Shitty (This is why corporate America blows)

[Shari]

So, I get a call from my mom today saying that my father, who has worked at Intel for 22 years was just given a option of a severance package or he needs to find a new position within Intel in two weeks.

Personally, I figure its the best thing thats ever happened to him as that job sucked his life away, but right now he's just devistated. I feel so bad for him...I was listening him at work when he finally called me back and I could tell he was just trying so hard not to cry over the phone at me. I ended up breaking down in a quiet area of our office and in an attempt to dodge a million questions, go to ask our HR lady if I can go home early, and instead bump into our CEO, which happens to be my dad's best friend.

I grew up with the guy and he already knew what was going on but before I could ask him if I could go, he just looks at me and asks if I want to go see him and I burst into tears. Lovely. Second time crying at that damned job and its only been 4 months there. He was really supportive and just let me take off.

It blows though, watching your father give up holidays and birthdays to go overseas and fix some work disaster, just see him looking worn so thin to be rewarded with, "here are your options at this company".

He asked me four months ago (before I got a job with his best friend) if I wanted him to get me a job at Intel. I told him I'd rather have bamboo shoved up under my nails. Thank god for that.

Anyway, this is just a reminder to everyone to make sure to make a career doing something you LOVE. And to remember that your children and loved ones wont care about the money as long as they have the person they love spending time with them.

K, I'm done ranting...fucking corporate bastards.

[HarmNone]

I'm really sorry about your dad, Shari. That sucks. It really does. :(

[Ignot]

wait a minute...that sounds like something my job would do....but you wouldnt get any options....

[Stunseed]

This is also life's reminder to tell you to start a savings fund early, and invest during your life, so when corporate america tries to fire you ( I've fired people, I know ), you can tell them to take that horrible job and shove it up their ass.

On a more personal note, that really sucks, Shari. I hope the other options are less stressful for your father and turn out to be fate's way of giving him an escape from a career that will run him to the grave. I know that is more than likely going to be my fate in the future.

[Stanley Burrell]

I voted for the other guy.

And that is why I will never consider employment at a corporate syndicate. Ever.

That is really terrible Shari, I'm sorry. And I hope that your dad can reassess things with some peace of mind despite the narowness of the "grace period" his 22-year employer has given him :(

Wish him the best from this random internet user. And stuff :)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Heh, I really feel for you. Something similar just happened to my father, only he's two years from retirement and if he doesn't take the "new" job they want to give to him (aka a crappy job, for half the price), then he'll lose that retirement and he won't be able to find a new job else where (ageism is very hard to prove).

Anyway.. thank god you didn't take a job from Intel, and I'm very very sorry to hear about your dad. I hope everything turns out for the better, hon.

[Back]

Its Capitalism, baby. Worship of the almighty dollar. Its how things work, and if you don’t like it, move to Cuba and shed your tears on their soil.

In all seriousness, thats a load of crap. Sorry to hear about it. A man spends his whole life with one corporation giving it all his loyalty, for what? To become a statistical expense that lowers the bottom line? There is such a thing as Corporate Responsibility thats being thrown around right now because it needs to be.

In this country we’ve been living a blend of Capitalism and Socialism, but you always hear the capitalists screaming about how socialism is teh eval. Well, thats because they don’t want their bottom line to drop. Its criminal what corporations get away with in the name of capitalism.

[HarmNone]

I was talking to my grandmother about this. She was saying how it used to be that someone worked an entire working lifetime for one company. That company provided for the employee during their employment, and after retirement. Retirement funding was to include health insurance until death, pension (which went to the surviving spouse upon death of the retired employee), and all kinds of other benefits. Slowly, over the years, those benefits eroded. By the time my grandfather died, several years ago, they were paying for health insurance which had been promised to them for their lifetimes.

Fortunately, they were able to survive fairly well. My mother stepped in when she was needed, and my grandmother is now with mom and me. She has only social security and a very small pension from her working days (She worked for the same corporation that my grandfather worked for). It's not so much that they didn't prepare, but that they thought they were prepared. The company had made promises which it later broke.

It really is sad to see things like this. When you work for a corporation for a goodly portion of your life, it would seem feasible to expect more than a polite "See ya!" at the end of it all. :(

[Back]

And this administration raided the Social Security SURPLUS the last administration worked so hard to build up for the coming “Baby Boomers”. Not only that, now they want all SS to be speculative by making the investments private.

[HarmNone]

I can see their point, in some ways, Backlash. I think the important thing to remember is that there are those who are so close to retirement now that they will have no way to make up the shortfall for lack of time. It's these folks we have to consider. Those of us who are younger can make plans, and set up future funding through wise money-handling now. People who are currently over 60 (even over 50) don't have the time to set themselves up properly. Because of promises made by corporations following the old paths, these people believed, as my grandparents believed, that they'd be safe in retirement. Then, things changed.

[Back]

Then, things changed.

I wonder when that was?

[HarmNone]

I'd say in the late eighties/early nineties the effects started to be felt by the average Joe. It probably began much earlier than that, however. Most things like this are pretty insidious. By the time we see them coming, they're already a juggernaut.

[Back]

I'd say in the late eighties/early nineties the effects started to be felt by the average Joe. It probably began much earlier than that, however. Most things like this are pretty insidious. By the time we see them coming, they're already a juggernaut.

I have to strongly disagree here as I have seen measures been taken then stripped away and replaced by laughable alternatives.

[HarmNone]

With what are you disagreeing, Backlash?

[Gan]

Dont make me get out my conspiracy hat Backlash.

Its sad enough that you're using this as a platform for your socialist idealism, now you're starting to throw in "this administration!!!" rhetoric.

Do we have to listen to your wild rantings once again?

Edited to add:

Sorry to hear about that Shari. I've seen it happen in corporate sectors as well as non-corporate sectors. My father was a victim of it and he was part of the blue collar workforce.

Company loyalty is definately not what it used to be 30+ years ago. By the same token, the workforce loyalty is not the same either. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Its nothing for the average worker to hold more than 5 primary jobs/careers in a lifetime and all with different companies. There's a huge trend among the new workforce to follow the highest bidder. That same trend is matched by the large corporations to adjust their profit margins to remain competetive in that dynamic, one which they helped initiate in the huge struggle of labor supply and demand.

It is a huge kick in the teeth to sacrifice family time and life outside of work, for work and yet be treated the way your father was treated. So whats the lesson learned? Some will say corporate life is out for pure profits, workers be damned. Others will try to use the plight of the mis-treated worker as a political soapbox. And some will say that we need to go back to the mindset of the small business model where you can work for a company for life if you wanted to. How can a company embrace the philosophy of old and yet remain competetive in the today?

Which ideal is correct? Unfortunately in a free market economy it is usually dictated by the bottom line. However, even a pure market propoent such as myself must admit that even big corporations can be effected by the intangible motivation of the consumer. That intangible is emotion which parlays into utility.

One can only hope, as do I, that large corporations who engage in overt predatory labor practices are subjected to the discontent and disapproval of the consumer, which in some cases results in an absolute boycot of the corporation and its product. Because a copmany's most valuable resources are the people within it, from the most basic entry level position to the top administration. Those that operate against that philosophy and abuse it give those who try to operate by that philosophy a bad name.

[Back]

With what are you disagreeing, Backlash?

That its some kind of slow progressional thing. Look back through our history. Measures have been taken in this country to stop monopolies, not to mention checks and balances between our three branches.

What I have seen in this decade is a decided move for corporations and the almighty dollar which moves against the common man you spoke of in your post. Thats what this topic is all about.

We can look back to the boom years after WWII, when America was the bounty of not only profits, but social conservatism. Thats why we made Social Security. And that tradition has lived long and hard until?? Now.

Suddenly it should be a private affair. Forget the concept that not only should your life of dedication be rewarded by the company you work for, but also for the country you have paid taxes for your entire life. Fuck you and your life. You drain our bottom line. Good luck!

[Back]

Dont make me get out my conspiracy hat Backlash.

Its sad enough that you're using this as a platform for your socialist idealism, now you're starting to throw in "this administration!!!" rhetoric.

Do we have to listen to your wild rantings once again?

Do you pay taxes? You are a socialist.

[HarmNone]

Well, Backlash, there have been murmurings about the inviability of the social security system long before this administration took office. That system didn't "live long and hard until...now". It's been purportedly ill for some twenty years.

I'll have to go along with my grandmother here. I didn't live it. She did. I figure she knows more about the old ways than I do. I will say that I don't believe any administration has the absolute power to change the country all by itself. There are, as you pointed out, too many checks and balances in place for that to happen. However, human greed is a powerful force, whether in the hands of a government, a corporation, or a few (or many) greedy individuals, and greed isn't new. It's been around since Adam and Eve met that damned snake.

[Back]

Well, Backlash, there have been murmurings about the inviability of the social security system long before this administration took office. That system didn't "live long and hard until...now". It's been purportedly ill for some twenty years.

I'll have to go along with my grandmother here. I didn't live it. She did. I figure she knows more about the old ways than I do. I will say that I don't believe any administration has the absolute power to change the country all by itself. There are, as you pointed out, too many checks and balances in place for that to happen. However, human greed is a powerful force, whether in the hands of a government, a corporation, or a few (or many) greedy individuals, and greed isn't new. It's been around since Adam and Eve met that damned snake.

Well, one administration saw the problem, did something real about it, and now this administration has spent it all and wants you to take responsibility.

By the way, I am talking about now.

[Gan]

Do you pay taxes? You are a socialist.

I pay taxes to support that which I use and do not pay for directly. That does not make me a socialist. It makes me a citizen and a consumer.

[Alfster]

btw Backlash, stfu..this thread's not about your conspiracy shit

Jesae, that sucks what happened to your old man (although you sound like a hippy with your LOVE crap at the end).

[Back]

I pay taxes to support that which I use and do not pay for directly. That does not make me a socialist. It makes me a citizen and a consumer.

Do you enjoy the police force? The fire department? Public education? Smooth roads?

What I said before is we live in a blend.

What Shari is talking about is that the social consciousness we learned from WWII has been disregarded for the almighty dollar. I think its just plain wrong to kick someone out on their ass when they dedicated their lives to something worthwhile, company profits perhaps, but all the while being an honest contributor to society, like we all are.

In the end, what does Shari’s father get for all his hard work and dedication, and when did that change?

[Gan]

Do you enjoy the police force? The fire department? Public education? Smooth roads?

Yes I enjoy them, and I use them without paying directly for them. Was my previous post that hard to understand?

[HarmNone]

C'mon, guys. Let's keep it on topic...what happened to Shari's poor dad...and not get off into political rhetoric, eh? You've got a thread for that. Take it there. While this topic might have political inferences, that's not the main thrust of the discussion.

[Back]

I pay taxes to support that which I use and do not pay for directly. That does not make me a socialist. It makes me a citizen and a consumer.

Well, I suppose some people are proud to be consumers as opposed to contributors.

BTW, being a consumer does not mean you contribute to your community. That basically means you eat at the fast food joint every day.

Ok, ok, you do pay sales tax on that triple Whopper... and that goes into social services you seem to think aren't necessary.

[Back]

C'mon, guys. Let's keep it on topic...what happened to Shari's poor dad...and not get off into political rhetoric, eh? You've got a thread for that. Take it there. While this topic might have political inferences, that's not the main thrust of the discussion.


I agree. This is a serious issue that Shari has brought up. It needs to be talked about.

I can admit to some bias. And that bias is for the hard working man.

[Gan]

Hopefully Shari's father is:

A: Resilient in the face of adversity and will be able to locate something comiserate to his existing position within Intel, if he chooses to remain with the company.

B: Adaptable in that he can take his transferrable skills and market them to another employer who is looking for someone of his caliber.

C: Networked in that he can pick up the phone and call colleagues that he's established relationships with and transition to a better environment to work for. (The CEO friend/your boss fellow might be a candidate for that barring any nepotism policy existing).

Either way, I wish him luck in making the transition. And he's also got, from what it sounds like, a very caring and resourceful daughter who will probably help him find then move along the direction he chooses to go.

[Shari]

Yeah it sucks. I just spent the evening over his house. He's doing better. A bunch of friends of his (some who work at Intel, and some who were also let go) came over for support. He has a pretty good set up for about a year so he doesn't have to worry about money (though health coverage only goes for 4 months from the way it sounds, though he's investigating that). I guess a lot older people were let go, he's considering filing a lawsuit though I doubt it will do much good.

I actually am very happy for him, though he can't see through the darkness right now, he has an opportunity to enjoy life and maybe do something he really lives. It should be interesting to see how his demeanor changes over the coming months.

Though, I really need to stop crying at work, Jesus Christ. :(

[Shari]

Oh, and what ever gave you the impression that I wasn't a bit of a hippie?

[Gan]

(though health coverage only goes for 4 months from the way it sounds, though he's investigating that).

Federal law states that upon termination from employment all full time employees are made available healthcare through COBRA for 18 months. The cost will be more because the employer will not be contributing their share (which is somewhere between 50% to 100% in some cases) of the cost of the health plan. So he'll have healthcare and perscription coverage available for 18 months. He should be receiving a COBRA letter soon along with a packet to fill out for enrollment. He'll have the option of covering himself and any dependants (spouse) as necessary.

As far as the lawsuit goes, good legal advice is never one to be turned down. If evidence exists that there was age discrimination then investigation and remedy should be pursued.

[Back]

Oh, and what ever gave you the impression that I wasn't a bit of a hippie?

Don’t apologize for being on the working man’s side. Never. Working men are what makes our community strong.

[HarmNone]

How old is your dad, Shari?

[Shari]

He's 53. I always tease him that he's SO old, but in truth I know he is capable of great things. We were plotting his future for a majority of the evening tonight. :D

[Alfster]

Oh, and what ever gave you the impression that I wasn't a bit of a hippie?

Good point, you rock!

[Sean of the Thread]

Hell sounds like a good deal really. Probally a nice severance no doubt for that long and might as well count it as a retirement and move on to something he enjoys on easy mode for the phase of his life. Anyways wish you and yours the best.

[HarmNone]

Your dad's still got a lot of good years left! Hopefully, he can take this opportunity to find something he really enjoys doing and make that his occupation for the next twenty years, or so. :)

[Sean of the Thread]

Like FISHING!

[HarmNone]

Fishing sounds good, as long as you can figure out a way to make enough money to keep yourself fed so you remain in good condition to fish. :thinking:

[Tsa`ah]

Federal law states that upon termination from employment all full time employees are made available healthcare through COBRA for 18 months. The cost will be more because the employer will not be contributing their share (which is somewhere between 50% to 100% in some cases) of the cost of the health plan. So he'll have healthcare and perscription coverage available for 18 months. He should be receiving a COBRA letter soon along with a packet to fill out for enrollment. He'll have the option of covering himself and any dependants (spouse) as necessary.

As far as the lawsuit goes, good legal advice is never one to be turned down. If evidence exists that there was age discrimination then investigation and remedy should be pursued.

While employees may keep their health insurance, it doesn't mean that they will be paying employer's "share", it means they will pay ... in most cases ... the single unit premium. Many employers are becoming their own providers for health care; they simply contract companies such as Aetna for the clerical and accounting end of things ... thus reaping additional profits from their employees. In cases such as this, the COBRA letter has a better use as toilet paper.

Corporations are in business to make money, thus will go with the cheapest provider or the provider willing to give the largest kick back for the business. About the only time it's worth while to keep the insurance is in the case of a pre-existing medical condition.

[Alfster]

Like FISHING!

Lotsa fish in Arizona....

[Sean of the Thread]

Fishing sounds good, as long as you can figure out a way to make enough money to keep yourself fed so you remain in good condition to fish. :thinking:

Worked for me the last 3 years. http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[HarmNone]

Well, hell! If you've got the ticket to fishing for a living, share it with Shari's dad! :D

[DeV]

Yep, corporate America blows huge chunks sometimes. I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your dad, Shari. From the sound of it he will not take retirement sitting down. Sounds like he's a hard worker and hopefully he will find another niche to keep his mind busy.

[GSTamral]

That truly is a sad story to hear. What it boils down to is the effect of capital accountability to investors. Intel shares are off more than 30% from last year, margins are down, and revenue is forecast to grow at a slower pace over the next 5 years than the previous 5. Unfortunately, this results in stockholders (read that to mean the conglomerate of mutual funds that own 50-60% of intel) demanding that something be done.

Intel does not have any cash flow problems, but with demand increasing at a slower pace, the simplest (albeit painful) way to deal with the issue is a restructuring of the company. By restructuring, it essentially means the termination of a good deal of middle management positions, which provide savings to the company without any major loss in day to day operations, as the workload shifts to the ones that remain, and some low return projects are put on hold or cancelled. Often, the most cost effective way to do this is to get rid of the oldest people, who tend to draw the largest salaries for their given grade (position). This allows them to get rid of the fewest people in order to meet the changing budget.

This is an unfortunate side effect of a capital market. Intel is owned by investors who want to make money on their investment. People don't deposit 100 dollars into a bank expecting to have only 70 dollars the following year. They demand accountability, and often, unfortunately, this is the way that companies deal with pressure from the owners to perform.

The simple counter is the prospect of unionization, but one need only look at how bad many of the workers in some unions are (and can get away with it), such as the teachers union, or the UAW, or even AFL-CIO to see why most companies will resist in absolution the unionization of management type positions (higher pay requires complete accountability).

But Chad, seriously, if capitalism is so evil, and socialism is the way, I can only assume you have the following:
Not bought any PC made by Dell, Compaq, Gateway, or any PC sold by Best Buy, CompUSA, or any other large conglomerate, and doesn't contain any parts made by Asus, Intel, AMD, etc..)
I'm sure you can't have Windows.
I could go on on and on, but I'm sure the point is made.

Capitalism isn't evil. It's impersonal, and it is very reactive to any significant stimuli. In almost all cases, that's the price you pay and something you need to deal with if you want to make a good salary. Yes, there are plenty of examples otherwise, but most of the people in this country in the highest two tax brackets work for corporate America.

Shari, the best advice I can give is to have your father consult a lawyer to see if there is any merit to an issue of age discrimination. Without any significant performance issues on his record, it is very very shady that they would terminate him 2 years (or 3 if 25 years of service was a prereq to retiring at 55) before he was eligible to retire. I have a piece of dead wood on a project who is 54 (with 29 years of service), and even if we had layoffs, which thankfully has never happened in the 100+ years the company has been in business, I've been told in no less words (half joking, half serious) that it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen if anything was done to him in the next 10 months.

[ElanthianSiren]

Shari, I'm very sorry to hear about your father :( what's the new position they are forcing him into entail? And I think he would have a case for ageism, especially if they are forcing him to take a pay/benefits cut because at his age, he probably doesn't have a better option, but he sounds very loyal to Intel.


I can see their point, in some ways, Backlash. I think the important thing to remember is that there are those who are so close to retirement now that they will have no way to make up the shortfall for lack of time. It's these folks we have to consider. Those of us who are younger can make plans, and set up future funding through wise money-handling now. People who are currently over 60 (even over 50) don't have the time to set themselves up properly. Because of promises made by corporations following the old paths, these people believed, as my grandparents believed, that they'd be safe in retirement. Then, things changed.

A wall of text cometh:

That depends, HN. Do you have a pre-existing condition? ...then NO insurance you can set up is going to take care of you for a decent rate. Further, with a pre-exsisting condition you're almoste forced to stay with a health company that keeps raising their rates because it's even harder to get insurance elsewhere. I've had this happen twice already at BCBS; I pay about 1.6k a month for insurance, but it's still cheaper than paying the underwriting/extra costs at another insurance agency (have had BCBS since I was 8). Also, my insurance covers everything but is necessary if I needed ER treatment.

I don't really think health savings accounts are the answer for sick young people because they don't make sense. In a sense of ratios (money in, rising healthcare costs, non tax rate), it doesn't work when your rate is pumped up over 500%. It's a bankrupt model. They work just fine for non-sick people, but non-sick people aren't the ones who need insurance most; do we just forget about everyone who is sick in the richest country in the world? I realize it's the same argument you made for considering alternative options for the elderly, but I'm just pointing out the elderly aren't the only ones in that position. Almost every diabetic I've known (type 1 and type 2), with the exception of my next door neighbor who is a millionaire a few times over with type 2 diabetes, lacks or has lacked coverage.

Also, it's not just the insurance agencies themselves that are the problem; presently, I have the energy to research the BS I'm fed by doctors, (like the high carb/low sugar diet they tried to put me on for my "health"), but when I'm older, I doubt I will have that much energy. Part of the problem is the way that the pharm cos have their hands in vital agencies like the AMA, which rigidly advises doctors in what therapy to recommend. To this day, I can't understand putting a diabetic on a high carb diet, let alone not even mentioning the benefits of cutting out processed starch, as was my experience with a nutritionist at CHOP (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia), unless the aim was to get me taking more insulin.

I know there are some good doctors and nurses in this country, but I think the community preys on the elderly and sick people. I've also had doctors try to tell me I needed to be on dialysis when I had a urinary tract infection (protein in urine -- better not do any additional tests). I said no thank you and went home, and they told me I would die. Many other people might cave to that, but I said after battling a seizure disorder (due to NPH insulin) that I wouldn't be hanging out in hospitals, and I won't be terrorized by the medical community. I have consistently found the care that I receive, however, from PA to Michigan, to NM of a quality that warrants me going to anyone but my family doc only in emergency.

Another issue is this compulsive need to send patients to about 8 specialists now for ANYTHING. When I first got diabetes, I had an endocrynologist, who was a pervy old guy and was fired shortly after his firm took me as a client. I got another specialist there, a female, but I ended up going back to my family doctor (osteopath) because my insurance was paying these specialists premium, and I wasn't hearing anything different from them than I heard from him. The medical community, however, will convince you that you NEED a specialist. I don't believe they serve any function for diabetics, and I ditched them after going there about a year, still battling with my weight, having low sugar seizures several times a week, despite NPH adjustments, and learning nothing new.

I've heard all kinds of excuses why doctors don't know what to do with type 1 diabetics (condition is rare, every one is different, not enough research) or the problems we get like diabetic necrobiosis (which they've seen for 50 years and can't even say what causes it). The bottom line is, my experiences with the current medical profession/system lead me to think that there aren't options for sick people, so I think Backlash's concerns aren't something we can sweep away under HSAs or other tiered systems. The problem is the tier, and it is ignorance that the AMA forces doctors to accept. This ignorance drives the cost of healthcare up (by increasing weight, at least in my case), which is one of the leading costs in the health care arena.

-M
ps. Sorry for the long winded post.

[ElanthianSiren]

The simple counter is the prospect of unionization, but one need only look at how bad many of the workers in some unions are (and can get away with it), such as the teachers union, or the UAW, or even AFL-CIO to see why most companies will resist in absolution the unionization of management type positions (higher pay requires complete accountability).


I have to call bullshit on this. My family owned several coal mines in w PA. Unions were created to keep situations like little children from working to death in such mines and under terrible conditions, which they did. They act as safeguards. Whenever I hear someone talking about removing unions, I have to roll my eyes because it proves you honestly don't understand what happened in America before they existed, or you'd like to go back to those types of conditions, which is sad in a humanitarian sense.

-M

[HarmNone]

Yeah, I agree, Siren. What you've experienced is par for the course in today's world. What I was saying, however, was that in my grandmother's and grandfather's working years, such was not the case. In that time, you would have been covered by the corporate insurance just as everyone else was. Things really were very different then. :(

[ElanthianSiren]

Yeah, I agree, Siren. What you've experienced is par for the course in today's world. What I was saying, however, was that in my grandmother's and grandfather's working years, such was not the case. In that time, you would have been covered by the corporate insurance just as everyone else was. Things really were very different then. :(


Agree. My grandfather, who was part owner of Gould's pumps, had complete coverage until he died of altheizmers (he was 91 -- had my dad when he was 50). My grandmother (on my mom's side), who is a retired music teacher (she's 74 now) and married to an ex dean at kutztown u, is annoyed at costs because she has disabling arthritis in her legs/feet, but MOST of what she needs is covered, including surgery, which she has opt'd out of thus far. That's a 20 year difference (grandpa died about 5 years ago now), and it's huge with regard to what costs are covered. It gets even more insane when you see what my mother pays, and she works for Aetna.

I don't think these employers should be permitted to go back on their coverage under any circumstance, but I think what we're also seeing is a problem like what happened at Enron, where the benefits are just *gone* due to company failures. The fact that it's just "okay" to do that in this country blows my mind. I honestly have no answer for it; should the fed step in? -Should the states? Should those people just be left to die? We could argue that it's a fault of a million things but they're all situational. We can argue against socialist programs, but I feel there are some industries that cease efficiency (from a humanistic view) when privatized: transportation is one. Healthcare is another.

In all, in this story, what disturbs me most is the manipulation that's going on from Intel, shuffling Shari's dad into another job because they know, even if they cut him a raw deal, it will be a better deal than the one he'd get if he switched jobs at this stage in his life. It kind of reminded me of the carrot with BCBS raising my rates. I still think that qualifies as a case of ageism.

-M

[HarmNone]

I'd certainly talk to an attorney if I were Shari's father. It's definitely worth getting a professional opinion, as ageism appears as a real possibility here (to me, it's a given, but that's just me).

Also, Intel hasn't offered him a job. They've just told him he needs to FIND ONE HIMSELF, within the company, if he wishes to remain in their employ. Thanks loads, assholes! :(

[Gan]

I have to call bullshit on this. My family owned several coal mines in w PA. Unions were created to keep situations like little children from working to death in such mines and under terrible conditions, which they did. They act as safeguards. Whenever I hear someone talking about removing unions, I have to roll my eyes because it proves you honestly don't understand what happened in America before they existed, or you'd like to go back to those types of conditions, which is sad in a humanitarian sense.

-M

Now that there are laws and regulatory organizations in existence, the primary qualifier for unions existing is really moot. Yes, Unions were a necessary entity in the past. Now, even without Unions, I know that things such as child labor would not exist. But this isnt a discussion on Unions. Just know that those justifications have long since been dead.

[ElanthianSiren]

I'd certainly talk to an attorney if I were Shari's father. It's definitely worth getting a professional opinion, as ageism appears as a real possibility here (to me, it's a given, but that's just me).

Also, Intel hasn't offered him a job. They've just told him he needs to FIND ONE HIMSELF, within the company, if he wishes to remain in their employ. Thanks loads, assholes! :(

Well, he could probably make the argument that he isn't going to find a job making as much in the same company without their assistance at his age (and they know this). Are there any performance issues or anything? Does he have reviews? -So they're essentially telling him that he has to reapply like a new candidate, just with relevent work/company experience? That blows. :(

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Now that there are laws and regulatory organizations in existence, the primary qualifier for unions existing is really moot. Yes, Unions were a necessary entity in the past. Now, even without Unions, I know that things such as child labor would not exist. But this isnt a discussion on Unions. Just know that those justifications have long since been dead.


Are they when a man is basically fired because he's nearing retirement? It seems like the justification to have unions is just fine, albeit in reverse.

-M

[GSTamral]

<<<
That its some kind of slow progressional thing. Look back through our history. Measures have been taken in this country to stop monopolies, not to mention checks and balances between our three branches.

What I have seen in this decade is a decided move for corporations and the almighty dollar which moves against the common man you spoke of in your post. Thats what this topic is all about.

We can look back to the boom years after WWII, when America was the bounty of not only profits, but social conservatism. Thats why we made Social Security. And that tradition has lived long and hard until?? Now.

Suddenly it should be a private affair. Forget the concept that not only should your life of dedication be rewarded by the company you work for, but also for the country you have paid taxes for your entire life. Fuck you and your life. You drain our bottom line. Good luck!
>>>

Those measures are still in place. Monopolies have nothing to do with this issue.

As for this being a decided move for corporations in search of the almighty dollar, I'm sorry, but that is absolutely correct, but that is not a today thing, that has always been the case.

Calling Eisenhower a social conservatist is a stretch. He was an expansionist, and applied incredulous levels of personal taxes on the common man in order to allow coportate America to expand. He taxed the common man, with up to a 90+% highest tax bracket in order to keep corporate taxes at lower levels to allow for expansions in business. That housing and land were so much cheaper at the time allowed for people to have property buying power anyway.

Ford did not make the model T "so the common man could have a car". They found a cheaper way to assemble the car (the assembly line), which allowed them to sell to a market that otherwise didn't exist, and at the same time, gained a large market share, increasing profits. Companies don't go into business to lose money so the common man is better off. Larger companies, however, are often able to take advantage of consolidating cost accounting for research and of economies of scale to provide better service for a lower consumer cost.

Is there less company loyalty today than in the 1950's? of course. But that is a direct response to the fact that now more people have cars, and it is far easier to move, which allows workers to be more selective in choosing a company. It also means there is less worker loyalty. If you're working for a company for 5-10 years, and then all of a sudden jump ship for more money (and there is NOTHING wrong with that in my opinion, as I believe it is your personal responsibility to know your worth to the market), the company will equally feel less obliged to be loyal to employees.

Chad, if you owned a business, and there were parts of it that were losing money, are you telling me you would keep those units active on principle, rather than cut your losses?

What we have in the end, is that while most of most of blue collar unionized America enjoys too much protection (i.e they can fall asleep on the job essentially) from termination, white collar America is typically at the mercy of stockholders with little to no protection from the law. Risk and reward you could call it. The reward for higher pay positions (until you get to the very top, when they tend to protect themselves at the expense of the middle management), is an impersonal environment with far less security.

[Gan]

Are they when a man is basically fired because he's nearing retirement? It seems like the justification to have unions is just fine, albeit in reverse.

-M

Unions do not protect joe worker from middle-management layoffs. Short term might postpone the action. Long term the layoffs will happen or the company files for ch. 13, or liqudates the division completely to recoup financial losses.

A union would not have protected Shari's dad in this situation. So equating Unions as a solution to this instance, and the child labor instance in your previous post is erronious.

[GSTamral]

Now that there are laws and regulatory organizations in existence, the primary qualifier for unions existing is really moot. Yes, Unions were a necessary entity in the past. Now, even without Unions, I know that things such as child labor would not exist. But this isnt a discussion on Unions. Just know that those justifications have long since been dead.

Unions no longer provide those basic levels of protection. Federal law does. Unions allow drivers to fall asleep on the road instead of delivering packages and keep their job. Unions allow teachers to do everything short of have sex with a student and not have to worry about getting fired. They limit worker accountability even on the basics in many cases.

Unions also still perpetuate some stupid rules, like 120 miles of travel on the rail = 1 day. Last I checked, trains can move more than 15 miles per hour. Or postal deliveryman being measured on volume of mail, not distance and number of stops. How convenient.

The means by which unions were necessary have long since past in regards to safety and child labor. This is not to say they should not exist. However, the current means by which they exist are ridiculous.

[GSTamral]

Are they when a man is basically fired because he's nearing retirement? It seems like the justification to have unions is just fine, albeit in reverse.

-M

That's insane. That he was fired when so close to retiring age is a legitimate grips, and FEDERAL law may have a say in that being age discrimination. But unionization would not help in the end as a blanket solution. Let's say a company was not making enough money to cover it's debt. So they release some workers to make ends meet. Let's say unions protected those workers from being laid off. Now the company is still not profitable enough, but cannot show the improvement needed. The bank calls on the loan, the company declares bankruptcy and gets rid of everyone. Brilliant.

[Tsa`ah]

You can't simply use a blanket statement regarding unions in general. It's really industry specific.

UAW ... crap
Teamsters ... crap

Unions in place to protect workers in highly hazardous jobs ... pretty worth while.

Most federal organizations are a joke as it is. EPA, OSHA, FWC ... these are wastes of tax payer dollars. They do dandy work at handing out fines and shutting up once their paid, they do very little to protect workers.

Middle management is also pretty laughable in most industries. There are some good people, but MM is largely about self preservation and perpetuation. More unecessary than the UAW in most scenarios.

[ElanthianSiren]

That's insane. That he was fired when so close to retiring age is a legitimate grips, and FEDERAL law may have a say in that being age discrimination. But unionization would not help in the end as a blanket solution.


Federal law changes, as do state laws. You're making an assumption; that being that law is constant, thus these organizations are not necessary. To which, I argue that they absolutely are necessary to keep business on the up and up, given its history of past humanitarian abuses. Also, if Intel was union, they would most likely have someone investigate the problem/take up Shari's father's side, were he to choose legal action.

-M

[Apathy]

Your father will land on his feet. He will find himself in a better place.

On a side note: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=494508#post494508

[Warriorbird]

"Now that there are laws and regulatory organizations in existence, the primary qualifier for unions existing is really moot. "

That are largely pretty worthless...especially when they're being populated by Republicans who don't want them to exist.

[Shari]

Yes, he will be speaking with lawyer. But I'm sure Intel is more than prepared to backfire, as they have been every time they "restructure" within the company. Yes most of them were middle-aged, but they know what they're doing. He got a fantastic severance, I think its just a year from now that he's got to hope he can find a job that he can support he, my mother, and my sister, fiancancially and with health insurance.

[Gan]

That are largely pretty worthless...especially when they're being populated by Republicans who don't want them to exist.

Your retarded partisan political bullshit logic makes me laugh.

[Jazuela]

My family owns a few thousand shares of Intel stock between the bunch of us (myself included). As a stockholder, I want Intel to make money. Lots of it. More than the previous year, every year. Unfortunately Intel hasn't been following my wishes. My shares are worth less than they were when we got them. On the upside, they split three times since we got them. And so, I'm -just- about breaking even. After around 20 years of ownership.

Personally, I don't see this layoff as a sign of good things to come for Intel. I see it as a sign that the corporation is ripe for a buyout. Buyouts almost always result in even more layoffs. My stock would either be absorbed and transformed into shares of the new parent company at a greater value, or I'd be required to sell my shares at a marginally small profit. This sounds almost reasonable from a strictly financial view, from a personal view it is abhorrent. I absolutely loathe it when big corporations buy each other out. It hurts everyone in the long run, from the employees, to the towns the various departments are located in, and by extension, the families of people who live, shop, work, in those towns, even when those families live elsewhere. That whole 6 degrees of separation almost guarantees that the CEO of the parent company that just closed the HR department in some rinky-dink hick town will be negatively, and personally affected by his decision to buy out the company.

If my investment in Intel was such that my profits covered last year's federal income tax bill, I'd ditch it in a heartbeat and re-invest the principal in something more in keeping with my personal ideals. That's why my grandmother invested in the thousands of shares she got for the family. Intel was a brand-new company when she invested, and she felt the company showed great promise for the technological future. She was right, but unfortunately none of us had the foresight to unload before the internet market crashed. So now we're stuck with it, at least for now.

Remember Shari, your dad -is- close to retirement age, which means he won't be nearly as badly hit in the pockets as people who get laid off when they're 10 years younger. And 40-somethings find it difficult to get hired by new employers in a market of 20-somethings fresh out of business school. Perhaps that's why Intel chooses this route of severing almost-eligible retirees. It costs the company less, and it is less painful than having to cut loose employees with a lot more years of valueable work in them. That doesn't make it any more palateable, but it could explain it somewhat.

Good luck to your dad; support him as best you can so he doesn't get too cynical about working. He's approaching the "golden years" when he should be kicking back and relaxing, not stressing out and taking blood pressure medicine. Help him make these last bunch of work years as stress-free as possible by showing him your support, rather than showing too much anger about Intel's business decisions (which I agree were detrimental).

[Tsa`ah]

If you have had intel stock for 20 years and it split 3 times, you're a moron if you think they're worth about the same they were 20 years ago.

In 86' Intel's prime market (dram chips) finally bottomed out and they closed a shit ton of plants. Well that had been a process, but in 1986 they also introduced a revolutionary processor ... the 386.

Now I don't know what the average trade price for intel was in 1986, but I'm going to assume, and safely so, it was considerably less than what Intel is trading for currently ... which is what? 30-40?

EVEN if your stock was purchased at 30 bucks a share in 86 (I'm willing to bet it was 10-15 ... maybe even less) ... at 30 bucks you have tripled your money.

[Jazuela]

First of all, I didn't buy the stock. My grandmother did, waaaaay back when Intel had its initial IPO. When they were a start-up company, as I specified in my last post. That was prior to 1986.

Second of all, I said "around" 20 years ago. I used that handy little word, because I don't remember which year, exactly. It might've been 1985. Or even 1984. Or possibly 1987.

What I do know, is that my grandmother bought 15,000 shares, at a very reasonable price, and I don't recall what the price was, because I didn't know she bought them at the time and was too busy being a nerdy schoolgirl to bother about finances. When I took possession of my shares, they were worth somewhere around $25 per share. During the first few years (whenever that was, which I don't recall exactly, as I've mentioned), they split, doubled, split, again, then dropped a bit and levelled off. The highest I can remember for their value was somewhere in the neighborhood of $95 per share, give or take a dollar. They are currently worth $19 and change, each, which is less than what they were when I first got them, although I own three times as many shares. Given capital gains on dividends which I chose not to reinvest or otherwise shelter, and subsequent capital gains taxes, and given the current inflation/devaluation of money, my shares are worth JUST about what they were, when they were worth more per share, and I had three times less.

[Warriorbird]

"Your retarded partisan political bullshit logic makes me laugh."

IE: You don't have an answer...given the number of times Republicans have tried to abolish regulatory departments. I'm sorry that you have to resort to insults.

[HarmNone]

Can we please get back to Shari's dad and off of the personal political bandwagons?

[GSTamral]

My family owns a few thousand shares of Intel stock between the bunch of us (myself included). As a stockholder, I want Intel to make money. Lots of it. More than the previous year, every year. Unfortunately Intel hasn't been following my wishes. My shares are worth less than they were when we got them. On the upside, they split three times since we got them. And so, I'm -just- about breaking even. After around 20 years of ownership.

Personally, I don't see this layoff as a sign of good things to come for Intel. I see it as a sign that the corporation is ripe for a buyout. Buyouts almost always result in even more layoffs. My stock would either be absorbed and transformed into shares of the new parent company at a greater value, or I'd be required to sell my shares at a marginally small profit. This sounds almost reasonable from a strictly financial view, from a personal view it is abhorrent. I absolutely loathe it when big corporations buy each other out. It hurts everyone in the long run, from the employees, to the towns the various departments are located in, and by extension, the families of people who live, shop, work, in those towns, even when those families live elsewhere. That whole 6 degrees of separation almost guarantees that the CEO of the parent company that just closed the HR department in some rinky-dink hick town will be negatively, and personally affected by his decision to buy out the company.

If my investment in Intel was such that my profits covered last year's federal income tax bill, I'd ditch it in a heartbeat and re-invest the principal in something more in keeping with my personal ideals. That's why my grandmother invested in the thousands of shares she got for the family. Intel was a brand-new company when she invested, and she felt the company showed great promise for the technological future. She was right, but unfortunately none of us had the foresight to unload before the internet market crashed. So now we're stuck with it, at least for now.

Remember Shari, your dad -is- close to retirement age, which means he won't be nearly as badly hit in the pockets as people who get laid off when they're 10 years younger. And 40-somethings find it difficult to get hired by new employers in a market of 20-somethings fresh out of business school. Perhaps that's why Intel chooses this route of severing almost-eligible retirees. It costs the company less, and it is less painful than having to cut loose employees with a lot more years of valueable work in them. That doesn't make it any more palateable, but it could explain it somewhat.

Good luck to your dad; support him as best you can so he doesn't get too cynical about working. He's approaching the "golden years" when he should be kicking back and relaxing, not stressing out and taking blood pressure medicine. Help him make these last bunch of work years as stress-free as possible by showing him your support, rather than showing too much anger about Intel's business decisions (which I agree were detrimental).

Yea.... no.

The cost basis for Intel for anyone who bought it 20 years ago (anywhere between 1985 and 1990 just to cover ALL of those years) is between 1.17 and 1.90 per share. For those of you without more detailed research tools, you can just look at the max chart in yahoo for price history on the stock, but to assert that its been flat over 20 years is just silly.

That means if your grandmother purchased the stock between 1985 and 1990, for every 18 dollar stock she owns today, she paid a cost basis of 1.25-1.50, so she's made plenty of profit.

[TheEschaton]

Ganalon made a good point a few pages back (and you will never hear me say that again) that capitalism is often out for whatever benefits the bottom line, and the only way that ever incorporates looking out for its employees is when corporations factor in arbitrary, unmeasurable "consumer sentiment" sort of things, where they have to decide "How much can we get away with before our average customer starts to think we're teh eval?"

This fails to protect workers in America because we've come to realize in the past few years that, at least in our country, the answer to that question is "a hell of a lot." Therefore, corporations can get away with murder (literally: look at Coke), and not have their profits significantly effected, if at all. Therefore, regulation needs to occur.

Now, I tend to be a socialist in economic matters, but I can see the benefits of a capitalist system. As I see it, socialism is based on some mythical better nature of humankind, whereas capitalism is based on our flaws (greed, feelings of superiority, materialism). Therefore, capitalism, while intrinsically driven by what one would say are immoral (or at least amoral) values, is still driven....and driven to much greater effects than the major socialist systems of the world (France comes to mind). Socialism, though it is maybe a more "moral" system, nevertheless cannot stimulate economies as well as capitalism because not enough people get their rocks off on being equal with their neighbors.

So, what's the answer? Laissez faire capitalism is unviable in a world of corporate collusion and the corporatocracy. Pure socialism is unviable because humankind are basically assholes and don't care about each other enough to sustain a viable economic system (and by "viable economic system" I mean a modern economy in the globalization era - France may have had a viable economic system 50 years ago, but as globalization, which I feel is inevitable, spreads, it is left behind its capitalist partners - which is why France votes against the EU). A blend?

Then you get these debates, and in the end, the socialists want more regulation, the capitalists less. When capitalists are in power, people like Shari's dad lose their jobs to try and please the gods of Wall Street. When socialists are in power, there is a lower standard of living.

IMHO, and this is the socialist in me, the lower standard of living is the way to go because even in socialist societies, the "lower" standard of living is still much more than an "acceptable" standard of living. Hell, I'd like to live in France. It's nice there.

-TheE-

[Jazuela]

Yea.... no.

The cost basis for Intel for anyone who bought it 20 years ago (anywhere between 1985 and 1990 just to cover ALL of those years) is between 1.17 and 1.90 per share. For those of you without more detailed research tools, you can just look at the max chart in yahoo for price history on the stock, but to assert that its been flat over 20 years is just silly.

That means if your grandmother purchased the stock between 1985 and 1990, for every 18 dollar stock she owns today, she paid a cost basis of 1.25-1.50, so she's made plenty of profit.

My grandmother liquidated most of her own personal remaining stock after the crash, and died shortly after that. The intel I keep primarily as her legacy. At that point when it split for the second time, I should've sold it. I'd have made a really lovely sum on the deal. Currently, it is worth -just- about what it was before the first split, when I originally received my portion of the shares (as a gift when she was still alive and the market was doing fairly well). As I mentioned twice, my grandmother bought the stock LONG before 1985. She bought shortly after the initial public offering, which occurred in 1971. The initial cost per share, on the day of the opening of their stock, was $23.50. I know she paid less than that, so I know she didn't buy on the first day of trade.

[GSTamral]

If your grandmother purchased 15,000 shares at the initial public offering (or thereabouts), at 21.36 per share (the low price in 1971), that would present a current cost basis of 2.8 cents per share. (Information courtesy of Fidelity research). Those 15,000 shares, after the total splits (9 recorded 2 for 1 splits, 1 recorded 3 for 2 split), be 11,520,000 shares at the currently traded price of 17.89 cents as of 12:42 p.m. EST today.

I never realized you were on the list of the 100 richest Americans. Congratulations.


Edited to correct the cost basis from 6.8 cents a share to 2.8 cents a share.