I was just standing in the lab office, admiring the back of Cute QA 
Girl's head, when she turned round and stared at me.

And that's when I realised... Cute QA Girl doesn't work here any more. O_O

What can I say? I guess I'm slowly losing my mind. Still, I'm in good 
company. We just had a "presentation" here that basically consisted of 
management cheerfully telling us that [more] compulsary redundancies are 
on the way in the next few days. This time they're going to interview 
everybody in the building and decide who to get rid of.

Of course, now the rumours are circulating that they already *know* 
exactly who they want to get rid of, and the interviews are just for 
show. And everybody has their own pet theory about who's gonna get it.

FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. To quote a phrase, "we haz it".

My personal favourit suggestion is that we get rid of Fathead and get a 
manager who actually *has* a clue. This, presumably, is an element of 
the set of suggestions which will _not_ be taken seriously by corporate 
management. I hypothesize that this set also has a nonempty intersection 
with the set of suggestions involving having a competent sales force.

So, what about me? Is my job going to me axed? Well, let's examine the 
evidence:

- There's only one of me. If they get rid of me, they lose the entire UK 
IT function.

- HQ IT seems to think they can do everything remotely anyway, so maybe 
they don't "need" me any more.

- I'm *ludicrasly* cheap. If they're trying to save money, getting rid 
of me doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. More logical to get rid of 
the senior project directors or something.

- About the only thing you can't do to a computer remotely is plug it in 
and switch it on. There are any number of other staff here who can 
probably handle that. (Indeed, one in particular seems to get lumbered 
with IT-related stuff that I don't do. She'll probably get most of my 
job if they decide I'm not necessary. Poor sod...)

So there you have it: we have conclusively proved.... something.


Oh god - I just heard Fathead on the phone to Jess. She's at the airport 
right now, about to leave the country for Turkey for her holiday. And 
Fathead is ringing her to say "oh, by the way, we're axing people's jobs 
while you're away, and we're going to interview everybody but you won't 
be here. But you have a nice holiday, OK?" Isn't that nice of him?

[I did like the comment in the meeting. "I know some of your collegues 
aren't here right now. Please don't tell them about any of this; we'll 
handle it." Nice...]

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
<snip>
> So, what about me? Is my job going to me axed? Well, let's examine the
> evidence:
> 
> - There's only one of me. If they get rid of me, they lose the entire UK
> IT function.
> 
<snip>
Look at it this way, Andrew, if your job goes you'll end up with a
redundancy payment and lots of free time to find a new one and if it
doesn't go you've lost nothing and gained a little knowledge about the
workings of the minds of senior executives. A win-win situation :-)

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> What can I say? I guess I'm slowly losing my mind. Still, I'm in good 
> company. We just had a "presentation" here that basically consisted of 
> management cheerfully telling us that [more] compulsary redundancies are 
> on the way in the next few days. This time they're going to interview 
> everybody in the building and decide who to get rid of.

OMG ... This is exactly the plot of Office Space.

If you haven't seen it. Rent it now! And don't forget your TPS reports!

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John wrote:

> Look at it this way, Andrew, if your job goes you'll end up with a
> redundancy payment and lots of free time to find a new one and if it
> doesn't go you've lost nothing and gained a little knowledge about the
> workings of the minds of senior executives. A win-win situation :-)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured.

Indeed, I almost thought about offering myself for the axe anyway... but 
decided against it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> What can I say? I guess I'm slowly losing my mind. Still, I'm in good 
> company. We just had a "presentation" here that basically consisted of 
> management cheerfully telling us that [more] compulsary redundancies are 
> on the way in the next few days. This time they're going to interview 
> everybody in the building and decide who to get rid of.

So our lab has been basically empty for about 8 months now. As a result 
of this, we have a serious financial problem. So they want to get rid of 
some employees to control expenses.

Wanna guess who's going?

Yeah, that's right. One of our sales staff.

Yes, you heard me right. We're not getting enough contracts, so we're 
going... to... get rid... of some of our sales staff...? WTF?

I mean, from the beginning they seemed to be focusing *only* on reducing 
expenses and not even looking at increasing income. Since our massive 
problem here is an utter lack of work to do, looking at how to increase 
orders would seem the obvious place to go. But no, they're looking at 
how to decrease costs. And they're going to do it by... reducing the 
sales force?

I mean, one could argue that the sales guys aren't being very 
successful, so maybe replacing some of them, I don't know... but just 
*reducing* the sales force? That seems... kind of... braindead? 
(Besides, even just replacing sales people... as I understand it, it's 
all about individual sales staff developing a personal relationship with 
the clients. Replace a sales person and they have to do all that work, 
all over again...)

Yet again, my employer seems to be deliberately _trying_ to cause 
themselves problems. But hey, what do I know about running a business?

Post a reply to this message

Oh *sweet*! Now they think that rather than getting rid of people, they 
might just give us all a 10% pay cut.

Apparently, if we all unanimously agree to take a 10% pay cut, that will 
take us *half* way to the break-even point. That plus their income 
_assumptions_ (i.e., they're assuming that income is going to increase 
soon) takes us to break-even. And they say (but it won't be in the 
written document we'll all have to sign) that once we become profitable 
again, they'll reverse the 10% cut.

So we have a choice: Either we all agree to accept a 10% pay cut 
indefinitely, or some of us get the boot. And we have until close of 
business *today* to decide.

Note again, we have to accept, in writing, a 10% pay cut. But they will 
not put in writing that it's temporary. Note also that this cut isn't 
even big enough to take us anywhere near break-even unless their income 
assumptions turn out to be right. (In other words, they're expecting us 
to get lots more work real soon now.)

Let me tell you, there wasn't much said in the meeting, but there were 
some pretty unhappy boys and girls in there. Last month some accountant 
came over from the USA and said everything is more or less OK. It's not 
great, but it should get better shortly. This week, suddenly they're 
talking about we must make savings, and in a few hours you need to 
decide how we're going to do that. It's like... WTF changed since last 
month?

Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere was 
practically corrosive. Being in financial trouble is one thing. Being 
left feeling like you weren't told the truth is another...

Post a reply to this message

On 21-5-2009 11:43, Invisible wrote:
> Oh *sweet*! Now they think that rather than getting rid of people, they 
> might just give us all a 10% pay cut.
> 
> Apparently, if we all unanimously agree to take a 10% pay cut, that will 
> take us *half* way to the break-even point. That plus their income 
> _assumptions_ (i.e., they're assuming that income is going to increase 
> soon) takes us to break-even. And they say (but it won't be in the 
> written document we'll all have to sign) that once we become profitable 
> again, they'll reverse the 10% cut.
> 
> So we have a choice: Either we all agree to accept a 10% pay cut 
> indefinitely, or some of us get the boot. And we have until close of 
> business *today* to decide.
> 
> Note again, we have to accept, in writing, a 10% pay cut. But they will 
> not put in writing that it's temporary. Note also that this cut isn't 
> even big enough to take us anywhere near break-even unless their income 
> assumptions turn out to be right. (In other words, they're expecting us 
> to get lots more work real soon now.)
> 
> Let me tell you, there wasn't much said in the meeting, but there were 
> some pretty unhappy boys and girls in there. Last month some accountant 
> came over from the USA and said everything is more or less OK. It's not 
> great, but it should get better shortly. This week, suddenly they're 
> talking about we must make savings, and in a few hours you need to 
> decide how we're going to do that. It's like... WTF changed since last 
> month?
> 
> Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere was 
> practically corrosive. Being in financial trouble is one thing. Being 
> left feeling like you weren't told the truth is another...

If the unemployment benefit is based on your last income it is also a 
10% cut on that if you are going to get sacked anyway either to get that 
other half or when they are closing the UK branch next month.
So in general this kind of 'offer' is only acceptable if
- your official salary stays the same but you get a percentage of it
- it is temporary
- the mother company guarantees that the UK branch will not be closed as 
long as this measure is in place
- the guy who offers it also accepts a cut in salary. Preferably more 
that that 10% to show his confidence in the outcome.

Did you check if such a thing is even legal in the UK? What do the 
unions say about this?

I think you have also to take into account how likely it is that it will 
get better. Is the management competent and how well do they know the 
market are some of the most important questions.

I know not in details how the actual situation is, but based on what I 
heard I would not agree.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> If the unemployment benefit is based on your last income it is also a 
> 10% cut on that.

As far as I know, in the UK unemployment benefit is unrelated to your 
prior income and is computed based only on how much money they think you 
"need" in order to survive. (E.g., stuff like whether you have children.)

> So in general this kind of 'offer' is only acceptable if
> - your official salary stays the same but you get a percentage of it
> - it is temporary
> - the mother company guarantees that the UK branch will not be closed as 
> long as this measure is in place
> - the guy who offers it also accepts a cut in salary. Preferably more 
> that that 10% to show his confidence in the outcome.

Somebody asked if Fathead is taking a pay cut as well. We are told he 
is. (Obviously, there is no way to actually verify this.)

> Did you check if such a thing is even legal in the UK? What do the 
> unions say about this?

It's legal if we all sign a written document agreeing to it. It is 
required to be unanimous though.

Unions? We don't have any.

> I think you have also to take into account how likely it is that it will 
> get better. Is the management competent and how well do they know the 
> market are some of the most important questions.
> 
> I know not in details how the actual situation is, but based on what I 
> heard I would not agree.

Uh, yeah.

We got fed the whole sob story of how lots of other companies are doing 
this sort of thing and it isn't unusual, and our industry has been hit 
hard, yadda yadda yack.

It's true that our customers' entire business model is based on 
continuous R&D. If you imagine a company such as Intel deciding to stop 
developing new products, you'll instantly see how utterly suicidal that 
would be. So they'll have to start taking projects off hold soon if 
they're not going to go under. But they don't have to give the contacts 
to *us*; there _are_ other people in our line of work.

The fact of the matter is, last year two key people left the company - 
our Director of Business Development, and shortly afterwards our General 
Manager. Since that time, our order book has become progressively more 
empty. Then we got rid of our lab manager (we're not sure why, it just 
randomly happened one afternoon).

Right now, it's pretty bad. I've never known the lab to be so quiet. 
Every time I walk into the office, I see a dozen people sitting around 
surfing ebay. When you've got three project managers sitting there 
*watching* people playing Flash games, you know something isn't right.

So far, I'm not seeing any kind of plan to get work to materialise. I 
guess it's just an unglamourious "our sales guys are going to keep doing 
what they're doing until some work starts appearing". Last time our lab 
was this empty, our lab manager was jumping up and down on the phone 
daily demanding to know when more work was coming. But he doesn't work 
for us any more...

Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how 
long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut, 
and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.

PS. I'd almost consider resigning myself just so my collegues can keep 
their jobs... but my pittiful salary is unlikely to make much difference.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how 
> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut, 
> and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.

On the other hand, if we don't get rid of people, then if, by some freak 
of nature, we get some work in, we'll still have enough staff to 
actually handle it.

We can't really afford to lose too many more people before we reach the 
point where we stop functioning.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-5-2009 12:41, Invisible wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> If the unemployment benefit is based on your last income it is also a 
>> 10% cut on that.
> 
> As far as I know, in the UK unemployment benefit is unrelated to your 
> prior income and is computed based only on how much money they think you 
> "need" in order to survive. (E.g., stuff like whether you have children.)

Here it is a percentage of your last income. Makes sense in a way, 
because if you earn more you have a bigger house, a bigger car and you 
are probably the only income. So you need more to get you through the 
hard times. Not totally fair perhaps but it prevents a lot of secondary 
damage.

I am not following what is going on in the private sector, but I think 
the concept here is that people are partly fired for some time and get 
unemployment benefit for that part. That way it doesn't affect your 
unemployment benefit later.

>> So in general this kind of 'offer' is only acceptable if
>> - your official salary stays the same but you get a percentage of it
>> - it is temporary
>> - the mother company guarantees that the UK branch will not be closed 
>> as long as this measure is in place
>> - the guy who offers it also accepts a cut in salary. Preferably more 
>> that that 10% to show his confidence in the outcome.
> 
> Somebody asked if Fathead is taking a pay cut as well. We are told he 
> is. (Obviously, there is no way to actually verify this.)

Ask him to proof it ;)

>> Did you check if such a thing is even legal in the UK? What do the 
>> unions say about this?
> 
> It's legal if we all sign a written document agreeing to it. It is 
> required to be unanimous though.

Does that mean it is only legal if it is unanimous or that they want 
full pressure from do-workers on everybody?

> Unions? We don't have any.

Interesting. A relic from the Thatcher days?

>> I think you have also to take into account how likely it is that it 
>> will get better. Is the management competent and how well do they know 
>> the market are some of the most important questions.
>>
>> I know not in details how the actual situation is, but based on what I 
>> heard I would not agree.
> 
> Uh, yeah.
> 
> We got fed the whole sob story of how lots of other companies are doing 
> this sort of thing and it isn't unusual, and our industry has been hit 
> hard, yadda yadda yack.
> 
> It's true that our customers' entire business model is based on 
> continuous R&D. If you imagine a company such as Intel deciding to stop 
> developing new products, you'll instantly see how utterly suicidal that 
> would be. So they'll have to start taking projects off hold soon if 
> they're not going to go under. But they don't have to give the contacts 
> to *us*; there _are_ other people in our line of work.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, last year two key people left the company - 
> our Director of Business Development, and shortly afterwards our General 
> Manager. Since that time, our order book has become progressively more 
> empty. 

Are you sure you have the events in chronological and causative order?

> Then we got rid of our lab manager (we're not sure why, it just 
> randomly happened one afternoon).
> 
> Right now, it's pretty bad. I've never known the lab to be so quiet. 
> Every time I walk into the office, I see a dozen people sitting around 
> surfing ebay. When you've got three project managers sitting there 
> *watching* people playing Flash games, you know something isn't right.
> 
> So far, I'm not seeing any kind of plan to get work to materialise. I 
> guess it's just an unglamourious "our sales guys are going to keep doing 
> what they're doing until some work starts appearing". Last time our lab 
> was this empty, our lab manager was jumping up and down on the phone 
> daily demanding to know when more work was coming. But he doesn't work 
> for us any more...

So the short version is that everybody that was actually able to find 
new work is no longer working there? Enquiring mind wants to know.

> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how 
> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut, 
> and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.

That pressure alone would make it illegal in my opinion, but IANAL.

> PS. I'd almost consider resigning myself just so my collegues can keep 
> their jobs... but my pittiful salary is unlikely to make much difference.

Here that would mean voluntary unemployment and a complete loss of benefit.

Whatever you decide: go looking for another job.

Post a reply to this message

>> As far as I know, in the UK unemployment benefit is unrelated to your 
>> prior income and is computed based only on how much money they think 
>> you "need" in order to survive. (E.g., stuff like whether you have 
>> children.)
> 
> Here it is a percentage of your last income. Makes sense in a way, 

Yeah, I guess.

>> Somebody asked if Fathead is taking a pay cut as well. We are told he 
>> is. (Obviously, there is no way to actually verify this.)
> 
> Ask him to proof it ;)

It's interesting... If Adam had said he was taking a 10% pay cut too, we 
would all just believe him without even thinking about it. But when 
Fathead says it, we're all suspicious... Maybe because he's such a good 
manager?

>>> Did you check if such a thing is even legal in the UK? What do the 
>>> unions say about this?
>>
>> It's legal if we all sign a written document agreeing to it. It is 
>> required to be unanimous though.
> 
> Does that mean it is only legal if it is unanimous or that they want 
> full pressure from do-workers on everybody?

We are told it's only legal if it's unanimous. IANAL. Maybe it's just a 
ploy?

>> The fact of the matter is, last year two key people left the company - 
>> our Director of Business Development, and shortly afterwards our 
>> General Manager. Since that time, our order book has become 
>> progressively more empty. 
> 
> Are you sure you have the events in chronological and causative order?

It would be a lie to say that the Director of BD left and the next day 
the lab was empty. It is true, however, that the BD guy left suddenly 
and unexpectedly (apparently HQ did something he didn't like), and that 
Adam left suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after that. And it's most 
assuredly true that nobody likes Fathead, our new site manager.

The recent quietness could be due to any number of things... it just 
seems like a bit of a coincidence that we now have 5 BD people instead 
of just 1, but there's no work. You could blame the banking crash 
(indeed, Fathead does), but it was quiet before that.

>> Then we got rid of our lab manager (we're not sure why, it just 
>> randomly happened one afternoon).
> 
> So the short version is that everybody that was actually able to find 
> new work is no longer working there? Enquiring mind wants to know.

Since Fathead has been our manager, staff turnover has been absurdly 
high. Like before, we'd maybe hire 1 person per year. And maybe 1 person 
would leave in a given year. And they'd announce that they're leaving, 
and a month or two later they'd actually leave. And we would probably 
all go out for a meal and say goodbye and stuff.

With Fathead in charge, you just come in one morning and there's some 
person you don't recognise wandering around, and it turns out they work 
for us now. Or we'll have a meeting and Fathead says "by the way, X no 
longer works for us, as of 2PM yesterday", and we're all like WTF?!

I especially like the way he decided to take on some temp staff in the lab.

1. The lab was almost empty, so why more staff?
2. It takes *months* to perform and document all the formal training in 
our policies and procedures before the new person can actually do any work.
3. During this training, somebody has to by training the person rather 
than doing their own job.

We had 2 people work for us for a month. Why? They didn't even finish 
their training period before their contracts ended. WORTH IT! Well that 
was a waste of money...

So anyway, several high-profile people have left suddenly, and with the 
lab being empty for so many months now, everybody has been getting 
twitchy about job security. And now this happens...

>> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how 
>> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the 
>> cut, and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.
> 
> That pressure alone would make it illegal in my opinion, but IANAL.

It _is_ suspecious that last month, things were "poor but managable", 
and now suddenly this week it's high-noon. Why?

>> PS. I'd almost consider resigning myself just so my collegues can keep 
>> their jobs... but my pittiful salary is unlikely to make much difference.
> 
> Here that would mean voluntary unemployment and a complete loss of benefit.

Possibly here too. I don't know.

> Whatever you decide: go looking for another job.

Er, yeah. Even if there are no pay cuts and I get to keep my job, this 
is *not* the company to work for! o_O

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere was 
> practically corrosive. 

You haven't seen corrosive until you've seen them call everyone in the 
company into the room on Friday morning and announce they don't have enough 
money to cut paychecks this week.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how 
> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut, 
> and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.

http://3laws.wordpress.com/the-laws/

No freebies, no backsies. :-)

If the bank won't lend them money, why should you?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Here it is a percentage of your last income. Makes sense in a way, 
> because if you earn more you have a bigger house, a bigger car and you 
> are probably the only income. So you need more to get you through the 
> hard times. Not totally fair perhaps but it prevents a lot of secondary 
> damage.

It's also the fact that you pay more taxes to cover it when you're working 
while you're employed, at least in CA. If you don't pay the taxes, you 
aren't covered. But if you do pay the taxes, you also aren't always covered. 
There are situations where a sufficiently small business winds up paying UI 
taxes and nobody there can collect.

>> Unions? We don't have any.
> Interesting. A relic from the Thatcher days?

A sufficiently small company isn't going to have a union either. :-)

> Whatever you decide: go looking for another job.

Yep.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 May 2009 09:06:39 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Invisible wrote:
>> Basically, they want us all to take a pay cut, they can't tell us how
>> long for, they can't tell as a specific condition for removing the cut,
>> and we need to decide, unanimously, in the next few hours. Great.
> 
> http://3laws.wordpress.com/the-laws/
> 
> No freebies, no backsies. :-)
> 
> If the bank won't lend them money, why should you?

That's what I'd go with.

I'd also question the true legality of using peer pressure to get 
everyone to agree to a pay cut.  At best that seems unethical to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere 
>> was practically corrosive. 
> 
> You haven't seen corrosive until you've seen them call everyone in the 
> company into the room on Friday morning and announce they don't have 
> enough money to cut paychecks this week.

PWN3D!! O_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> If the bank won't lend them money, why should you?
> 
> That's what I'd go with.
> 
> I'd also question the true legality of using peer pressure to get 
> everyone to agree to a pay cut.  At best that seems unethical to me.

Apparently it's moot now. Some people rejected it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 21-5-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Here it is a percentage of your last income. Makes sense in a way, 
>> because if you earn more you have a bigger house, a bigger car and you 
>> are probably the only income. So you need more to get you through the 
>> hard times. Not totally fair perhaps but it prevents a lot of 
>> secondary damage.
> 
> It's also the fact that you pay more taxes to cover it when you're 
> working while you're employed, at least in CA. If you don't pay the 
> taxes, you aren't covered. But if you do pay the taxes, you also aren't 
> always covered. There are situations where a sufficiently small business 
> winds up paying UI taxes and nobody there can collect.
> 
>>> Unions? We don't have any.
>> Interesting. A relic from the Thatcher days?
> 
> A sufficiently small company isn't going to have a union either. :-)

As I said, no real experience in the private sector, but as far as I 
know even people in small companies can be members of a union here. 
There are some big unions with divisions that span certain workers in 
all companies of a kind. Say all labpersonal organized as a group and 
all kitchen personel etc.
Apparently the situation is different in the UK and US.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:46:54 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> If the bank won't lend them money, why should you?
>> 
>> That's what I'd go with.
>> 
>> I'd also question the true legality of using peer pressure to get
>> everyone to agree to a pay cut.  At best that seems unethical to me.
> 
> Apparently it's moot now. Some people rejected it.

That sounds like the best option - even though some individuals may be 
let go as a result, it didn't sound like there was a guarantee that that 
wouldn't have happened even if everyone had agreed to the pay cut.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Apparently the situation is different in the UK and US.

No, I think it's similar. We have some big companies without unions and some 
small companies with unions, and some small companies with company-spanning 
unions.

I just didn't get the impression that Andrew's company had a union. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Lots of unspoken questions in that room. I tell you, the atmosphere 
>>> was practically corrosive. 
>>
>> You haven't seen corrosive until you've seen them call everyone in the 
>> company into the room on Friday morning and announce they don't have 
>> enough money to cut paychecks this week.
> 
> PWN3D!! O_O

Best line of the whole deal:
Leon: "What are you planning to do about it?"
CFO:  "We're entertaining several possibilities."
Leon: "Entertaining nothing! The party's over!"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:

> <snip>
> Look at it this way, Andrew,

Hi John,

Are you back in the land of the living? ;)

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> 
>> <snip>
>> Look at it this way, Andrew,
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Are you back in the land of the living? ;)
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
Yup, large as life and twice as nasty :-D
Will email you soon and try to arrange belated Birthday, Christmas and
New Year beer sampling session.

BTW Uxbridge?! WTF?

John
-- 
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei

Post a reply to this message

Doctor John <joh### [at] homecom> wrote:
> Yup, large as life and twice as nasty :-D
> Will email you soon and try to arrange belated Birthday, Christmas and
> New Year beer sampling session.
>

:-)

> BTW Uxbridge?! WTF?
>


WTF indeed!
I’m working at Coca Cola Enterprises (bottling) which is based in the back of
beyond. The lease on my flat was up last week so we’ve move out here short
term.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And so, the hour draws near.

This time last week, everything was fine. Then on Monday, this calamity 
was unleashed on us. There have been rumous and wild speculation. There 
have been two-on-one interviews. There have been talks about pay cuts or 
redundancies. What new twists will unfold today? Only time will tell.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> What new twists will unfold today? Only time will tell.

Hmm...

Just seen somebody walk past my office in tears. Somebody else is 
sitting outside in the reception area staring blankly into space, not 
even blinking. Another person just walked past my office and said 
something like "it's been nice knowing you".

Some seriously ****ed-up **** happening here today. And the appointed 
hour has not even arrived yet! o_O

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> What new twists will unfold today? Only time will tell.

Well, well... Four people no longer work here. Two of them are brand 
new, two of them have been here longer than I have. None were especially 
crucial. (Two were part-time, one was a trainee project manager who, 
quite frankly, was rubbish anyway, and the last was just another lab bod.)

I am *kind* of annoyed at having spent an entire day fixing a PC for a 
guy who no longer works here. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 May 2009 15:30:54 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Invisible wrote:
>> What new twists will unfold today? Only time will tell.
> 
> Well, well... Four people no longer work here. Two of them are brand
> new, two of them have been here longer than I have. None were especially
> crucial. (Two were part-time, one was a trainee project manager who,
> quite frankly, was rubbish anyway, and the last was just another lab
> bod.)
> 
> I am *kind* of annoyed at having spent an entire day fixing a PC for a
> guy who no longer works here. :-P

Well, it's better than being idle and having management think that 
because you're idle, you're not needed. :-)

Seriously, layoffs are never fun, not for those who are let go, nor for 
those who are left behind.  I've been through far too many over the years 
and seen some very good people let go (and some not so good people kept 
for some bizarre reason).

Jim

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I am *kind* of annoyed at having spent an entire day fixing a PC for a
>> guy who no longer works here. :-P
> 
> Well, it's better than being idle and having management think that 
> because you're idle, you're not needed. :-)
> 
> Seriously, layoffs are never fun, not for those who are let go, nor for 
> those who are left behind.  I've been through far too many over the years 
> and seen some very good people let go (and some not so good people kept 
> for some bizarre reason).

Apparently numerous people made the suggestion that we let Fathead go... 
but unsurprisingly, that didn't happen. (I imagine is salary alone would 
bring us back to break-even. :-P But he's good at all the management 
power-speak, so that's that.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 May 2009 09:01:40 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Apparently numerous people made the suggestion that we let Fathead go...
> but unsurprisingly, that didn't happen. (I imagine is salary alone would
> bring us back to break-even. :-P But he's good at all the management
> power-speak, so that's that.)

That's a shame.  While it's possible to empathize with the boss if let 
go, that doesn't mean that such a move can't be a good thing for those 
left behind when the boss is a poor leader..

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Apparently numerous people made the suggestion that we let Fathead go...
>> but unsurprisingly, that didn't happen. (I imagine is salary alone would
>> bring us back to break-even. :-P But he's good at all the management
>> power-speak, so that's that.)
> 
> That's a shame.  While it's possible to empathize with the boss if let 
> go, that doesn't mean that such a move can't be a good thing for those 
> left behind when the boss is a poor leader..

As far as we can tell, Fathead doesn't give a fig what happens to the 
company. Being the "site manager" looks good on his CV, and he gets a 
big fat pay cheque. Beyond that... he doesn't give a damn.

I find it particularly inappropriate to be walking round the building 
whistling cheerfully while people are breaking down in tears because 
they just lost their income.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 23 May 2009 21:25:42 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> As far as we can tell, Fathead doesn't give a fig what happens to the
> company. Being the "site manager" looks good on his CV, and he gets a
> big fat pay cheque. Beyond that... he doesn't give a damn.

I know people like that.  Tends to be very corrosive indeed.

> I find it particularly inappropriate to be walking round the building
> whistling cheerfully while people are breaking down in tears because
> they just lost their income.

You and me alike.  It shows a lot about the guy's character, that's for 
sure.

Jim

Post a reply to this message