EA fires over 60 staff!

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

"Vax" <vaxdogt567spam@msn.com> writes:

> EA fires over 60 staff!
>
> http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3137918
>
> http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/ [...] 17158.html

It's really not that unusual. But all these firings, re-hirings and
split-offs into new, small dev houses must be ruining any company
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?

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

"Adam Russell" <adamrussell@sbcglobalREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in
news:35va2kF4rsvscU1@individual.net:

<snip>
>>
>> It's really not that unusual. But all these firings,
>> re-hirings and split-offs into new, small dev houses must be
>> ruining any company 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.
>
>

That means, if you are approximately as honorable as an EA suit,
you'd do... what? ;-)

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

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.



--
Everything is gone;
Your life's work has been destroyed.
Squeeze trigger (yes/no)?

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

On 2005-01-28, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

Those were layoffs and not firings AFK. Also why is it any of
your business what EA does internally? Maybe they had less
projects scheduled this year and needed to trim the fat.

It's very reasonable for a company to lay off workers. No one
owes you work. You upgrade your skills and start looking
again. You can also start your own business if you think being a
"suit" is easy. Give it a try sometime.

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

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.

>Also why is it any of
>your business what EA does internally? Maybe they had less
>projects scheduled this year and needed to trim the fat.
>
>It's very reasonable for a company to lay off workers. No one
>owes you work. You upgrade your skills and start looking
>again.

That's true. This is also true: it's very reasonable for employees not
to feel they owe loyalty to management who feel they owe the employees
nothing.

>You can also start your own business if you think being a
>"suit" is easy.

No I could not possibly stand the rigors of accounting and filing. I
don't mind the high salaries cops, ER staff, and suits have - they do
unpleasant jobs I certainly wouldn't want to do.

Hmm. Well, something like that anyway.

One thing very few companies realize is that management does not
generate revenue, what management generates is more management.

Also: a suit != self employed.

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

Mean_Chlorine wrote:
> 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.

Everyday you take pay and dont do the job you promised to do is a
fraud.

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

shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> abagooba zoink larblortch
news:slrncvo1l5.2hmo.shadows@helena.whitefang.com:

> They owe the employee what was signed in a contract. Anything
> else is gratuity.

Then employees owe management what was signed in the contract and no more,
as well. "Loyalty" beyond the terms of the contract is not owed.


> An employee doesn't "generate" revenue. Products and services
> do.

Managers do not generate products and services.

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

>That's true. This is also true: it's very reasonable for employees not
>to feel they owe loyalty to management who feel they owe the employees
>nothing.

In today's market, employees really ought to being looking out
for themselves. The 50's era of "company men" is long since gone.

You'd be surprised at how easy it is to negotiate a golden parachute
these days, for example. Few people ever ask, but on paper it is a
non-expense to the company -- easy to grant. You have to have some
valuable skills they want, of course.

>No I could not possibly stand the rigors of accounting and filing. I
>don't mind the high salaries cops, ER staff, and suits have - they do
>unpleasant jobs I certainly wouldn't want to do.

In many companies, the purpose of what you think of as "management"
is to provide a bit of what I'd call "adult supervision."

C//

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

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.

Then you'll never get a promotion or a decent bonus and when
layoffs come you're the fat they trim.

People who stay with one company and work hard tend to move up
after a few years when the company grows.

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

On 2005-01-30, James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:

> HR, management, etc, etc also don't generate revenue..hell, I guess we
> don't even need employees at all...we just need to ship product!

I've been working in telecommunication most of my career. I've
done everything from Internet to Wireless. I was always a "loss"
to my company because I never "generated revenue." I'm pure
overhead. I haven't been "layed off" yet though because my role
ir a necessary loss.

> HAHAHAHHAHA...they are all anit-social nuts. Most of the suits don't
> have a clue as to what is going on and how to streamline the
> corporation. Nor do the suits take the employee suggestions seriously.
> The big problem is the overhead. Fire HR, fire the suits, and let the
> stakeholders drive the company directly rather than by an incompetent proxy.

How old are you? 12?

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?

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

Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:

>People who stay with one company and work hard tend to move up
>after a few years when the company grows.

Again, possibly in small companies.
In larger companies, however, you don't work your way up the ladder
more than at most a rung or two.


--
"The 9/11 crisis has been used as a license to spend and cut taxes rather than to
set priorities and focus our resources on what is critically important to our
nation's security"
- Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, quoted by NYT, 2/12 -04.

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

"James Garvin" <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1_ednRpWRKpf_2HcRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> shadows wrote:
>
> > I sure hope they do. A layoff means if your job becomes available
> > again you get a chance to go back.
>
> This sounds like HR drone speak...

It's the law in Canada, actually. The only way you can get around it is if
you "buy them out" regardless of whether they had an actual contract.

The "HR drone speak", from what I've heard, is not that they have to re-hire
you if a position that you are qualified for opens up, but that there's a
lot of ways to make the same job sound different enough to not hire you
back.

The flip-side to this is that, at least in Canada, out-and-out firing
someone is exceedingly difficult to do. Hence a lot of lay-offs that are
basically "We don't like you".

> > Now a days we have big corporations with share holders and
> > executive who make the decisions. The executives are required by
> > their job function to make decisions which profit the share
> > holders even if they don't like the decision. You'll find a lot
> > of these "suits" are nice people with hard decisions to make
> > everyday that can break or make their career.
>
> HAHAHAHHAHA...they are all anit-social nuts.

The suits I personally work for are not only quite social (I talked to the
head of my country's operations at our Christmas party) many of them really
do take the interests of the employees into account when making business
decisions.

> Most of the suits don't
> have a clue as to what is going on and how to streamline the
> corporation.

Um, usually the problem in those cases is that the "suits" aren't
"on-the-ground" and so don't know precisely what impact certain decisions
will have at the lowest level, but considering where they are that's
difficult for them to do. So they rely on the layers of management below
them to make the right decisions and give them the right information. But
that many chains of self-interest will inevitably lead to incorrect
information -- and the chain starts at the employees.

> Nor do the suits take the employee suggestions seriously.

Sometimes they can't, or the employees don't know the big picture.

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

who cares ???

"Vax" <vaxdogt567spam@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:CadKd.190462$8l.26495@pd7tw1no...
> EA fires over 60 staff!
>
> http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3137918
>
> http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/ [...] 17158.html
>
>

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

shadows wrote:

> Then you'll never get a promotion or a decent bonus and when
> layoffs come you're the fat they trim.

Layoffs have very little to due with work performance and more about how
many dollars you take up...they can hire 1 kid right out of college and
pay him $35k, but your pay is double that...Bye bye...

> People who stay with one company and work hard tend to move up
> after a few years when the company grows.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...are you stuck in the 50's?

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

>>People who stay with one company and work hard tend to move up
>>after a few years when the company grows.

And also in the event of turnover, which can be regular and
ongoing during even steady-state operational size.

>In larger companies, however, you don't work your way up the ladder
>more than at most a rung or two.

It would then stand to reason next that all the upper
ladder folks are recruited mostly from small companies.

C//

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

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:

> It's the law in Canada, actually. The only way you can get around it is if
> you "buy them out" regardless of whether they had an actual contract.

Interesting...I don't think anything like that exists in the US...

> The "HR drone speak", from what I've heard, is not that they have to re-hire
> you if a position that you are qualified for opens up, but that there's a
> lot of ways to make the same job sound different enough to not hire you
> back.

Which is why I said that...This is usually what happens (IMHO).

> The suits I personally work for are not only quite social (I talked
to the
> head of my country's operations at our Christmas party) many of them really
> do take the interests of the employees into account when making business
> decisions.

I've found that the try to be social, but end up coming off like
politicians (fake). Why do I feel like Holden Caulfield now?

> Um, usually the problem in those cases is that the "suits" aren't
> "on-the-ground" and so don't know precisely what impact certain decisions
> will have at the lowest level, but considering where they are that's
> difficult for them to do. So they rely on the layers of management below
> them to make the right decisions and give them the right information. But
> that many chains of self-interest will inevitably lead to incorrect
> information -- and the chain starts at the employees.

Agreed...however there are usually direct to exec lines for
employees...these don't usually work either. The problem is either the
employee doesn't speak up (for whatever reason) or does the their
manager squelches or "modifies" the idea...

> Sometimes they can't, or the employees don't know the big picture.

Granted, but the employees see a snapshot that can be quite valuable
data and save the company money in the long run. However, long run
thinking isn't what most companies do...

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

Allan C Cybulskie wrote:

> "James Garvin" <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:H7qdnaDvBqzJ3mDcRVn-2A@comcast.com...
>
>>shadows wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Then you'll never get a promotion or a decent bonus and when
>>>layoffs come you're the fat they trim.
>>
>>Layoffs have very little to due with work performance and more about how
>>many dollars you take up...they can hire 1 kid right out of college and
>>pay him $35k, but your pay is double that...Bye bye...
>
>
> If a kid straight out of college can do the job that you do, then you
> deserve to go "bye bye". Generally, people who have been at a company
> longer and who have shown that they can do the work are considered more
> valuable than someone who knows nothing about the products of the company
> and who have yet to prove their work ethic.

Generally they can't. However dollars speak...look at the mess the IT
field is in now because of this thinking...

> Layoffs are ALL about cost/benefit analysis. Bring enough benefit to
> justify your cost, and you don't get laid off (generally).

Not true as the the recent (00-02) cullings...they were pretty willy
nilly...

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

shadows wrote:
> On 2005-01-30, James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>HR, management, etc, etc also don't generate revenue..hell, I guess we
>>don't even need employees at all...we just need to ship product!
>
>
> I've been working in telecommunication most of my career. I've
> done everything from Internet to Wireless. I was always a "loss"
> to my company because I never "generated revenue." I'm pure
> overhead. I haven't been "layed off" yet though because my role
> ir a necessary loss.
>
>
>>HAHAHAHHAHA...they are all anit-social nuts. Most of the suits don't
>>have a clue as to what is going on and how to streamline the
>>corporation. Nor do the suits take the employee suggestions seriously.
>> The big problem is the overhead. Fire HR, fire the suits, and let the
>>stakeholders drive the company directly rather than by an incompetent proxy.
>
>
> How old are you? 12?
>
> 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?
>
Because of ambition, cunning and charisma. This may overlap with
"bright" somewhat, but doesn't mean they actually know the best
problem solutions. In fact, it may mean they don't know anything
except the mechanisms of power acquisition.

Werner

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

On 2005-01-31, James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:

> 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).

You should outsmart them then if they are so clueless but I bet
you'll find you can't.

> 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're in office and you aren't.

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

Charisma is a skill. You need to get along with people in order
to have them treat you better. It's being smart about things.

I've noticed good managers will always smile when you look at
them. It's a skill they learnt to appear happy, impressive, and
friendly at all times.

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

shadows wrote:

> On 2005-01-30, James Garvin <jgarvin2004@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>shadows wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Then you'll never get a promotion or a decent bonus and when
>>>layoffs come you're the fat they trim.
>>
>>Layoffs have very little to due with work performance and more about how
>>many dollars you take up...they can hire 1 kid right out of college and
>>pay him $35k, but your pay is double that...Bye bye...
>>
>>
>>>People who stay with one company and work hard tend to move up
>>>after a few years when the company grows.
>>
>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...are you stuck in the 50's?
>
>
> Nope. I've had it happen to me twice and I worked for small and
> large companies. The longer you're there the more impact you have
> and the more exposure you get to decision makers who eventually
> bring you on board.

I'be never experienced that in large companies. Small companies are
limber and smart enough to talk to the man on the ground, but large
companies usually "know what is best for the employee, even if it means
pissing away millions on a project we plan on dumping anyway."

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

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:56:36 GMT, shadows wrote:

> On 2005-01-29, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I sure hope they do. A layoff means if your job becomes available
> again you get a chance to go back.
Bullshit. That may wash in a Utopian world but in real life it never
happens. Please alert me when the headline reads IBM re-hires 6000 laid off
workers.

>
>> That's true. This is also true: it's very reasonable for employees not
>> to feel they owe loyalty to management who feel they owe the employees
>> nothing.
>
> They owe the employee what was signed in a contract. Anything
> else is gratuity. Understanding this allows you to negotiate for
> more instead of driving down the demand for your skills by asking
> for less money and then getting all mad when your employment is
> terminated and your boss gets a bonus.
And if you have no contract? And if you work in a "Right to Work" state so
you can't *get* a contract? And if you work in a very narrow, highly
competitive field where it doesn't matter how good you are only whether you
"fit the budget"?

>> No I could not possibly stand the rigors of accounting and filing. I
>> don't mind the high salaries cops, ER staff, and suits have - they do
>> unpleasant jobs I certainly wouldn't want to do.
>
> You can hire an accountant and terminate their employment when
> feel they are not necessary.
So would you layoff the accountant? To be re-hired? Would you re-hire
him/her?

>> One thing very few companies realize is that management does not
>> generate revenue, what management generates is more management.
>
> An employee doesn't "generate" revenue. Products and services
> do. Next time you're at a library pick up some HR books on
> corporate structuring. You'll find its a very big and interesting
> topic.
But *someone* has to generate a product. They just don't "pop" into
existence.

>> Also: a suit != self employed.
>
> Now a days we have big corporations with share holders and
> executive who make the decisions. The executives are required by
> their job function to make decisions which profit the share
> holders even if they don't like the decision. You'll find a lot
> of these "suits" are nice people with hard decisions to make
> everyday that can break or make their career.
Well how bout they "lay" themselves off once. Kenneth Lay, Bernie Ebbers,
John Rigas, Sam Waksal, and (should I go on)? These guys sure liked their
decisions. Screwed a whole lot of shareholders (not to mention employees,
right?). Whether they're "nice" or not depends on where your retirement
investments lay now don't they?

> Be happy. Most of us work for a handful of companies and just
> retire in the end.
Some of us have worked for too many companies and can't afford to retire
in the end cause those "suits" you love so much liquidated our retirement
holdings.

--
RJB
1/31/2005 1:51:15 PM

A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.
--Dan Quayle

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

shadows wrote:

>>Bullshit. That may wash in a Utopian world but in real life it never
>>happens. Please alert me when the headline reads IBM re-hires 6000 laid off
>>workers.
> Google for the headlines. Companies like Cisco and Nortel did
> this when they started to hire people back. You don't remember
> because *those* stories are never sensationalized. The only
> stories you see are the ones you want to see. You want executives
> and corporations to be evil because you seem to have a problem
> admitting to yourself that *gasp* they're more successful than
> you are.

Cisco and Nortel are the exception, not the rule. Actually Cisco is one
of the few worker oriented corporations. People are chomping at the bit
to work there.

Take a look at Intel...tell me they have the same outlook and have
people return...they don't.

>>And if you have no contract? And if you work in a "Right to Work" state so
>>you can't *get* a contract? And if you work in a very narrow, highly
>>competitive field where it doesn't matter how good you are only whether you
>>"fit the budget"?
> Cry me a river. YOU chose your career. YOU are accountable. Not
> business owners profiting off the market (or losing on the market).

No, the government took away the responsibility. Have you ever worked
in a right to work state? Have you ever tried to work as a contract
worker in a right to work state? Right to work states have taken the
choice from the worker.

Not to mention the wonderful "Living Wage" areas...been to any of those
ghost towns lately? 'Course that is a different discussion all together
:-)

>>Some of us have worked for too many companies and can't afford to retire
>>in the end cause those "suits" you love so much liquidated our retirement
>>holdings.
> In your next life remember to save early, often, and diversify
> your investment portfolio.

Gotta agree here. Your portfolio needs to be quite strong and very
nimble. There are problems at some companies (not so much any more)
where they FORCED you to invest in at least a certain percentage of
their stock (a bunch of biotechs come to mind).

'Course we need look no further than Eron or Worldcom for fun with
numbers... ;-)

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

On 2005-01-31, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:

> What shadows doesn't know is that I haven't lost a dime to *any* of those
> things. He may think I'm pissed that I have but I haven't. I've got a core
> of 10-12 stocks and a few mutals, but I sure do *empathize* with those that
> lost everything because of those problems. And fact is, (and dumbass
> doesn't realize) *I* (along with every other taxpayer) am paying for what
> those "suits" have done.

shadows 2, RJB 0. This is the second time I made you *SNAP*

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

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:44:09 GMT, shadows wrote:

> On 2005-01-31, RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What shadows doesn't know is that I haven't lost a dime to *any* of those
>> things. He may think I'm pissed that I have but I haven't. I've got a core
>> of 10-12 stocks and a few mutals, but I sure do *empathize* with those that
>> lost everything because of those problems. And fact is, (and dumbass
>> doesn't realize) *I* (along with every other taxpayer) am paying for what
>> those "suits" have done.
>
> shadows 2, RJB 0. This is the second time I made you *SNAP*

LOL read on little man... maybe you missed it?
--
RJB
2/1/2005 8:19:18 AM

If you ever catch on fire, try to avoid seeing yourself in the mirror,
because I bet that's what REALLY throws you into a panic.
--Jack Handy Deep Thoughts

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

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:31:10 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:56:36 GMT, shadows wrote:
>>> I sure hope they do. A layoff means if your job becomes available
>>> again you get a chance to go back.
>>Bullshit. That may wash in a Utopian world but in real life it never
>>happens. Please alert me when the headline reads IBM re-hires 6000 laid off
>>workers.
>
> "Never" is too extreme a claim. I was in fact once laid off while I
> was on an overhead project after a government contract loss, and then
> I was rehired about 6 weeks later and stayed with the company another
> 2 or 3 years.
>
> lojbab

You are correct. Replace "never" with "very rarely".
--
RJB
2/1/2005 3:22:40 PM

You can't have everything. Where would you put it?
--Steven Wright