faq
code
awards
journals
subscribe
older stuff
rob's page
preferences
submit story
advertising
supporters
past polls
topics
about
bugs
hof
| Morals and Layoffs |
Posted by
JonKatz
on Tuesday September 25, @09:45AM
from the do-they-owe-you-anything dept. Technology is the momma of the modern workplace, its creator, from the Industrial Revolution to the blessedly short-lived dot.com era. It has re-shaped work, making it cleaner, more mobile and flexible, safer -- but much less secure. Jobs now change as often as the market fluctuates, as mergers and takeovers shift the landscape, as the market bumps up and down, as marketing tracks our desires and dislikes, needs and whims. Technology makes it possible for companies to shift jobs all over the world, and redefine themselves in weeks and months. Qwest tossed 4,000 workers two weeks ago. The very idea of job security seems a casualty of the tech-driven global economy, with its continuous down-sizing, changing ownership and management goals, lateral strategies and evolving needs. Now we add terrorist attacks and a recession. The new corporate work ethic is change -- measured, defined and executed by corporate hierarchies. Do they owe anything to the people they dump?
Radical changes in modern institutional structure have ushered in an era of short-term, contract, or episodic labor, writes economist Richard Sennett in his book The Corrosion of Character. Corporations have sought to remove layers of bureaucracy, to become "flatter and more flexible" organizations. In place of pyramid-style organizations, management wants now to think of organizations as networks. This means many more layoffs, writes Sennett, and also that promotions and dismissals tend not to be based any longer on fixed rules, since tasks are fluid, and the network is constantly redefining its structure.
Executives are paid more and more to re-shape companies, and work becomes less stable in direct proportion. Workers have never been more powerless, their tenure more fragile. Tech workers, many of whom came of age in an era of growth and full employment, are learning the lessons of the real world quickly. Tasks and missions are temporal, the people employed to execute them highly disposable. Work and workers are both flexible and expendable.
One of the most shocking and widely accepted tenets of the new techno-workplace is that the well-run company, the one that wants to compete in the global economy, has to be so fluid, evolving and responsive to change that thousands of employees can get dumped at one whack and it's not even controversial. That's a pretty long trek from the capitalist ethic that only a few years ago valued corporate loyalty as much as profits, and touted the company-employee bond.
And it raises all sorts of new questions -- especially for a generation of tech workers experiencing layoffs for the first time.
In the Corporate Republic, where corporations fund the political system, control most mass media, write legislation, and now dominate entertainment and culture (and soon, much of technology, from bio-tech to Net access), there are few agreed-upon rules about layoffs. Hardly any would get far in Washington, the world headquarters of corporate lobbying. (Congress, allegedly the public's lobbyists, are scrambling to get campaign funds from corporate donors.)
Unions, already on the wane, have never gained much hold in the Tech Nation, populated by educated, mobile, skilled and independent-minded workers. Some tech companies are comparatively generous -- extending health plans beyond the federal requirements with some benefits extending past a layoff date.
Cisco has offered to pay its laid-off workers for an additional year if they work for charities the company supports. It's nice, but it isn't the same as job security. And even that kind of moral responsibility is rare.
Under COBRA (The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) passed by Congress in l985, some laid-off or terminated workers (those fired for reasons other than gross misconduct) are entitled to continuation of health benefits for extended periods of time. COBRA doesn't cover companies with fewer than 20 employees, and it doesn't cover all workers terminated under all circumstances. If the company goes bankrupt, for example, COBRA doesn't apply at all. You have to check and see if you're eligible.)
Corporations have no particular incentive to be generous, or even ethical, to terminated employees. Most answer to boards of directors and demanding shareholders expecting maximum profits. Generosity towards workers doesn't serve the bottom line, even when it might serve the company's long-term interests. One of the reasons Cisco treats laid-off workers well, company officials have conceded, is to keep morale high among remaining employees, who feel better about the company and the work they do for it.
All sorts of class issues are roiling the new, techno-driven workforce, amid the thousands of layoffs being announced weekly.
The layoff was once the more or less exclusive province of the working class. but in recent years -- and especially recent months -- it has become a fixture of the white-collar and managerial universe, and of skilled, educated, tech workers. U.S. employment figures show the number of workers on nonfarm payrolls plummeting.
Now lawyers and journalists are getting laid off as well as tech workers, and when reporters started hitting the sidewalk, layoffs became a big story in a hurry.
Yahoo, Dell, AOL Time-Warner and scores of other companies have collectively let go of hundreds of thousands of employees (soon, probably to be followed by layoffs at the new company formed by Hewlitt-Packard's acquisition of Compaq). A generation of tech workers, for the first time, is feeling the impact of a workplace in which corporations seem to feel virtually no moral obligation to the employees they let go.
So just what moral obligation does a company have to laid-off workers?
Some possibilities:
- Maximum warning. Employees ought to have between three and six months' notice before they're laid off, time enough to look for other work in a sane, secure way.
- Continued health benefits. Employment used to be a contract: you worked hard for the company, the company took reasonable care of you. Employees who have been with a corporation any length of time at all -- I'd say six months -- ought to keep their health benefits until they find new work, a guarantee not even COBRA provides.
- Innovative responses. The layoff has become almost a corporate reflex, a statement to analysts, boards of directors and stockholders that management is lean and mean. When the market drops, capital gets squeezed,or takeovers occur, employment gets slashed. This often seems short-sighted. Tech workers are skilled and valuable. It's difficult to predict the nature of technology, and of consumer attitudes towards technological products and innovation. People laid off today might be urgently needed in six months. Shouldn't they at least have a chance to come up with other tasks, products, functions or ideas before they're booted out?
For that matter, tech workers could seek out companies with humane policies towards their workforce, making the companies more valuable and competitive. They could also begin demanding contracts and codified job security when the seek and accept positions -- especially when the economy is in their favor.
Regulatory agencies consider the impact of corporate decision-making on the environment, the consumer, and on anti-trust issues. Why aren't consideration of layoffs and job losses a factor in mergers like that between AOL and Time-Warner, or Hewlitt-Packard and Compaq? Maybe the loss of thousands of jobs isn't worth the short-term savings of some mergers.
Let's not kid ourselves. In the Corporate Republic, we can't expect companies, governments, unions or regulatory agencies to strengthen a sense of corporate morality or humanity. Corporations are more powerful than any of these entities, as tech workers are discovering by the thousands. Workers are on their own. Companies will demonstrate loyalty when they re-gain a sense that it's more efficient, ultimately more profitable, to keep experienced loyal workers than to employ insecure short-term ones. That's possible. But it isn't likely.
| |
|
< Slashdot in Politics?
| OS X 10.1 Coming Today (Sorta) >
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Morals and Layoffs
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 449 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
(1)
|
2
|
3
(Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
|
What corporate republic? (Score:2, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, @09:47AM (#2346664)
|
What corporate republic?
Right now it's turning into a "you'll start carrying an ID or you'll cry and carry an ID" republic.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Security (Score:5, Interesting)
by Dutchmaan on Tuesday September 25, @09:50AM (#2346694)
(User #442553 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Security of the individual seems to be taking a very solid backseat to the security of the institutions that are supposed to be providing security for the individual.
Every institution seems to eventually forget that their strength comes from the people underneath, be it a company or a government.
Laws should spring forth from society and not be sent down from above. As well as a company's employees should work to better a company rather than having a company as a shelter from poverty.
We have forgotten that the relationship of larger institutions and the individual is a symbiotic one.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Security by Pope (Score:2) Tuesday September 25, @11:03AM
- Re:Security by Boomer2 (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @11:23AM
- Re:Security by Sabalon (Score:2) Tuesday September 25, @11:45AM
- Re:Security by iceT (Score:2) Tuesday September 25, @12:51PM
- Re:Security by ethereal (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @12:56PM
- Yes by rppp01 (Score:1) Tuesday September 25, @01:53PM
- Re:Security by harvardian (Score:3) Tuesday September 25, @01:18PM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Layoffs, Firings or 'Volunteerism'...? (Score:5, Funny)
by tenzig_112 on Tuesday September 25, @09:50AM (#2346696)
(User #213387 Info | http://www.ridiculopathy.com/)
|
HP Employees Get A Choice: Layoffs, Firings, or "Volunteerism"
After allowing employees to take a voluntary pay cut to save their company and thereby their jobs, Hewlett Packard has found the $130 million in savings was not enough to make investors happy. So, some of the very same employees who gave up salary "for the benefit of the company" are seeing their loyalty paid off in pink slips.
But wait. In what they are heralding as "the next era in employee outplacement," HP is giving it employees a choice of how exactly they will be shitcanned. Apparently, the recent repositioning campaign about sending HP back to the garage where its founder, well, founded the company was no metaphor. By the time the company is done trimming, the remaining staff will be able to comfortably fit in an average two car garage.
Industry analysts say that if HP keeps firing people at this rate, they should be in the black by year's end, even if they sell nothing at all.
More than 6,000 HP Employees found this check-a-box note in their mail trays on Thursday morning.
(please choose from one of the following outplacement options)
I want to be:
- Laid-Off: No work left for you to do, so hit the bricks. Will you get you job back in six months, a year? Who knows? Don't worry. It's not your fault- or is it?
- Fired: Pack up your stuff, you're outta here. It may seem like a black mark on your record, but this way you are released from your non-competitive agreement and can immediately begin begging the competition for a job.
- Converted to Volunteer Status: Work at HP for free. Continue your job function as long as you need to convince your family you're still gainfully employed. This is a free service of HP Outplacement Services.
[Note: "Have my manager fired or laid-off instead of me" was not part of the option menu. Neither was "Screw the investors, we're not in the f***ing commodity business."]
HP CEO Carly Fiorina says that she is excited about the company's brave new direction in outplacement.
"At HP, we've always been innovators in terms of employee benefits and employee options," said Fiorina. "We think other companies in our peer group will be following our lead."
Chief among the innovations in the program is the new "volunteer status" which allows employees to continue working for HP and serving HP customers without actually getting paid. While the money they would have made is not tax deductible, they are, as Fiorina put it, perfectly free to brag about it as they would for any volunteer work. The company has outlined preliminary plans for Habitat-For-Humanity-style t-shirts for the new volunteers.
"You would be shocked to learn what people will do for a t-shirt," said Fiorina.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
@home layoffs - 1st post (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, @09:51AM (#2346700)
|
@home just layed of 500 more people with no severence package at all - just payed through the day. As an employee I am weighting my options as the musical chairs of my job can't work for me if I'm going paycheck to paycheck. Blah.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
So what are you implying? (Score:3, Insightful)
by plover on Tuesday September 25, @09:52AM (#2346708)
(User #150551 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday January 02, @10:18AM)
|
That we in the tech sector should turn to personal greed? Load up on options? Prepare sabotage and threaten management with "if we're fired, so are your systems?"
C'mon, Jon, i've come to expect a certain "knee-jerk" response from you on these posts, and frankly I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't see it here. Actually, I'd like to see some answers. After the events of the past two weeks, I think that all of us are rethinking our job stability.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
This has been going on for 30 years (Score:4, Informative)
by Hairy_Potter (T_Rone@hotmail.com) on Tuesday September 25, @09:53AM (#2346714)
(User #219096 Info | http://members.xoom.com/T_rone/T_RONE.HTM)
|
Boy, jus tlike Katz to pick up a 30 year old trend and call it new.
Of course, in the '70;s it was blue collar workers like steel and auto workers.
In the early 90's it was mid level managers.
Now it's affecting geeks who's geekiness is being able to start Front Page and write wysiwig web pages.
As someone who worked through the 90-91 recession, this is nothing new, keep your skills up to date and keep rolling with the punches.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
That is why I work out of the IT Industry (Score:2, Interesting)
by the_2nd_coming on Tuesday September 25, @09:53AM (#2346715)
(User #444906 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
I would like to point out that when the DotBombs crashed, 99% of the folks that lost their jobs worked in the IT Industry. if you want more security, allpy your skills to another sector in the market like the automotive or aerospace sector, or the public sector(though the pay sucks)
that way when the IT industry, which is very volitile goes down, you still have a job. yes ripples in the market can affect others, but in auto, ford just shuts down production at first, then if things get seriouse they go to long term layoffs on the factory floor then move to the engeneers and software developers.
yes you won't get the pay you would working in IT industry, but the job security is much higher.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Layoffs-youths (Score:2, Interesting)
by ZaBu911 on Tuesday September 25, @09:53AM (#2346719)
(User #520503 Info | http://www.rpgplanet.com/nexus)
|
Well, as a somewhat technology savvy teen who just turned 15, I was looking forward to a summer job at a local dotcom. (I live in the Silicon Valley) Now when I inquired about simple mindless tasks that usually hire youths, I find no vacancies even at McDonald's! Heh.
Just something to think about. Why would they hire a youth when they could hire someone who needs to feed his family.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Up or out (Score:2, Insightful)
by PHAEDRU5 on Tuesday September 25, @09:57AM (#2346742)
(User #213667 Info)
|
I'm finding it hard to see anything new here.
I'm ex-military. When I was in, I was a commissioned officer. As such, I was expected to earn a master's degree in *something*, and fill a number of other career checkboxes. Failure to do so would make me ineligible for promotion to Major, and therefore ineligible to serve 20 and get a pension.
While I was in, I had a mentor, a Colonel, who'd changed jobs 33 times in his USAF career. Basically, he started looking for a new job as soon as he started a job, and he started something new each year.
I liked that, and that's how I run my life. As soon as I get a job, I'm looking for a job. I don't expect anything from my employer, except what I negotiate, and I don't even expect that to last.
I can remember my mother telling me to get a good job and hold it forever. And keep my money in a bank deposit account. Safety first. Sorry, illusion of safety first.
It's a cold, prickly world out there. Get used to it.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - Re:Up or out by reaper20 (Score:2) Tuesday September 25, @10:43AM
- Re:Up or out by markmoss (Score:2) Tuesday September 25, @10:50AM
|
God, you type fast. (Score:2, Offtopic)
by dmorin on Tuesday September 25, @09:58AM (#2346750)
(User #25609 Info)
|
The five finger discount story went up at 7:54am. Your story on the same subject is up at 9:45. God you type fast!
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
What about the other direction? (Score:3, Insightful)
by alandd on Tuesday September 25, @09:58AM (#2346751)
(User #243817 Info)
|
As an employer, what right would I have to expect advanced warning from an employee that is going to quit? If I train someone, on the job and with organized classes, if I create a business plan and development schedule or other expendature of resources around an employee, do I have the right to employee security to know a key employee will be there?
Many times "company loyalty" only goes one way with the employee giving it and the company giving the employee "the shaft." I have been there. However, I find it silly to expect that I can walk away from my job anytime, leaving my employer with ruined plans and wasted money but they must give me advanced notice before letting me go.
Don't get me wrong, an employer treating me right before letting me loose would be great! As an employee I should be willing to do the same for my employer should I start pursuing a career path away from them.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
American thing (Score:2, Interesting)
by Malc on Tuesday September 25, @09:59AM (#2346759)
(User #1751 Info)
|
Lack of job security is an American thing. Sure, other countries have made it easier to lay people off, but not to the extent it has been taken in America. Corporations have your government representatives in their pockets, and corporations don't want job security. But why complain, job security seems to go hand-in-hand with left-wing socialist policies that so many Americans sneer at. "Socialism" seems to be a derogatory word to many Americans. Even countries like Britian or Canada who could be said to be the most similar in the world to the US idealogically get called "more socialist", as if it's bad. You want job security, embrace a bit of socialism.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Short-timers (Score:3, Interesting)
by totallygeek on Tuesday September 25, @10:00AM (#2346774)
(User #263191 Info | http://www.totallygeek.com/slashdot.html)
|
Maximum warning. Employees ought to have between three and six months' notice before they're laid off, time enough to look for other work in a sane, secure way.
That sounds good, but you will not get much work out of people that know their job is gone in six months -- especially while they are looking for other work. You then end up fighting the urge to just fire the employee.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
It's reaping and sowing time (Score:1, Troll)
by InsaneGeek ([moc.skeegenasni] [ta] [keeGenasnI]) on Tuesday September 25, @10:01AM (#2346776)
(User #175763 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Look at all the posts on the message boards 2 years ago. Don't like the way your employer twirls his fingers counter clockwise (you like clockwise only); well you don't have any responsibility to your employer f'them, you don't need to give any notice just go where the money rolls. After all that, jumping to 5 different jobs in a single year, people are now wondering why employers are looking after them?
It's now time to suck it up and realize that we as employees caused this philosophy with employers, and we as employees are the only ones who can change this philosophy by actually showing loyalty to the back to the employer. Now don't get me wrong you should NOT be working there waiting on a paycheck 3 months late, getting paid in options instead until they get VC money, but putting some loyalty into your employer instead of trying to constantly pimp them is the first step.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Redundancies (Score:5, Informative)
by Eeyonne on Tuesday September 25, @10:02AM (#2346783)
(User #454928 Info)
|
I've been made redundant twice this year.
After working for Grey Interactive UK for 18 months the tech slowdown eventually forced them to loose staff. throughout this process we were consulted and kept up to date with goings on, and when it came to the inevitable announcement I was one of approx 30% of the company. I was told that GIUK would try to place me with another Grey company, and if unsuccessful, within a month I would be made redundant. I was free to use the facilities to print CVs, browse the net, and generally look for work. I chose not to pursue a relocation to another Grey office, and spent most of the time out of the office, however, it was good to know there was some support there.
I found work with a company called Zinc a few weeks later and things were looking up, however after five weeks (yes weeks) I was called up, out of the blue with no forewarning. I was told their parent company was asking then to make redundancies (much like grey), and as it was a Last in First Out basis, I was to go.. I was escorted out the building and given a weeks notice pay.
in retrospect I feel I was treated fairly by Grey and discovered that small things can make such a huge difference in how you perceive you are being treated.
I think the most important thing is to keep your employees informed. It was such an amazing shock to me and I still feel rather bitter about it (while having fonder memories of my time at Grey (of course I was pretty pissed off about it at the time))
I have since found a new job... far from ideal, however beggars can't be choosers in the current tech climate
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Corporate Responsibility Required (Score:1)
by feed_me_cereal (feed_me_cereal@yahoo.com) on Tuesday September 25, @10:03AM (#2346793)
(User #452042 Info | http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~morwick | Last Journal: Wednesday August 22, @11:45AM)
|
Perhaps corporate responsibility is more than a moral obligation. Many of Katz's suggestions seem more than reasonable, and perhaps some of these accomidations should be required. After all, you can't send someone to the soup line and expect the economy not to suffer, so it's not only in the interest of the individual, but the nation as a whole. Informing an employee with as much warning as an employee is expected to warn a company of a change in employment dosn't overly burden a company, so therefore its better for the economy if these types of responsibilities were moved out of the moral obligation arena and into contracts and/or laws. With buisnesses consolidating, going under, rising up, etc.. as fast as they are, labor unions, especially for high-tech jobs, cannot provide the needed support which they can offer long-term blue-collar employees of car factories and what not. That means we need intervention from elsewhere. Perhaps a government agency which helps employees form contracts with thier employers. Does anything like this exist? Could it? Or am I just dreaming?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Techies a commodity (Score:3, Interesting)
by spudnic (jamesbATpanmatrixDOTnet) on Tuesday September 25, @10:06AM (#2346808)
(User #32107 Info)
|
I've been in this business for almost as long as the majority of users here have been alive. I've seen sweeping changes over the years as to how a company treats their tech workers.
When I started up true techs where few and far between in my geographical area. Most of the guys I knew who got into this business where starting a second career, thus older than the lot we have today, and had varying backgrounds like electronics wizards, telecom guys from the military, etc. We where treated with a lot more respect because the companies we worked for knew that they would have problems if we ever left.
The networks we put together weren't just made up of commodity hardware you can buy at the local CompUSA. Most networks where a reflection of the team that designed them. Little inconsistancies and tricks that only they knew about. If the sysop where to be let go, they'd be in for trouble.
Today we have millions of qualified(?) cookie cutter tech guys (and gals) out in the workforce. They've all pretty much had the same exposure to technology as they grew up and went to school. Basically, they're interchangable. I know this is a generalization, but it holds true for 99%.
It's very hard these days to distinguish yourself as a vital part of the corporate machine. Techs can be let go at anytime with the understanding that it will be easy to replace them with someone of equal ability and the skills required to manage an existing system.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Will code... (Score:1)
by affenmann on Tuesday September 25, @10:07AM (#2346811)
(User #195152 Info | http://www.affenmann.de/)
|
...for food [zzz.com.ru].
For your information:
This comment is lame. It violates the
postercomment compression filter.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Corporate Republic - Katz forgot something. (Score:1)
by Tackhead on Tuesday September 25, @10:07AM (#2346813)
(User #54550 Info)
|
Quoth Katz:
> In the Corporate Republic, where corporations fund the political
system, control most mass media, write legislation, and now dominate
entertainment and culture
...and pay us to build the products they sell that enable them to do so, thereby enabling us to buy neat toys and surf the web on company time and post messages to Slashdot.
When my employer pays me, or makes good on the severance portions of the employment contract (even if that portion reads merely "We can fire your azz at will!"), they've made good.
Why can't Katz deal with that?
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
What are you saying, Jon? (Score:1, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, @10:08AM (#2346817)
|
That Wired Magazine owes you something?
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
loyalty VS the allmighty dollar (Score:1)
by darth300z on Tuesday September 25, @10:10AM (#2346835)
(User #522565 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
This seems to work both ways. Employeers don't owe workers very much these days. Lets face it, this generation is not going to stay at the same company for 30 years then retire (too bad, cuz damn, we sure wanted that gold watch)! The way it's going now is that you stay at a job between 1 and 3 years. No longer than that. It's a matter of money for workers. If you stay at a job, a good place will give you roughly 10% a year raise. That's nice. If you jump jobs after a year or two you can get 30% or better. Are those days over? No, not for the people who's skills are in demand. For entry level people, yes, the market REALLY sucks. For the in-demand worker, it makes sense to "jump ship" (or jump the shark!) every few years.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
As in most things, what goes around, comes around (Score:3, Interesting)
by jet_silver (unobtainium@usa.net) on Tuesday September 25, @10:10AM (#2346838)
(User #27654 Info)
|
I work in the Silicon Valley. A number of companies here find it hard to get workers because they treated layoffs wrong. Loyalty is a two-way transaction. For example, the armed services are learning this, because there appears to be a crisis of downward loyalty (this has been written about pretty extensively). Basically top brass sacrifice their subordinates, and it's quit working. Captain-level attrition was never higher.
It's the same in industry. Some companies -always- have waiting lists. Some companies play hell getting people to come on board. There's a reason for that. Corporate, like individual, reputation has a lot to do with how willing people are to work there. And reputation, both good and bad, is pretty often earned.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Techno Layoffs are Very Old History (Score:1)
by an_art on Tuesday September 25, @10:11AM (#2346844)
(User #521552 Info)
|
There is nothing new here. Don't forget that the U.S Aerospace industry had a collapse in the late 60's, in which thousands of bright, trained and experienced engineers were summarily laid off. As for contract labor woes and job exports, this is nothing new. Let me suggest a good course in U.S. History, followed by a Labor History course, unless you wish to persist in believing the delusion that computer geeks are somehow unique and special. In the meantime, weigh the benefits of belonging to a good professional organization, such as IEEE, ACM or (?), depending upon your specialty. At least that way you can manage a benefits portfolio in your career progression from job to job. Above all, regardless of short term compensation, try to get into a field that you actually enjoy for its own sake. It's better for your health, and in the long run you might still get financially lucky.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Wait a minute (Score:1)
by sielwolf (seel.wooof@whatever.com) on Tuesday September 25, @10:11AM (#2346848)
(User #246764 Info)
|
"The layoff used to only happen for the working class?" Excuse me? Katz seems to have forgotten the last, oh I don't know, THIRTY years of recessions. A lot of industries moved out of the US (for example) taking MANY of their research groups with them. Hell, I should know. My family lives in the Akron OH area. Layoffs happened to Katz's Technical Elite about 11 years ago when all the rubber companies abandoned ship. This has happened all over. The automobile industry, the aerospace industry. Katz should try to get into his vapid head that a lot of engineers are End Users.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Blessedly short-lived dot-com era? (Score:2)
by sulli on Tuesday September 25, @10:12AM (#2346855)
(User #195030 Info | http://www.sulli.org)
|
Yeah, Katz, you're saying that now, but weren't you talking not long ago about the New Economy and how it would change everything?
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Obvious benefits (Score:1)
by Walter_e_Kurtz (Kurtz@Apocolypse.org) on Tuesday September 25, @10:12AM (#2346856)
(User #136549 Info)
|
I used to work at one of those great dot coms with lots of low priced options. After the IT staff was cut from 25 poeple to 5 I decided I didn't want to stick around any longer. We all asked for some signs of job security to no avail. When it was all said and done and I left for a stable opportunity elsewhere. Management was in shock that poeple would actually leave when the company was at such a critical stage. It woke them up and my ex-coworkers tell me that the job security is changing with written promises of advanced warning of layoffs etc.
Probably not the case everywhere but if the employees shock management enough to the point that their systems are not functioning because the only poeple with the proper skill set to manage those systems left because of disgust for the company. They *might* listen. I just feel better that those poeple I worked with and their families can sleep a little more sound (not to mention way more money for me!)
- Josh
insert clever or comical sig here
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
has JK ever worked for such a company ? (Score:2)
by beanerspace (abuse@[127.0.0.1]) on Tuesday September 25, @10:12AM (#2346857)
(User #443710 Info)
|
Not knowing Jon Katz' history. Has he ever worked for a company such as QWest ?
There is a financial reality here. Companies have to make money. Is it not equally immoral to keep everyone on payroll, at the expense of one's debtors ?
Certainly, there are some nasty companies out there. I know, I've worked for some of them. But the reality is that the "gold watch" methaphor was a short lived creature of the mid 20th century. Well, there were those friends of royalty who worked for life a particular despot, until their boss was deposed. At which point, their contract, along with their lives were usually terminated. That, or slavery.
While I wish loyalty was valued more by both employer and employee, the reality is that jobs are just that, jobs.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
If you want severance, negotiate it (Score:1)
by Russ Nelson on Tuesday September 25, @10:14AM (#2346872)
(User #33911 Info | http://russnelson.com/)
|
Jon, if someone wants a severance package, they should negotiate for it. If your employer values you so little that they won't give you severance, then you should take that as a hint that you may be let go at any moment, and you should live your life and work at your job accordingly.
-russ
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
What about employee loyalty ? (Score:2, Interesting)
by tmark on Tuesday September 25, @10:14AM (#2346874)
(User #230091 Info)
|
I found this post ironic because in the last few years many tech workers have enjoyed an ability to switch from job to job, garnering raises and promotions on the way. Employee mobility, especially in the tech sector, has been higher in the last 3-4 years than it probably has ever been. This, I would expect most readers here would agree, is a Good Thing.
But I wonder, don't "job security" and "employee loyalty" go hand in hand ? Sure, employees will be more loyal to companies that offer the kinds of perks Katz talks about, but aren't companies also more likely offer those kinds of perks if they had some reason to believe their employees would show them loyalty ? How, in this time of unprecedented worker mobility, can we fairly expect companies to extend things like 3-6 months termination notice when companies probably would be derided for expecting 3-6 months of notice when one of their employees decided to leave for greener pastures ?
In short, what kind of responsibilities ought we have to our employers ? Is it reasonable to expect that companies should be any less self-interested than we workers are ?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
This must have been written pre 9/11 (Score:2)
by wiredog on Tuesday September 25, @10:15AM (#2346878)
(User #43288 Info | Last Journal: Monday October 01, @06:53PM)
|
In the DC area we're getting tens of thousands of layoffs, but tech workers, especially those with clearances, are doing well. It's the airport/airline/hotel/restaurant workers who're getting screwed. You've got people who didn't make much to begin with being laid off and unable to find any jobs, not even minimum wage. On the other end of the scale airline pilots with $200,000/year salaries and $500,000 mortgages are getting pink slips.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
reorganize (Score:1)
by *weasel on Tuesday September 25, @10:15AM (#2346882)
(User #174362 Info)
|
if corporate reorganizing has shown anything - it's the value of contract workers.
contractors don't care much for corporate loyalty or security, as canceled contracts have termination clauses that are agreed upon at the outset by both parties.
i think what we'll see as the information age settles into an optimal pattern is that contracting firms will grow increasingly popular to large corporations. these firms will encapsulate a group of people who work well together with perhaps specialties.
this may facilitate a greater focus on tech workers and their abilities, but i doubt to the programmers-as-rock-stars hype level that the bubble promised.
of course contractors undoubtedly charge more than a corporation would pay for direct work. but the value of the corporations has always been their assets, their management, their (intellectual) property, and their brands. they succeed regardless of individual workers within them. they can hire a dozen contracting teams to work on a dozen products this year, and next year they don't have to worry about what to assign them to. their production can expand and contract much more naturally with the market. and these contractions will have less effect.
employees i believe will tend more toward these shops. a small contract group has more loyalty to workers, is by definition a flatter organization, and much more closely tied to employees.
granted this theory applies to large corporations - the nortels, the big three, the boeings, et al. small flexible mobile companies will grow and die as they always have. dependant on the drive, timliness, and accuracy of their team, vision, and product.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
No of different professions per life (Score:1)
by Osram (w_kuss@rz-online.de) on Tuesday September 25, @10:16AM (#2346888)
(User #185373 Info)
|
In the US, the average person has 7 different jobs in his life. In Germany, the average is not much above 1. For example, my father always was a physicist, my mother always a teacher, and I will probably always be a sw developer.
But it is true in Germany/Europe as well that the thinking becomes ever more short term.
I see "real" reasons for the dot com crash, for example no buisiness plans and too little consumer spending via the internet.
But IMHO purely due to psychologic reasons many excellent people are fired as well in healthy industries (for ex. game development). Probably in a few years they will massively hire again. But lots of people have to move, have to "get dialed" into new working surroundings and new problems etc. I can't help but think that this is not the most economic way to do things.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Long Gone So Long (Score:1)
by retrocode on Tuesday September 25, @10:16AM (#2346889)
(User #221229 Info)
|
Being Part of both a good layoff plan and a bad layoff plan. I think it all comes down to how I look at employment in the future. I was both dot-bombed, and government hand shook away. And I much prefer the golden handshake of 6-8 weeks virtual employment while I looked for a job
Friends and I who got the "your laid off, and you get the rest of the day paid", plan makes us much more picky when choosing new employment. My skills are up to date, so now when I got my present job, I asked questions in the interview like.
Have you ever (coporate HR) laid people off, what kind of benefits are you talking about when you get rid of people. Boy that throws them for a loop.
What kind of notice do you give before laying someone off, is it "our product wasn't accepted at a trade show" or "we have lost money for the last 2 quaters".
Did you lose money in the last 2 quarters( good follow-up".
Have you ever made a profit, or a product (good for dot-coms)
Given that they are going to lie a little, at least you have a good idea where most of them stand. Does this make me risk adverse, well maybe a little, but at least I know what I am getting into.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Loyality is for dogs. (Score:2)
by bluGill on Tuesday September 25, @10:16AM (#2346891)
(User #862 Info | http://www.black-hole.com/users/henrymiller/)
|
If I wanted loyality I'd get a dog. A job is a job, I can find anouther one next week. McDonalds would love to have me, and would start me at $40k/year with binifits if I applied. (I happen to know the folks to ask, but anyone willing to work hard can be up to that wage in a year of hard work if you go management) Welders are in great demand now. It seems there are never enough doctors, and the baby boomers aren't getting healthier.
Sure some of the above need training I don't have, but don't tell me I should be layal to my currnet job, I'm not, and I don't expect the same out of them. I work for money. Find me a job I can do for more money (remember both short and long term I can't be paid next year no matter how much money it is, and getting killed isn't worth a lot of money)
It is a job, not my life. I don't want to work in the same place for years. A lay-off isn't the nicest way to end employment, but it isn't the worst either. I can do any job you can think of. i'd hate some (management), I'd need a lot of schooling for others (medical doctor), and I'd suck horridly at others (novel writer, sports), but I could do it. Some days I'd give up my computer job to clean septic tanks in -40 tempatures. Other days I love my comptuer job.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Boo Hoo (Score:2, Insightful)
by Araneas (pgillilNO@SPAMcyberus.ca) on Tuesday September 25, @10:16AM (#2346892)
(User #175181 Info)
|
[Bitter rant on]
I came into the job market in the mid 80's. Most Slashdotter's parents were ensconced in middle/upper management. NO jobs, LOTS of layoffs and bugger all security. You want to know why your situation sucks? Ask mummy and daddy.
[Bitter rant off]
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
What's news? (Score:1)
by dinotrac on Tuesday September 25, @10:16AM (#2346895)
(User #18304 Info)
|
Employment in the US has always been "at-will" unless modified by labor or other contracts.
Employers and employees have, in the past, treated it differently because it made (and still makes) sense to do so -- at least for companies that expect to be around for more than another year.
I worked at one company that was in a spiral towards bankruptcy. After several layoffs, a number of good people remained who believed in the products being developed. By the time I got laid off, no severance package of any kind was offered. My last day of pay was also my last day of health insurance.
After that layoff, key developers for their new product all left. A quick re-calculation of the company's actions made the risks suddenly unacceptable.
I'm not sure that the new product ever got developed. I do know that the company went bankrupt and its assets were bought out by someone who is marketing the old product without the debt of the old company. They may even have found someone with the know-how to bring the new product (an NT version of a product running on AS/400 and Unix) to market.
Not that it would do the original company any good.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Employee / Employer Relationship (Score:2)
by reaper20 on Tuesday September 25, @10:16AM (#2346896)
(User #23396 Info | http://www.whiprush.org)
|
Here's how I see it as a tech worker that recently found work after trying all the normal avenues:
I don't want job security THAT much. If I am busy and getting paid what I am worth, I will be happy.
Most of the time, I will get bored with your company and move on when another opportunity arrives because of:
a) Dumb company practices, policies.
b) Clueless managers.
c) Clueless coworkers that make my job 2x harder.
I totally do nothing but contract work now with some friends with our own small LLC run out of a basements and cell phones. We literally walk into office buildings and go to individual companies and ask if they need something done. We do it until it's done, and get paid.
If they like the work, They owe me nothing, I owe them nothing. I move on to next company. Rinse and Repeat as often as necessary. Simple business transaction. And its not like there is a shortage of work.
Around here (Troy,MI) there are tons of businesses that need IT work done, and are willing to pay for it, yet all these IT companies are going under and laying people off, and you know what? Most of them are clueless "tech workers" with either no skills, or deadends. It does suck for them. I'm sorry that they decided to only learn FORTRAN because it made them good money at the time and demand is now down so they get laid off. I'm sorry that you only know VBScript, it's not going to get the servers/firewall up, NBX working, and database running. How many "tech workers" do you know that actually LOVE tech and learning the stuff as much as the average /. person? (for lack of a better example)
If you need work, link up with a few friends and do it freelance at night/weekends. If you are smart and know your shit, you're going to get it done twice as fast as some 'solutions' company and get paid directly without hassle. Use the benfits of an LLC to negotiate a good health care plance. A few friends of mine were laid off when a IT firm went under, they all got together and contract themselves as a team, and now they have TOO much work...
Everyone might say "the tech sector is down", but AFAIK, people still need to use computers to conduct business - We all are still working in the trenches getting work done for people while HP/Compaq and others are walking around with their heads up their asses....
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Everyone's a Libertarian (Score:1)
by LazyBoy on Tuesday September 25, @10:17AM (#2346901)
(User #128384 Info)
|
... until it's their job.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Free-agent CEO's & their compensation to blame (Score:1)
by Fastball on Tuesday September 25, @10:17AM (#2346908)
(User #91927 Info)
|
The difference between geeks getting layed off and steel workers and middle managers getting layed off is that now CEO's have little to no incentive to deliver results on a long-term basis. If they come in over expectations for a quarter or two, they're off to the next multi-national to rake in a ridiculous compensation package. And if they don't deliver? Don't worry, be happy. They get a multi-million dollar severance package on the way out.
How can you expect to build a winning business practice when your top guy isn't around long enough to have his name painted in his parking space?
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
No profits equals No Company (Score:1)
by SwedishChef on Tuesday September 25, @10:18AM (#2346917)
(User #69313 Info | http://www.networkessentials.net/)
|
In the 70s a sign went up on I-90 leading out of town: "Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights". Some 35,000 people including mechanics, technicians, engineers, and managers were laid off from just one company (Boeing) and many of them moved away. Housing prices plummeted; you could get a house for the $25 it cost to file a Quit-Claim deed and take over someone's payments.
Boeing survived *because* they laid off workers in a time of severe business downturn. The survived to hire back people to fill those 35,000 jobs and more besides. The Seattle area diversified and became less dependent on one company for its economic well-being.
Increasing benefits to laid-off workers will only cause more workers - who would have kept their jobs under different rules - to be laid off. If business declines, companies must adjust to the new business. Or fail.
This has nothing to do with greedy shareholders demanding more profits. Take a look at the economy, Jon, and you will see that there are no profits out there right now for most companies. It has to do with survival of the company.
Uh oh, no more time to preach to Katz... the clue train is coming and he doesn't want to miss it again.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
refactoring employment (Score:1)
by esj at harvee on Tuesday September 25, @10:19AM (#2346920)
(User #7456 Info | http://www.connact.com/~esj)
|
I highly recommend instead looking at refactoring employment arrangement. Strip off all "benefits" such as health insurance, life insurance, etc. and make an independent of employment status. Personally, I would take it as far as for forbidding employers from providing health insurance etc. to employees.
The relationship between employer and employee should strictly be a cash for service basis.
The same time, the tax code should reward people for doing the right thing such as purchasing health insurance, creating unemployment savings etc. by making those expenses tax deductions.
as for termination notices, companies should notify people with as much leadtime as possible but there is an issue of motivation of the folks knowing that their employment is coming to an end.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Simple: (Score:1)
by NineNine on Tuesday September 25, @10:19AM (#2346924)
(User #235196 Info | http://ninenine.com/tgp.asp)
|
Be a contractor. Contractors have great resumes (lots of idfferent experience), get paid more than enough to just buy health insurance outright, and still sock away plenty, and don't have to sweat layoffs. There hasn't been any sense of 'moral' obligation to employees in many years, and smart employees have no moral obligations to their employers. I wonder where Jon Katz has been all this time.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Nice, but realistic? (Score:1)
by Carpathius on Tuesday September 25, @10:21AM (#2346940)
(User #215767 Info)
|
These are all nice ideas, but how realistic are they? Three to six months warning for a layoff? I was laid off with two weeks warning last year, and this was in small company and bosses who were my friends. They just finally realized they could no longer pay me. I don't believe most companies plan layoffs that far in advance. Certainly some do, but those companies usually tell their employees.
Continuing health benefits? Those health benefits from CORBA aren't cheap. I think the estimate for continuing my benefits was on the order of $500 per month. Out of my pocket. So who's going to pay for those benefits? The laid off employee? Maybe some could -- I took my chances for a month until my next job's benefits were available. I doubt many jobless workers could afford it for long. The company? That's reasonable, but I doubt it'll happen. Cost is simply too high.
The real solution would be for companies to take a longer view. In the last four years I've worked for or at companies that had policies toword employees that didn't simply make sense. Those policies harmed the employees, and harmed the company in terms of losing good, knowledgable, and productive employees.
When companies stop looking at their employees as an easily replacable commodity, both they and the employees will be better off.
Sean.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (Score:1, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, @10:22AM (#2346944)
|
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/ch23.html#PC 23 [cornell.edu] will tell you a lot. Such as why companies dribble layoffs instead of letting everyone go at once, even when the executives know that's what they'll end up doing.
US Code as of: 01/23/00
CHAPTER 23 - WORKER ADJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING NOTIFICATION
- § 2101. Definitions; exclusions from definition of loss of
employment.
- (a) Definitions.
- (b) Exclusions from definition of employment loss.
- § 2102. Notice required before plant closings and mass layoffs.
- (a) Notice to employees, State dislocated worker
units, and local governments.
- (b) Reduction of notification period.
- (c) Extension of layoff period.
- (d) Determinations with respect to employment loss.
- § 2103. Exemptions.
- § 2104. Administration and enforcement of requirements.
- (a) Civil actions against employers.
- (b) Exclusivity of remedies.
- § 2105. Procedures in addition to other rights of employees.
- § 2106. Procedures encouraged where not required.
- § 2107. Authority to prescribe regulations.
- § 2108. Effect on other laws.
- § 2109. Report on employment and international competitiveness.
See also http://www.ibmemployee.com/ [ibmemployee.com] for some insight into retirement benefits.
-- 3.14159
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Just one sign of a deeper problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
by Jered (jered@mit.edu) on Tuesday September 25, @10:23AM (#2346953)
(User #32096 Info | http://web.mit.edu/jered/www/)
|
I believe that this is just one aspect of a very frightening shift of accountability and responsibility in the United States that has occured over the past 120 years. Abraham Lincoln once said that this "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." Well, we've proven him wrong. The US is a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.
Look, for example, at the Anti-Terrorism Act that would make hacking a terrorist act, punishable by life in prison and subject to RICO statutes. I'm not going to claim any support for hacking, but there is something fundamentally wrong with a nation where financial crimes against a corporation are considered far more serious that violent crime against an individual, yet corporations cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. If you break in and deface Union Carbide's web site, you could have all of your possessions seized just on suspicion, and spend the rest of your life in prison if convincted. When they killed thousands of people in Bhopal, they got a slap on the wrist.
This situation is nobody's fault, and yet everybody's failing. Our governent is based on popular support, and the will of the people. The way our politicians gauge such support is based on who they hear from, and what they hear. They hear from individuals, and lobbying groups that represent individuals. And under modern US law, corporations are very large and very powerful people, capable of shouting far louder than anyone else.
Abraham Lincoln also said, "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- President Abraham Lincoln, letter to William F. Elkins, Nov 21, 1864 (from The Lincoln Encyclopedia [MacMillan, 1950]) (Quote reference thanks to Hank Kalet [populist.com])
Where do you want to go today?
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Loyalty is a two-way street (Score:2)
by peter303 on Tuesday September 25, @10:24AM (#2346956)
(User #12292 Info)
|
At the height of the dot.com, workers weren't exactly ticking to their jobs to help the company prosper,
except in the cases of golden handcuffs (long term stock options).
Now they expect these companies to all the sudden reward them with generous severances.
What good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Moral Responsibility and Free Markets (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 25, @10:24AM (#2346957)
|
Any entity that has "free will", whatever that may be, has , by definition, moral obligations associated with it's actions. The entity can be an individual, institution, corporation, nation etc. Any thing that makes conscious decisions hears responsibility for it's activity.
There seems to be an almost unconscious and unquestioned attitude that persons are to be held accountable but large organizations are exempt from the usual moral considerations that apply to individuals. Corporations have a different and restricted type of morality. Corporations, with the sole obligation to make money for share holders, must respond to the "market forces" which is, after all, all thay are supposed to do in a "free market".
|
[ Parent
]
|
|
Mutual disrespect (Score:3, Insightful)
by Jon Peterson (jon@@@snowdrift...org) on Tuesday September 25, @10:24AM (#2346959)
(User #1443 Info | http://www.snowdrift.org/)
|
I don't see the problem.
"Do they owe anything to the people they dump? "
Sure, they owe what the contract promised, no more no less.
Corporations' disregard for their employees is equal to employees' disregard for their employers. Should companies give 3-6 months warning of layoffs? Why the hell should they? How many employees have to give that much notice if they feel like leaving?
Sure, people (including me) can lose a job at short notice. But, we can get a job at short notice. Even 15 years ago, if you left a job voluntarily for no reason better than to have 6 months unpaid chilling out with your family, it would make you unemployable in the eyes of many. Now, you are free to do that kind of thing.
Employees have far more information about the companies they join and work for. They are far more able to determine their employer's health for themselves. They have much better access to their managers. No more big boss on the top floor with the oak desk; most managers, while just as focussed on the bottom line, are far more approachable and forthcoming.
These days, few people would want to go back to the old paternalistic model. The quick hire quick fire culture was spawned as much by tech workers jumping for better pay every 12 months as it was by businesses jiggling their structures every 12 months.
It's the modern world, deal with it.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
Bonk! Thanks for Playing (Score:2, Insightful)
by Wyatt Earp on Tuesday September 25, @10:28AM (#2346990)
(User #1029 Info | http://www.bloodshed.org)
|
"Workers have never been more powerless, their tenure more fragile."
That's an out and out lie.
Workers during the start of the Industrial Revolution and up to the 1920s had no rights. No sick leave, no family leave, no workman's comp, no ergonomics, no disability, no insurance, no prevailing wage, no holiday time. Layoffs came with no advanced warning, heck back then you couldn't even have the warning of knowing what the stock price was doing.
There were no labor relations boards, no legal recourse, no comp time...nothing but the punch-clock and the 5 o'clock whistle, and the knowledge that if you didn't go in the next day there were 5 or 10 immigrants fresh off the boat or train waiting to take your job.
Again Katz has forgot that there was a world before 1990 and he ignores history. People have it good now compared to one hundred years ago, a fact that Labor Unions lament as thier Union rolls decrease.
|
[ Parent
]
|
| |
How about asking for a "layoff package" (Score:1)
by shreak (shreak@yahoo.com) on Tuesday September 25, @10:28AM (#2346992)
(User #248275 Info)
|
In the salad days, when you signed on to a company, you made sure your contract had vacation, salary, bonus etc... in writing. Maybe you still do, but your negotiation leverage is crap right now. If technical demand regains parity and the corperations still want to be able to layoff at a moments notice, I'll be asking for a severance clause in my next contract. Say ... remaining vacation + 4 weeks + 1 week for every year of service. Maybe something like 8 weeks min if they've layed off in the last 3-6 months.
It should be effective at time of signing, not 1st day on the job; they could cancel after you've quit but before you've started!
|
[ Parent
]
|
| 32 replies
beneath your current threshold. |
(1)
|
2
|
3
(Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
|
 |
|
|
Tcl tends to get ported to weird places like routers.
-- Larry Wall in <199710071721.KAA19014@wall.org>
|
All trademarks and copyrights on this
page are owned by their respective owners. Comments
are owned by the Poster.
The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
|
[
home |
awards |
contribute story |
older articles |
OSDN |
advertise |
self serve ad system |
about |
terms of service |
privacy |
faq ]
|
|