Anger After 900 Computer Jobs Axed

[stormymonday_2011]

What does this idiot from the union expect?

Permies are more expensive than contractors/temps. They are also less flexible in terms of being able to fire and hire as workload goes up or down.

Yeah but they might also have half a clue about how customer systems work rather than just blagging it like many temps Nor are they as likely to implement applications that stand up just long enough for the contractors to leg it out the door with their money.

Edited July 5, 2010 by realcrookswearsuits

[LuckyOne]

During economic boom times employers promote a partnership approach to workers and their unions because it suits them but as soon as the bad economic times hit employers resort to a more confrontational approach.

Then put the blame on militant left wing union trouble makers.

Really?

I thought that German government spending is a lower proportion of GDP than ours, that Germans enjoyed a better standard of living (including social programs) than we do and that the German relationship between capital and labour was more constructive and collaberative than ours in good times and in bad times.

Where have I gone wrong in my assumptions?

[stormymonday_2011]

The biggest problem for global companies is the large certainty around future tax and regulatory regimes in countries that are in a fiscal mess. This view is a derivative of the Permanent Income Hypothesis on the cost side rather than the income side.

At this stage, the problem really isn't limited to the UK. It is clear to the owners of capital that decaying, previously wealthy, northern hemishpere nations are in decline because of the social promises that they have made which are not sustainable relative to national wealth. These nations may try to delay the inevitable requirement to cut social promises to sustainable levels relative to national income by adopting draconian, anti-business tax regimes which can only work in the relatively short run.

The low risk strategy for the owners of capital is to deploy their capital in regimes which are more likely to experience growth and are less likely to demand an unreasonable share of the returns on capital.

Or HP may just be a bunch of c*nts

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

Or HP may just be a bunch of c*nts

instead of blaming the thieving leaching c*nts that have made this country uncompetitive - you are blaming a group of private investors who are simply trying to avoid having their capital stolen.

[ccc]

It's got nothing to do with 'flexibility'. It's all about control.

Depends who has the control. Who has more control ? Permament staff, temporary staff or the employer ? I don't think it is a black and white situation. It varies.

If you are a very good temporary member of staff then you can do very well out of this situation of a desire for flexibility. If you are not then you will be ******ed. I don't see the problem with this. I don't see why a company owes a person a job or a person owes a company work. Either side can do what they wish.

[LuckyOne]

Or HP may just be a bunch of c*nts

Everyone is a **** and is motivated by self interest.

If we agree with the self interests, people are heroes. If we don't, they are c*nts.

Both sides in most arguments are guilty of this character flaw.

[stormymonday_2011]

These might not be truly private sector jobs, the EDS wing of HP is largely involved in government IT systems. You know, those massive, over bureaucratic systems that are obsolete long before they have passed out of the design stage.

This is probably a private sector impact of a public sector budget cut, there will be many more before this is over.

Nice idea but I know that HP were putting EDS staff to the sword long before the current financial crisis hit and government budget cuts were announced .

Many of those fired worked soley on private contracts.

This sort of thing always happens after one big company takes over a rival. It is nearly always the staff of the takeover target who bear a dispropotionate burden of redundancies since HR always treat them with far less mercy than the employees of the dominant organisation when it comes to wielding the axe.

BTW you may be surprised to know that companies such a HP and Fujitsu regard the money they get from Central and Local Government contracts to be every bit as real as that received from any other source. Try reading their accounts

Edited July 5, 2010 by realcrookswearsuits

[Fudge]

Everyone is a **** and is motivated by self interest.

If we agree with the self interests, people are heroes. If we don't, they are c*nts.

Both sides in most arguments are guilty of this character flaw.

What if its workers self interest to act collectively within a union?

[ccc]

What if its workers self interest to act collectively within a union?

Why would a worker lower themself to this ?

Protest and get all angry about a company that doesn't even want you ? Even if you are just a number and not worthy of a name. Why the ****** give them the time of day ? Leave and go somewhere else. And if there is nowhere else to go ? Do something else and stop whinging.

The days of unions made sense when people were being royally ******ed over and maimed on a daily basis in factories and down the pits. Today it is a joke. People can be off paid sick for months without so much as a whimper - but get all uppity when their bosses tell them their job no longer exists.

People need to get a grip and have a bit of respect for themselves. Begging a company for your job when they want you to ****** off ? Lame in the extreme.

[LuckyOne]

What if its workers self interest to act collectively within a union?

As soon as there are others who do not share the self interest, conflict arises.

I cannot think of any act that is universally accepted as being selfless. Selfishness (which is self defined) leads to conflict.

The maturity in resolving conflicts is a good predictor of national success. Places like Germany are more able to resolve conflicts than we are which is probably why they are more successful than we are.

[stormymonday_2011]

Everyone is a **** and is motivated by self interest.

If we agree with the self interests, people are heroes. If we don't, they are c*nts.

Both sides in most arguments are guilty of this character flaw.

No. Believe me HP ARE a bunch of c*nts, they do not have a clue about managing software projects (just like Fujitsu another hardware company that pretends to be an integrated IT supplier) and in my experience some of their hardware has proved less than reliable over the years

[huw]

It's natural that companies with unionised staff should be less competitive and fail. Shame for the people involved (but whoever heard of IT staff so lame that they needed union representation). Good for the economy and the fight against communism .

"National officer Peter Skyte said: "This is a further cull by HP of its skilled and experienced UK workforce, and follows nearly 4,000 jobs being cut over the past two years since the takeover of EDS by HP."

EDS used to acquire govt staff via outsourcing, my guess is they would have moved lock, stock and barrel with their union cards, contracts and everything else. Chances are, many would have been for the chop in the current public sector cuts, even if the outsourcing hadn't happened

It would be interesting to know how many of the staff being let go, were recruited wholesale by outsourcing rather than going through a selection process.

[huw]

The low risk strategy for the owners of capital is to deploy their capital in regimes which are more likely to experience growth and are less likely to demand an unreasonable share of the returns on capital.

However this strategy is self defeating unless those regimes experience growth in demand, not just in production (since the bloated welfare countries will no longer be able to act as engines of demand; indeed, their road to [attempted] recovery might well involve raising barriers against the products that have been expatriated from them).

[LuckyOne]

However this strategy is self defeating unless those regimes experience growth in demand, not just in production (since the bloated welfare countries will no longer be able to act as engines of demand; indeed, their road to [attempted] recovery might well involve raising barriers against the products that have been expatriated from them).

No argument from me.

HP shareholders would be better served by looking at opportunties in places like Brazil, China, Korea, Russia, Libya, India etc.

Existing HP employees would be better served by looking at opportunities in places like the US, the UK and France.

In times of economic duress, shareholders will win. In times of economic plenty, employess will win.

My view is that we are in for a long period of duress so shreholders will win until we get to the limits of growth.

Once we reach the limits of growth, I am not certain whether capital will be consumed or hoarded. I expect (with low certainty) that it will be consumed which will increase the returns available to both labour and remaining capital.

[Oliver Sutton]

Is union membership relevant or is the real test the proportion of government spending that is debt financed?

Sometimes correlation leads to incorrect assumptions about causation.

Do you have any data that exposes the relationship between capital and labour in these countries (perhaps the percentage of possible work days lost as the result of industrial action)?

Rational co-operation (by both sides) is probably more constructive than confrontation (on both sides).

How do we get both sides to "grow up" in places like the UK and the US so that we encourage growth rather than mutually assured self destruction?

Very hard to prove a causal link (and I never claimed one).

What it does prove is that having high trade union membership and running a successful economy are not mutually exclusive.

[OnionTerror]

"National officer Peter Skyte said: "This is a further cull by HP of its skilled and experienced UK workforce, and follows nearly 4,000 jobs being cut over the past two years since the takeover of EDS by HP."

EDS used to acquire govt staff via outsourcing, my guess is they would have moved lock, stock and barrel with their union cards, contracts and everything else. Chances are, many would have been for the chop in the current public sector cuts, even if the outsourcing hadn't happened

It would be interesting to know how many of the staff being let go, were recruited wholesale by outsourcing rather than going through a selection process.

It depends on the conditions of the TUPE, from the various companies to EDS....It would be interesting whether they got rid of the ones that were on rather generous contracts (such as perks, etc..) first..I suspect so..

[Fudge]

Why would a worker lower themself to this ?

Protest and get all angry about a company that doesn't even want you ? Even if you are just a number and not worthy of a name. Why the ****** give them the time of day ? Leave and go somewhere else. And if there is nowhere else to go ? Do something else and stop whinging.

The days of unions made sense when people were being royally ******ed over and maimed on a daily basis in factories and down the pits. Today it is a joke. People can be off paid sick for months without so much as a whimper - but get all uppity when their bosses tell them their job no longer exists.

People need to get a grip and have a bit of respect for themselves. Begging a company for your job when they want you to ****** off ? Lame in the extreme.

Because people are not free. They have to work to make money. And changing jobs doesnt change anything because you will face the same

problems where ever you go. There is no running away and nowhere to hide. In a Capitalist system if you have been born into the working class

you have to work to live. You dont have a choice, you cant leave and go somewhere else or do something else.

[LuckyOne]

Very hard to prove a causal link (and I never claimed one).

What it does prove is that having high trade union membership and running a successful economy are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed.

I wonder whether having a large structural deficit that is debt financed and running a successful economy are mutually exclusive.

I wonder whether having high trade union membership and running a successful economy requires a constructive, collaberative and realistic relationship between the owners of capital and the providers of labour.

[Fudge]

As soon as there are others who do not share the self interest, conflict arises.

I cannot think of any act that is universally accepted as being selfless. Selfishness (which is self defined) leads to conflict.

The maturity in resolving conflicts is a good predictor of national success. Places like Germany are more able to resolve conflicts than we are which is probably why they are more successful than we are.

Workers have more power organised collectively than they have individually.

Bosses organise collectively, what is the CBI but a bosses union?

Edited July 5, 2010 by Fudge

[peakoil]

What does this idiot from the union expect?

Permies are more expensive than contractors/temps. They are also less flexible in terms of being able to fire and hire as workload goes up or down.

actually permies are cheaper than contractors or temps - often MUCH cheaper. The reason companies use contractors or temps is because staff costs go down on the books as a permanent cost which would be deducted from profitability, contractors can be assigned to a "temporary project" (that never ends) - that DOES NOT come off the bottom line. Basically replacing permies with contractors is a quick SHORT TERM way of increasing the profitability of your company on paper. Perfect for increasing your company valuation for buyout for instance. There are some tax reasons too, but I'm not aware of how that benefit works.

[stormymonday_2011]

No argument from me.

In times of economic duress, shareholders will win. In times of economic plenty, employess will win.

That might come as a surprise to HP shareholders

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=HPQ+Interactive#chart1:symbol=hpq;range=3m;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

But HP is one of the world's most 'ethical companies

http://h30507.www3.hp.com/t5/CSR-in-Europe-Middle-East-and/2009-World-s-Most-Ethical-Companies/ba-p/52279

Really you could not make this sh*t up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard

Pity the poor old EDS employees who first saw their company run into the ground by that lunatic Dick Brown and then had the misfortune to be taken over by this crock of crap.

Edited July 5, 2010 by realcrookswearsuits

[Fudge]

actually permies are cheaper than contractors or temps - often MUCH cheaper. The reason companies use contractors or temps is because staff costs go down on the books as a permanent cost which would be deducted from profitability, contractors can be assigned to a "temporary project" (that never ends) - that DOES NOT come off the bottom line. Basically replacing permies with contractors is a quick SHORT TERM way of increasing the profitability of your company on paper. Perfect for increasing your company valuation for buyout for instance. There are some tax reasons too, but I'm not aware of how that benefit works.

What workers were promised was flexicurity.

Workers were to be flexible and in return there would be plenty of jobs.

Where are all the jobs?

[Oliver Sutton]

actually permies are cheaper than contractors or temps - often MUCH cheaper.

You having a laugh.

You don't have to pay for holidays, employers NI, pension, maternity leave, redundancy pay-offs and other perks for contractors.

[LuckyOne]

Workers have more power organised collectively than they have individually.

Bosses organise collectively, what is the CBI but a bosses union?

Of course.

The question is about how conflicts are resolved once people have organised themselves rather than process and legitimacy of organisation.

In the UK (and France, Greece and their ilk), there seems to be a mutually assured, self destructive approach to conflict resolution by both sides.

In more mature and successful nations like Germany, there seems to be a collaborative approach which attempts to make both sides no worse off post conflict than they were pre conflict in the context of the economic reality at the time.

[ccc]

Because people are not free. They have to work to make money. And changing jobs doesnt change anything because you will face the same

problems where ever you go. There is no running away and nowhere to hide. In a Capitalist system if you have been born into the working class

you have to work to live. You dont have a choice, you cant leave and go somewhere else or do something else.

So what are you to do then ? I don't think fighting to stay at a place where you are not wanted makes much sense. And of course you have a choice. You have a choice in what work you do.

actually permies are cheaper than contractors or temps - often MUCH cheaper. The reason companies use contractors or temps is because staff costs go down on the books as a permanent cost which would be deducted from profitability, contractors can be assigned to a "temporary project" (that never ends) - that DOES NOT come off the bottom line. Basically replacing permies with contractors is a quick SHORT TERM way of increasing the profitability of your company on paper. Perfect for increasing your company valuation for buyout for instance. There are some tax reasons too, but I'm not aware of how that benefit works.

Not sure about this. Depends on the specifics of course.

When I ever have this discussion about rates ? I always ask the permie staff what their day rate is. Funnily enough I have yet to meet one who has ever worked it out.

Actual days worked

Gross salary

Sickness removed

Holidays removed

Training added to overall wage

Pension added to overall wage

Bonuses added to overall wage

Potential redundency pay

Costs of maintaining permanent staff and everything that goes along with this

= permie daily rate.

I think if most permies did this and compared it to the headline rate of their contractor workmates ? The difference would not be as large as people think.

Someone on 30k gross ? Their daily rate, just taking off sick days and holidays, will be about £130-£140.

Then you add on pension costs and the rest of the above. Then compare to a contractor doing the same job ? All depends on the role of course. However in many situations there will be very little difference at all. In fact in some situations it will be cheaper to hire a contractor - and you can tell them to ****** off whenever you wish.

Someone working for a big company on 30k per year ? Their daily rate is probably £200+

Of course there are situations where a contractor costs a lot more than a permanent staff member. However overall across the board it is not quite so clear cut as people would want you to believe....