could be tough, especially here in CA where our income, sales and car registration taxes have just been raised. The combination might just be enough for a few more foreclosures. Being out of job entirely would be FAR worse in this state.


RE: The spiral continues...
By Runiteshark on 2/21/2009 11:17:58 AM , Rating: 4
If 10% can make or break you, you aren't living in your means.


RE: The spiral continues...
By VaultDweller on 2/21/2009 2:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
If 10% can't make or break you, you're living at least 10% below your means.


RE: The spiral continues...
By Runiteshark on 2/21/2009 6:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, good point


RE: The spiral continues...
By Keeir on 2/20/2009 3:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually... finish reading the article

Profits feel by 13%.... not really significant, but considering that outlook for this year must be worse than last year, HP looks to be taking proactive measures of ensuring long term health rather than reactive measures (like in 2010) that might be alot worse


RE: The spiral continues...
By Moishe on 2/20/2009 4:57:23 PM , Rating: 5
My company chose to have a pay freeze this year.
Sucks... But I have to ask myself. Do I want my job at my old pay or take the chance that a pay raise for everyone might mean my job?

In this economic climate I'd rather have a job without a raise than no job. As workers we have to be willing to tighten our belt along with everyone else.

How dare we expect companies to accept less income when we ourselves are not willing to accept less? I'd gladly accept a pay cut and keep my job at this point because asking for a reasonable raise when the economy gets going again is a heck of a lot easier than trying to find a decent paying job.


RE: The spiral continues...
By Oregonian2 on 2/20/2009 6:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
Good thoughts. My (former) company of a zillion years decided to cut my (and pretty much all others at the same location) job.


lesser of two evils
By rodrigu3 on 2/20/2009 3:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
Would the union rather have layoffs later or pay cuts now? A major reason car companies in the US have tanked is because they bent over for the unions and played catcher for a while on a range of issues from salary to health benefits. I don't see how it makes sense for a factory line worker to receive more pay and better health benefits than an engineer or other trained professionals. HP is making a smart move to ensure sustainability. I'm all for organized cr... I mean unions, but they have just gained too much power (including political) and don't always have their members' long term interests in mind.




RE: lesser of two evils
By arazok on 2/20/2009 3:56:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't see how it makes sense for a factory line worker to receive more pay and better health benefits than an engineer or other trained professionals.


I don’t see why an engineer or other professional needs a union. Skilled labor is always in demand, especially in the IT field. If a pay cut makes your salary uncompetitive, go somewhere else. It’s not like you’ll have any difficulty finding a job.

Unions make sense for a factory worker because these people are a dime a dozen, and it’s their only hope to ever get ahead in life (well, they could learn marketable skills, but that would require effort and sacrifice). Why would an IT worker want a union?


RE: lesser of two evils
By rodrigu3 on 2/20/2009 4:22:31 PM , Rating: 5
Did you even read my post? I never said anything about engineers forming unions. In fact, it is illegal for engineers, doctors, and other essential services to unionize. My point is that unions have forced these companies to give factory line workers compensation that not even skilled, trained professionals such as engineers receive. Unions artificially inflated the wages and benefits of these workers to unsustainable levels.

I don't mind that these people organize themselves, but I do mind that unions have overstepped their bounds. Instead of helping their members, they have just blindly pushed for unsustainable compensation, for which their members are now suffering the consequences of such irresponsible greed.


RE: lesser of two evils
By sinful on 2/21/2009 8:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead of helping their members, they have just blindly pushed for unsustainable compensation, for which their members are now suffering the consequences of such irresponsible greed.


Of course, if you compare the compensation of the average worker vs. the compensation of the average CEO, you see the greed is on the part of the CEO's, not the worker.

In 1965, CEO's made 24x that of the average worker. Today, it stands at 262x that of the average worker.

In other words, while your average employee's wages have risen slowly (even accounting for Unions!!!), your average CEO's wages have SKYROCKETED.

It seems pretty obvious the irresponsible greed is on the part of CEO's, not the guy cleaning the toliets...


RE: lesser of two evils
By Moishe on 2/20/2009 5:02:15 PM , Rating: 3
You are right.
They're looking out for the short term gain and not trying to be responsible and make sure that the company lives a long healthy life. Unions have a symbiotic relationship with companies. Companies don't need unions, unions need companies and they should be working to ensure that the workers have a voice but also to ensure that the company that pays ALL the bills can stay in business.

This means taking raises when things are great and taking cuts when things are bad. It seems to me like unions only want to adjust upward and never downward.


Honest question....
By Smartless on 2/20/2009 1:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
How do you cut someone's pay with their agreement? Hey take in pay or you're fired?




RE: Honest question....
By Smartless on 2/20/2009 1:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
Oops forgot the word "cut".


RE: Honest question....
By rodrigu3 on 2/20/2009 3:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
If that person works for you - you can adjust that salary as you wish. If they don't like it, they can quit.


RE: Honest question....
By Aloonatic on 2/20/2009 4:54:30 PM , Rating: 4
It depends on their contract. We have quite a lot more employment rights over here (UK) it seems, but not as many as our Euro cousins on the continent. You could try to make them change it but if there are unions involved....

There is a cultural difference in the way that wage disputes are handled on each side of the pond. Wage flexibility isn't something that is traditionally found over here in the UK but there has been an increasing number of cases of it happening during this latest recession. States side, apparently, it is much more common for workers to take a pay cut. If you'd have mentioned this sort of thing happening in factories or anywhere else for that matter in the UK 10 or so years ago they would have looked at you as if you had 2 heads.

The main difference this time around seems to be the high levels of personal debt that a lot of people are carrying, which has meant that their hands have been tied. It seems that many in the UK have become slaves to debt just as people have been in the USA for a long time, hence the change in behaviour. Our continental friends don't have anywhere near the same levels of personal debt, so can afford to strike and refuse to take cuts etc.

Interesting "fact" of the day, around 50% of the credit card debt for the entire EU comes from the UK.


Recession, what recession?
By Beenthere on 2/20/2009 3:10:52 PM , Rating: 5
It's almost funny that the walls are crumbling world wide yet many people are completely oblivious to it all.

Many with jobs don't understand the fuss. They haven't notice the U.S. is losing 600,000 jobs every month, month after month. They haven't noticed that European and U.S. banks have needed government cash infusions to stay solvent. They haven't noticed the massive job losses in Asia. None of the economic crisis seems to matter until someone loses their job and then the light bulb goes on.




RE: Recession, what recession?
By Moishe on 2/20/2009 5:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno why you're being rated down... you're right.


HP is doing the sensible thing
By lemonadesoda on 2/20/2009 5:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
It takes a tough decision to make reductions when a company is faced with a shrinking economy:

1./ Cut wages, or
2./ Make redundancies

I'm sure HP is looking at all the options. One option is for the Unions to offer a "subscription" holiday. No fees during this time when the economic pressure is on. Did they offer such a concession? No.

Another is to lobby the govt. to reduce social security or income taxes so that a small reduction in salary doesnt affect take-home pay. Has the govt. done this? No. It would rather throw good money after bad to prop up failed companies and banks.

Another is to link salary to an index of common spend: Oh interest rates are down, property prices are down, fuel prices are down, and stores are on sale. You dont actually need as much money to have the same lifestyle as you did 2 years ago.

There are very few people out there who have a financial 2009 that is looking as secure as a job at HP. All those small businesses, freelancers, and employees of bankrupt companies... I bet every one of those people would swap their job-at-risk for one at HP on a lower (but still above industry average) salary.

Good luck to HP piloting through the politically loaded debate.

I commend them in taking action now rather than waiting until they suffer a loss, damage their credit rating, and face risk of insolvency and then asking for bailouts.




RE: HP is doing the sensible thing
By IMHO on 2/21/2009 3:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
In my experience (as HP employee), it'll be

1./ Cut wages and
2./ Make redundancies anyway

We've seen that in the year 2001 or so as well. Fool me once...


RE: HP is doing the sensible thing
By Ray 69 on 2/21/2009 7:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
It's true that a company that goes through pay cuts may end up laying off workers anyway a few months later. What is often overlooked in such situations, however, is that more people would probably lose their jobs if there wasn't a pay cut vs. if they had taken a pay cut. Of course this is of no comfort to those that end up losing their jobs anyway.


Wow
By yomamafor1 on 2/20/2009 2:24:23 PM , Rating: 3
Union idiocy at its finest. Can I say that I'm also "astonished" by the fact that United is astonished by HP's plan to cut salary?

HP merely escaped losing money in Q4, does that mean it will escape the same fate in Q1? What about Q2? As far as the economy data show, the market is still declining. HP may well lose several millions of dollars this quarter, and their executives are definitely not dumb enough to start cutting after the loss.




RE: Wow
By Pneumothorax on 2/20/2009 2:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and their executives are definitely not dumb enough to start cutting after the loss.


Yeah tell that to California's legislators. If they were running HP they would keep all the workers, double the prices of their products while providing less accessories.

BTW that HP girl is HAWT.


Pay cut does NOT equal keeping job
By Tewt on 2/20/2009 3:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
I love all the comments that "I'd rather take a pay cut now than lose my job". There is no guarantee we get to keep our jobs. The email I received said as much. I have no guarantee I will have my job a week from now, two weeks from now, etc. The printing group is getting carved as we speak DESPITE the cuts. When they hand me a paper saying I get to keep my job x months longer or x years for x% pay cut then you guys have an argument. Also, HP stock still took a hit even with the news of the cuts. Given that, they are not done with cuts to pay or people. I do not get to relax because I took a pay cut. Get a clue!




By Moishe on 2/20/2009 5:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, BUT you will never get a guarantee and we can generally tell what kind of company we work for.

The two extremes are: Workers get all the power and Companies get all the power. Companies shouldn't be able to turn workers into slaves, but to the same extent workers have to realize that in a downturn *something* has to give. That something will come in the form of the company going under(everyone loses), employee layoffs, or employee pay cuts/freezes. By not giving 1500+ employees raises for 2009 the company I work for saves millions. Those millions will cover a lot and will prevent layoffs. After a company has cut off the "fat" the only cuts left are "meat", and that is generally a bad thing.

I KNOW I'm a "meat" employee because I have consistently high marks, ten years employed here, and a huge backlog of work. No guarantee that I will have a job, but I can be pretty sure that the pay freeze will help keep the buffer between the blade and me as wide now as it was last year.

I like that.


poor HP girl
By kattanna on 2/20/2009 3:04:30 PM , Rating: 3
well... if they are gonna cut the pay of that poor HP girl and she needs to make it up with some extra work.. DT is welcome to give her my contact info!




HP girl
By hackedtwice on 2/20/2009 4:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
Off subject, but I love when you guys post pics of that HP girl.




One Step Forward and Two Back
By tech329 on 2/20/2009 8:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
The government is going deep in debt trying to stimulate the economy and businesses are enacting across the board paycuts. You can't have a robust economy when you keep removing dollars from the pockets of the vast majority of citizens. This is stupid. The shift of wealth is one of the underlying reasons we are in trouble to begin with. There is a direct relationship between wealth distribution and the strength of our economy. It's also nonsense listening to some complain about people overextending themselves on their credit cards without examining the underlying reason for it. Again, it is stupid to cut incomes for the majority working class while simultaneously bombarding them with daily mailings of credit card offerings. The entire scheme of how this works is beyond absurd. Only a dumbass isn't able to see what the outcome will be.




Unite = Useless
By jabber on 2/22/2009 8:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
I was a member of Unite for several years including the other unions it swallowed up.

Total waste of money. All that union does is take the money and allow the union bosses to have lavish homes and lifestyles.

Use your money elsewhere.




Bonuses
By wallijonn on 2/24/2009 1:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
It's time to do away with bonuses, especially bonuses which are staggered over many years.

I believe that about a dozen years ago when the IBM CEO was hired he was given a $5 million dollar signing bonus. How many IBM employees were laid off? $5 million dollars worth.

When CBS had their World Series only go to 4 games, over a dozen years ago, they said that they had "lost" $110 million dollars (because had the games gone to 7 they would have realised "another" $110 million dollars.) How many CBS employees were laid off? $110 million dollars worth.

But I bet you that the execs still got their bonuses.

America has given bail outs to many big banks and corporations. And still the execs get their bonuses... A corporation has failed and the top exec still gets compensated?

Enron execs prevented their employees from cashing in their Enron stocks, but the execs sold them off and got their bonuses. All the employees were laid off...

If a bonus is given then the taxes should be paid in one lump sum. The bonus should not be staggered over many years just to reduce taxes.

imo.




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
HP's Profit Drops 13%, Cuts 2009 Forecast
February 19, 2009, 8:31 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki