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 : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: threadneedler who wrote (29314)	3/12/1999 10:19:00 PM
From: Mark L.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

I apologize for taking so long to respond to your post, but I've been very busy. As for the expense drag of 700+ employees. I don't quite understand that point. If all the current employees remain, that means that they're necessary to the continued operation of the company and would only be justified if the work was there for them to perform. Of course, you are correct. Theoretically. In the real world I don't think it's so cut and dried. Let's say you're John Jenkins in early 2000. Your company has posted record profits, and the balance sheet finally looks great. And, as for those employees who got you to this enviable position, who worked Thanksgiving without complaining, who turned down other jobs because you told them how much you needed them--you plan on rewarding these people...by firing them??? I don't think companies often have massive layoffs unless the need is irrefutable. Irrefutable evidence is usually at least a couple of horrible quarters and a plunging stock price. No, I think Jenkins will try like hell to find all the revenue he possibly can to keep these hard-working employees busy. He may even be successful. But, despite the best of intentions, I think the odds are against him--at least in 2000.