Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maui_dude who wrote (144554)	10/2/2001 3:04:35 AM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

"Re : "An employee who is unessential enough to take time off without pay is an employee who probably shouldn't have a job when he tries to come back." "why ? Haven't you seen any smart people with family and life outside work, who want to scale back to spend time with their family and yet smart enough to contribute when working ?" "you seem to be a very black or white thinker. " I call them as I see them. What a person "wants" to do is of little relevance in a hard-driven business. A designer who wants to "spend more time with his family" or a fab engineer who leaves his department in the lurch because "he wants to find himself" is less likely to have a job than someone who has worked through the crisis. Employment is more often than not for a specific job, a specific group. An employee whose job is not important enough for his manager to ask that he _not_ take time off (to explore Africa, to write poetry, to windsurf) is thus not essential to the group. In a system where employees are being let go, which is the situation we're talking about here (disc. is of layoffs), the calculus is obvious. Also, employees who leave for a while are much less prepared to cope with rigorous work schedules and the b.s. of modern corporate life. This is one of the reasons most chicks who leave to have babies return, when they do, to find themselves way behind their former peer group. Most such chicks just bag it after a year or two. (Sure, the busybodies pressure Congress to make laws forcing corporations to give the chicks back their old jobs, but Congress can't change reality. And like laws requiring corporations to hire quotas of black people, the laws ultimately boomerang.) --Tim May