EA fires over 60 staff!

[Werner]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:

> Most of these "suits" are actually brighter than you and me. In
> fact, most politicans are. Why do you think they get those jobs?
> Because they are pretty?
>
Some of them, not most of them....
Many of them are social inept and got their jobs
because they could crawl asses at the right time, sorry
to say that but it is so.

 

[KAOS]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:40:37 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> dared speak in front of ME:

>Thusly "Adam Russell" <adamrussell@sbcglobalREMOVETHIS.net> Spake Unto
>All:
>
>>> loyalty in the business, and hence the quality of the products: What
>>> is the point in making an effort to produce quality when you will be
>>> fired after the project completes anyway?
>>
>>An honorable man would do the best job he can.
>
>And get fired every 18 months.

Which is going to happen anyway. And when you're applying for the
next job, having a good record in the HR department of your former
employer sure beats having a shitty record.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

 

[KAOS]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:46:31 +0100, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> dared speak in front of ME:

>Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>> And get fired every 18 months.
>>
>>Those were layoffs and not firings AFK.
>
>I'm sure those affected appreciate the distinction.

Since it's much easier to get unemployment benefits after a layoff
than after a firing, the distinction is meaningful.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

 

[KAOS]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:27:59 -0700, James Garvin
<jgarvin2004@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>shadows wrote:
>> Most of these "suits" are actually brighter than you and me. In
>> fact, most politicans are. Why do you think they get those jobs?
>> Because they are pretty?
>
>I doubt it. Most of the suits are clueless power hungry dweebs. Most of
>the suits try to act smart, but actually have very little clue how to do
>much (other than look like they know what they are doing).
>
>Politicians aren't smart either. Look at some of the stupid laws that
>have been passed or bills that are being reviewed. Take a look at the
>DMCA. Not smart.
>
>They get the jobs because they want money and power (and most are
>charismatic...if not pretty)...not because they are smart.

They do, however, have specific skill requirements. My father was a
suit, and I got to spend a few days watching him work. Most of his
job involved figuring out what work needed to be done and correcting
the inevitable errors made by others.

While I'd say he, at least, was of above average intelligence, most of
his peers in management were pretty average with a few morons thrown
in for good measurement.
--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

 

[KAOS]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:30:06 GMT, shadows <shadows@whitefang.com>
dared speak in front of ME:

>On 2005-01-30, Bryan J. Maloney <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote:
>
>> Employees owe management NO LOYALTY AT ALL. Any employee who thinks that
>> he owes management the tiniest bit of loyalty beyond "due diligence" is
>> just a moronic chump. Management is quite happy to turn on the employees
>> at the drop of a hat. Employees owe management the same loyalty that
>> management gives them.
>
>People who stay with one company and work hard tend to move up
>after a few years when the company grows.

When that's true, management is displaying loyalty to their employees.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-05, Kaos <kaos@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:30:06 GMT, shadows <shadows@whitefang.com>
> dared speak in front of ME:
>
>>On 2005-01-30, Bryan J. Maloney <cavaggione@comcast.ten> wrote:
>>
>>> Employees owe management NO LOYALTY AT ALL. Any employee who thinks that
>>> he owes management the tiniest bit of loyalty beyond "due diligence" is
>>> just a moronic chump. Management is quite happy to turn on the employees
>>> at the drop of a hat. Employees owe management the same loyalty that
>>> management gives them.
>>
>>People who stay with one company and work hard tend to move up
>>after a few years when the company grows.
>
> When that's true, management is displaying loyalty to their employees.

It's not about loyalty at all.

I've seen new hires show up and work 8 - 5 and really try to just
do the work and nothing more. I've seen new hires stay late, ask
the right questions, and work with the team. The latter does
better than the former when promotions are handed out.

It has _nothing_ to do with loyalty and everything to do with
good HR knowing the quality of its employees.

It's far better to promote within when the person displays enough
professionalism and ability than it is to interview twenty
candidates and one of them works out.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <ed6901p1350kj9psds2vjggtki78esc8ga@4ax.com>,
Kaos <kaos@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Politicians aren't smart either. Look at some of the stupid laws that
>>have been passed or bills that are being reviewed. Take a look at the
>>DMCA. Not smart.

I've seen some pretty stupid designs created by professional highly-paid
engineers. Who, frankly, have a lot less excuse for ignorance because
they're working inside a limited domain in which they are paid to be
experts.

Politicians, by contrast, are required to address problems that cover the
whole gamut of human experience, from military affairs to high finance to
product safety to technology to social affairs. *Nobody* can be an expert
in all of those things at the same time, and a lot of stupid laws get
passed as a result. But often it isn't because politicians are stupid --
it's because they're ignorant of the specific area being legislated and
they don't have time to learn it in details because there's a thousand
other urgent issues clamoring for their very limited attention.

(Sometimes, of course, they really are stupid. I've got a short list
of politicians I'm convinced are truly stupid, not just spread too thin.
I expect other people do too. I won't list mine here, though.)

>>They get the jobs because they want money and power (and most are
>>charismatic...if not pretty)...not because they are smart.

And then there are men like former Senator Phil Gramm (to pick a random
example). *Not* charismatic, but he did have a Ph.D in economics. Not
stupid at all. Another good example from the other side of the aisle
would be the late former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

>While I'd say he, at least, was of above average intelligence, most of
>his peers in management were pretty average with a few morons thrown
>in for good measurement.

At one point the general manager of the business unit I work in was Andy
Bechtolsheim, formerly (and now again) of Sun Microsystems. He was a
freaking genius, and I mean that literally. His mind worked on at least
two, perhaps three simultaneous tracks. Whenever you talked to him it
was obvious that he was also thinking about something else at the same
time, but the partial chunk of his attention he was dedicating to you
was *still* smarter than you were. Nice guy, too, even though he was
by a wide margin the richest person I've ever talked to face-to-face.

--
Kyle Haight

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <slrnd09k8t.dni.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:
>
>It's far better to promote within when the person displays enough
>professionalism and ability than it is to interview twenty
>candidates and one of them works out.

Absolutely. If nothing else, people already within the group have a
wealth of specific knowledge that invariably takes time for an external
hire to pick up. They're a known quantity. There's value in that.

At the same time, there's also value in bringing in people from outside
the group to shake things up and provide new energy and perspective.
Balancing these factors is not easy. When management and individual
contributors have an adversarial relationship it's pretty much impossible.

(Management that doesn't trust employees is a big red danger flag, IMHO.
The first 'real' job I had out of college, when I got hired they gave me
the key to the building. I was a little surprised at this, seeing as they
barely knew me. When I asked about it, they said "If we didn't trust you,
we wouldn't have hired you." And, conversely, if I didn't trust them
I shouldn't be working there. Management and regular employees are,
in the last analysis, on the same side.)

--
Kyle Haight

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Kaos wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:27:59 -0700, James Garvin
> <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> dared speak in front of ME:
>
>
>>shadows wrote:
>>
>>>Most of these "suits" are actually brighter than you and me. In
>>>fact, most politicans are. Why do you think they get those jobs?
>>>Because they are pretty?
>>
>>I doubt it. Most of the suits are clueless power hungry dweebs. Most of
>>the suits try to act smart, but actually have very little clue how to do
>>much (other than look like they know what they are doing).
>>
>>Politicians aren't smart either. Look at some of the stupid laws that
>>have been passed or bills that are being reviewed. Take a look at the
>>DMCA. Not smart.
>>
>>They get the jobs because they want money and power (and most are
>>charismatic...if not pretty)...not because they are smart.
>
>
> They do, however, have specific skill requirements. My father was a
> suit, and I got to spend a few days watching him work. Most of his
> job involved figuring out what work needed to be done and correcting
> the inevitable errors made by others.
> While I'd say he, at least, was of above average intelligence, most of
> his peers in management were pretty average with a few morons thrown
> in for good measurement.

I agree here that I am over generalizing. However, those moron suits
seem to be the norm and your father seems to be the exception anymore.
When I first started in the corporate world, generally middle and upper
management was pretty equal as far as the stupid to moron ratio.

It seems ever since the .com boom (more towards the end of it) that the
morons rose to the top, while the smart ones stagnated or disappeared.
Maybe it is just around corporations I contracted or worked for.
Perhaps it is just some lag from the .com erra. I don't know. But it
sure does seem like the smart folks aren't moving up (staying in middle
worker/middle management or lower executive positions), but the dumb one
sure are. It seems like the Peter Principle is turning into a law. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:54:09 -0700, James Garvin wrote:

> Office Space does a great job of portraying typical corporate America.

LOL sad thing is that where I work no one would either a) notice I filet
fish at my desk or b) care.
--
RJB
2/7/2005 1:36:05 PM

Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then
I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and all of
their hopes and dreams. If I didn't drink this beer, they might be out of
work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to myself, 'It is
better that I drink this beer and let their dreams come true than to be
selfish and worry about my liver.'
--Jack Handey Deep Thoughts

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> abagooba zoink larblortch news:-
OOdnTCCmKN6B5rfRVn-1Q@comcast.com:

> You make the assumption that HR isn't a bureaucratic mess.

I have worked in places where HR was an all-powerful satrapy. Nobody could
even THINK of EVER even LOOKING at a resume until HR had reviewed the
resume and conducted a preliminary interview, THEN interviewed all
references, in detail, THEN re-interviewed the applicant for the specific
job. Then and only then, could an actual interview be done. HR did NOT
release any results of their interviews or reference checking to the actual
people making the hiring decisin. Woe betide anyone who did not follow all
of HR's petty little laws. It was a one-way ticket to a blacklisting. It
took forever to hire anyone, and shorthandedness was common, but HR was
also in charge of evaluating HR performance.

I have worked at other places where HR simply collected applications and
resumes, did a quick credential check, employment history check (to the
order of "did this person work here betwee these dates?", no more), and
pass it on to the actual departments that were COMPETENT to make hiring
decisions for particular positions. Things function much better there.