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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shadowman who wrote (55836)	1/1/2003 12:18:54 PM
From: Rande Is	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

We knew there would be a flood of layoffs just before Christmas. And with that are a sea of stories. Those CEO salaries are extreme. I mean if they owned the company it would be one thing, but those CEOs are employees just like the guy that strings the wire. But the days where big business truly cared for each of their employees went along with the steam engine. When I had a commercial enterprise in California, I used to enjoy writing checks to my employees. I often thanked them for their work. In fact, they would keep track of their own hours and I would pay whatever they claimed (within reason). . . which set up a sort of honor system. I especially enjoyed the look on their faces when I gave them a bonus. In a small company there can be "relationship" between employer and employee. And the only employee I ever stiff'd for a payment was myself. As a company grows, they get a Human Resources Dept., whose job it is to "act" interested in the employee. From there the employer is further and further distanced from their employees. So when it comes to super big business, they need their bottom line to show a certain amount and know that they will need to cut so many jobs to reach that number. Send out the pink slips. The corporate entity is all that is important at that point. I don't have an answer as to how to fix this situation. Except that the company that treats their employees well, will likely keep the most talented ones, rather than lose them to the highest bidder. And that can be critically important. A talented key employee is worth their weight in gold, and can be extremely costly to replace. . .even requiring 2 or more appointments to fully replace. Nobody measures the effects to the bottom line caused by the loss of an employee or a group of employees and time and resources spent trying to regain lost productivity. The larger corporation wants the employees to believe they are always expendable. To the contrary, if the employer were being truly honest they would admit that certain key employees are vital or even critical to the performance of a company. And the loss of such a key figure can be devastating to a bottom line. But this is a very unpopular topic among HR departments and executives. Instead it becomes a game of "chicken" with the employer bluffing that the employee is expendable . . .and the employee uncertain as to his importance within the company. Geesh! Does everything have an angle? Rande Is