Anyone fired for SETI screensaver

38 views
Skip to first unread message

Rick Overton

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?

r


Malcom Scrimger

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to

Rick Overton wrote in message <37DE87E4...@pop.mindspring.com>...

>I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
>screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
>


Yah, I got fired from the SETI program for not putting it on my computer.
I also had to come to work with a green mask that had
great big eyes. I just don't beleive anyone else is out there.

(chuckles)


DS

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
yeah, my buddy got canned because he was using lots of cpu cycles.....gotta
love those pay by the cycle systems, huh?

ds


Dale Williamson

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:37:46 -0700, Rick Overton
<rive...@pop.mindspring.com> wrote:

>I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
>screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
>

That's the first that I've heard anything about it. Any "names" that
you know of?

Just another opinion from
Phoenix,AZ,USA

Mr. Vandemaar

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
Rick Overton <rive...@pop.mindspring.com> wrote:

> I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
> screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?

No, but my company has informed its employees that burning idle CPU time
during business hours is OK, but the machines must be shut down after work.

/vandemaar

Ed Wensell III aka THE StormRaiser

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:37:46 -0700, Rick Overton

> <rive...@pop.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
> >screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
> >

The http://www.distributed.net people DO have a couple cases where
participants that used company hardware without permission were fired.
Could that be what we are thinking of?

When in doubt, don't do it.

--

Until soon...
Ed Wensell III
Systems and Operations Support, Pellissippi State
E-mail hint: A college with a dot net domain?

Bruce Coryell

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
I haven't heard of anyone being fired for it, but I can see where MIS
types would get nervous about downloaded data being processed on company
CPUs connected to the LAN. I run SETI on three computers at home, but
have not even tried to do it at work. There are all kinds of policies
that this could potentially run afoul of: conflict of interest,
inappropriate web use, jeopardizing the integrity of networks and data,
and so on and on. Unless you have the EXPLICIT blessing and permission
of your management to run SETI on a corporate CPU, don't try this at
work.

Rick Overton wrote:

> I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
> screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
>

> r


Joe Fitzgerald

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
Any company that would fire someone for simply running an unauthorized
screen saver is a company I wouldn't want to work for anyway. I suspect
that if there was someone fired, it was the "straw that broke the camel's
back".

--
---------------------------------------------------
Joe Fitzgerald


Steven Whitaker

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
Yea, On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:37:46 -0700, Rick Overton did opine:

>I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
>screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
>
>r

It wouldn't surprise me. I know of at least one case in the US where
someone was fired & reported to the authorities for installing GIMPS
on his network's PCs without getting permission from all the necessary
authorities.

--
Steve

no-one

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to
Just for the record, the company I work for has this policy in place, not
because is a screen saver but because of the data of unknown content.
This is a direct violation of security, & even though I believe SETI is
harmless & can't disagree with their concern.
Question, Would anyone run S@H on an e-commerce server where CC# are stored?
( CPU time not being an issue. )

Cheers

Bruce Coryell wrote in message <37DEBF6B...@brucec.mv.com>...


>I haven't heard of anyone being fired for it, but I can see where MIS
>types would get nervous about downloaded data being processed on company
>CPUs connected to the LAN. I run SETI on three computers at home, but
>have not even tried to do it at work. There are all kinds of policies
>that this could potentially run afoul of: conflict of interest,
>inappropriate web use, jeopardizing the integrity of networks and data,
>and so on and on. Unless you have the EXPLICIT blessing and permission
>of your management to run SETI on a corporate CPU, don't try this at
>work.
>
>Rick Overton wrote:
>

no-one

unread,
Sep 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/14/99
to


Chris Johnson wrote in message <37def421$0$22...@motown.iinet.net.au>...


>> This is a direct violation of security, & even though I believe SETI is
>> harmless & can't disagree with their concern.
>> Question, Would anyone run S@H on an e-commerce server where CC# are
>stored?
>> ( CPU time not being an issue. )
>

>Hell yes. Though CPU time would likely be an issue on an e-commerce
server.
>
>Look at it this way;
>
>* How many of you have easily guessable passwords? (how many of you have
>dial-up access using such a password?)

We implement a mandatory password format.

>* How many of you leave your PC logged-in, unattended when you're away from
>the office?

All are monitored for inactivity & are logged out if none is detected.


>* How many of you blindly run e-mail attachments when they arrive from
>friends?

Can't stop this but it is against policy & could lead to dismissal.


>* How many of you have no virus scanner running?
>

Users have no choice we implement SMS with constant updates.

>Also,
>
>* How many of you take pens or other office supplies home from work?


>* How many of you download personal stuff through the company's Internet
>connection?

Can't stop this but it is monitored, & against policy.


>
>Compared to all of this, SETI@home is tame, even Good. Heck, we had a
>Sports Illustrated Full-Motion-Video screen saver take down our network.
>(dont' ask.)

Have had something similar happen. Fixed it.

>
>If your manager doesn't understand that PCs can do more than one thing at
>once, you'll have far more of a problem than SETI@home (or D.net, et al) is
>likely to cause.

Users are already performing multiple functions on their PC.
That's not the issue. The issue is, there isn't any documentation or
validation ( for the public, as far as I know )
of what S@H is doing. All is excepted on faith.
Don't get me wrong, after all, I'm a participant, but not at work.

>
>Just do it.


If they do, their gone.

Cheers
no-one

>
>CJ.
>
>--
>.-=[ Chris Johnson ]=-- - Kris' Haven - http://krisjohn.cjb.net
>| There's a new SETI group at a site called SixDegrees. See;
>| http://www.sixdegrees.com/groups/grouphome.asp?GroupID=16473&PwP=0
>
> "I'm a half-wit. I sold the other half on eBay."
>
>

Chris Johnson

unread,
Sep 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/15/99
to
> This is a direct violation of security, & even though I believe SETI is
> harmless & can't disagree with their concern.
> Question, Would anyone run S@H on an e-commerce server where CC# are
stored?
> ( CPU time not being an issue. )

Hell yes. Though CPU time would likely be an issue on an e-commerce server.

Look at it this way;

* How many of you have easily guessable passwords? (how many of you have
dial-up access using such a password?)

* How many of you leave your PC logged-in, unattended when you're away from
the office?

* How many of you blindly run e-mail attachments when they arrive from
friends?

* How many of you have no virus scanner running?

Also,

* How many of you take pens or other office supplies home from work?
* How many of you download personal stuff through the company's Internet
connection?

Compared to all of this, SETI@home is tame, even Good. Heck, we had a


Sports Illustrated Full-Motion-Video screen saver take down our network.
(dont' ask.)

If your manager doesn't understand that PCs can do more than one thing at


once, you'll have far more of a problem than SETI@home (or D.net, et al) is
likely to cause.

Just do it.

Mr. Vandemaar

unread,
Sep 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/15/99
to
Bryan <Bryan@Grateful@WUMPUS.WUMPUS.Net> wrote:

> how absurd! don't they know that it causes more stress on the system
> to NOT run it 7x24? its the heat cycles that kill silicon, NOT the
> continuous electricity.

I agree. They do not use the system stress argument, though, rather that
they do not care for the increased electrical bill.

> same with cars. 90% of the wear is when you first start it cold in
> the morning.

Yeah, and park it at work before it even gets warmed up!

/vandemaar

Roger Evans

unread,
Sep 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/15/99
to

Joe Fitzgerald <j...@berklee.com> wrote in message
news:7rmg3o$8s7$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Hiya!

Unfortunately, the company that I'm currently contracting for have a
'standard build' desktop which includes a non-changeable screensaver, and a
company policy that it is a disciplinary matter for 'any non-authorised
person to install software on their PC'. Disciplinary matters can also be
regarded as gross misconduct which is a dismissible offence.... This
arrangement is not uncommon here in the U.K. I tend to agree with the 'no
unauthorised software installation' bit though. Guess we'll just have to
keep running SETI@home at home!

Roger.
--
The only thing to do with good advice is pass it on;
it is never of any use to oneself.

Remove the cork to reply....

Richard Petty

unread,
Sep 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/15/99
to
In article <37DE87E4...@pop.mindspring.com>, rive...@mindspring.com
wrote:

>I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
>screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?


Motorola fired a friend of mine for running SETI@home.

It's a fact.

--Richard

--
Spam deterent: Remove the "bogus" part for a correct address.

Charlie Sohl

unread,
Sep 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/15/99
to
I read that news story and was impressed by the audacity of the guy who was
fired. He was a contract MIS support person at one of the former Bell phone
companies (I don't remember which) - not even an employee - and he managed
to install the GIMPS software on 2500 networked PCs - pretty gutsy. The
phone co found out (not clear how) and had him arrested on some theory of
theft. I think the charges were dropped, but that sort of thing sems pretty
presumptuous to me.
(GIMPS is a distributed software arrangement which seeks large prime numbers
(Mersenne primes to be exact) - think the concept is similar to SETI)
Steven Whitaker <xw...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:37e5ca9c....@news.dial.pipex.com...

> Yea, On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:37:46 -0700, Rick Overton did opine:
>
> >I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
> >screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
> >

Durk van Veen

unread,
Sep 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/15/99
to
> I run unix. there's NO WAY sending an email to a unix server can
> inadvertantly cause remote (unauthorized) program execution. no way.
> not ever. but does anyone look at this as a hint of how bad sending
> .doc's thru the mail is? [sigh]

Are you kidding me. The "sendmail" program is the single biggest source -
historically - of security issues with UNIX in the history of the operating
system. No other program has caused so many root compromises as that one.
Have you ever noticed that UNIX adepts keep constantly pointing at
Microsoft's security issues while completely and utterly ignoring UNIX
issues, at least where it comes to attracting attention to it. Check out the
latest CERT advisory where 4 separate vulnerabilities in the CDE affect only
UNIX and never NT!

(Sorry, just a little tired of this b*ll)


Dale Williamson

unread,
Sep 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/16/99
to
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:47:38 GMT, repett...@austin.rr.com (Richard
Petty) wrote:

>>I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
>>screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
>
>

>Motorola fired a friend of mine for running SETI@home.
>
>It's a fact.
>
>--Richard

Did he _ask_ them before loading up S@H at work? I can't believe some
people.

Roger Halstead

unread,
Sep 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/16/99
to

Many corporations have very strict rules against installing other than
"approved" software on their equipment.

Administrators can check and do get excited when something that has not been
tested as being completely compatible is found in their network.

There are many issues when it comes to an individual installing their own
software on a company machine.

Many have very rigid policies, but I'm surprised that any would fire
someone for an original offense. However, had someone asked, been told no,
and still installed it is an entirely different matter.

--
Roger (K8RI)
N833R CD-2 (World's Oldest Debonair?)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste
Dale Williamson <jc...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:37e135bd...@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com...

Chris Johnson

unread,
Sep 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/16/99
to
> and all this still has nothing to do with sending AUTO-EXECUTE
> thingies in email. which was my main point.

There was only a single security issue that may have allowed an attachment,
or macious code to run immediately and auotmatically upon arriving in your
Inbox. That was fixed damn quickly. It only worked (or failed, depending
on your point of view) with Outlook98 - no other e-mail package.

ALL the other e-mail related worms and trojans rely on people running the
attachment manually.

I've pretty much beaten that behaviour out of the staff here. (We got
singed by Happy99 24 hours before the anti-virus update got deployed. Six
staff caught it before the anti-virus software kicked in.)

The problem is that most managers can't tell the difference between a real
problem, a non-issue & a hoax. Many believe that if you're running Word,
it's the only process going on in your PC. These people don't deserve staff
socially concious enough to want to run SETI@home.

Richard Keirle

unread,
Sep 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/16/99
to
You can bring that engine wear down to nearly zero by fitting MOBIL 1 re:
the two BMW's that were both hammered for 250,000 miles, one fitted with
good quality mineral based oil, the other with Mobil 1 synthetic. After the
hammerings, all the main engine parts in the BMW with the Mobil 1 were
within BMW's tolerances for new parts.

ps "synthetic" is a bit of a misnomer. Mobil 1 is made from the gasses that
come off the top of the refining process, they re-engineer the molecular
structure to produce a very pure oil that beats the shit out of all other
oils. Also, you get around 3% improvement in fuel economy, so it works out
to not cost more to use than any other good quality mineral based oil.

best wishes

Richard

Bryan wrote in message ...
>Mr. Vandemaar <vand...@home.nonet> wrote:


>: Rick Overton <rive...@pop.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>: > I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
>: > screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
>

>: No, but my company has informed its employees that burning idle CPU time


>: during business hours is OK, but the machines must be shut down after
work.
>

>how absurd! don't they know that it causes more stress on the system
>to NOT run it 7x24? its the heat cycles that kill silicon, NOT the
>continuous electricity.
>

>same with cars. 90% of the wear is when you first start it cold in
>the morning.
>

>--
>Bryan, http://www.Grateful.Net - Linux/Web-based Network Management
>->->-> to email me, you must hunt the WUMPUS and kill it.

deme...@iquest.net

unread,
Sep 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/16/99
to
>: No, but my company has informed its employees that burning idle CPU time
>: during business hours is OK, but the machines must be shut down after work.

>how absurd! don't they know that it causes more stress on the system
>to NOT run it 7x24? its the heat cycles that kill silicon, NOT the
>continuous electricity.

Ah, but the "greenie weenies" have everything topsey turvey:

1. Shortening the lifespan of electronics in order to save
$2.00/month/computer in electricity, but using many times more than
that to build new computers to replace the ones that wear out early.

2. Flush a "low volume" toilet 3 times uses more water than a regular
toilet flushing once.


Chris Johnson

unread,
Sep 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/17/99
to
> : ALL the other e-mail related worms and trojans rely on people running
the
> : attachment manually.
>
> I thought it was 'execute on read'. so if you opened (normally just
> 'opening' a mail is the same as reading it, to most normal thinking
> folks) the attachment, stuff got executed. that's where I have a
> problem with attachments in .doc files.

I have never met an e-mail program that opens attached documents
automatically when you open the e-mail body. Outlook now (lastest version,
latest patches) refuses to run an attachment straight away when you
double-click on it - you get the "run or save to file" box, complete with
anti-trojan warning. (yet, still...)

Raistlin

unread,
Sep 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/17/99
to
I like the "low-volume toilet" reference. I've had more than one
"double-flusher" in my day as a result of those stupid things. Not to
mention the time spent with the plunger, then puking afterward......

I like the idea of my monitor turning off automatically when I pass out in
front of it. But I don't like the idea of my hard-drive spinning up all the
time (resolved by the invention of SETI@Home!). Some green is good.

Raistlin

Jan Knutar

unread,
Sep 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/17/99
to
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:37:46 -0700, Rick Overton
<rive...@pop.mindspring.com> wrote:

>I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
>screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
>

You should pprobably ask for permission first if you want to run
seti@home at work.

-JK

Khan

unread,
Sep 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/18/99
to
"Roger Evans" <news....@corkursa.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, the company that I'm currently contracting for have a
> 'standard build' desktop which includes a non-changeable screensaver, and a
> company policy that it is a disciplinary matter for 'any non-authorised
> person to install software on their PC'. Disciplinary matters can also be
> regarded as gross misconduct which is a dismissible offence.... This
> arrangement is not uncommon here in the U.K. I tend to agree with the 'no
> unauthorised software installation' bit though. Guess we'll just have to
> keep running SETI@home at home!

A bit draconian perhaps, but its also hard to be super critical of such
policys. With virus concerns and employee's wasting tons of times playing
games, I'm surprised more companys don't have simular policies

--
Khan ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ghengus Khan kh...@phoenix.net :Opinions and Commentery are free
PGP Server:pgpkeys.mit.edu :That is what I charge and that is
http://www.phoenix.net/~khan :what they are worth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Khan

unread,
Sep 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/18/99
to
Bryan <Bryan@Grateful@WUMPUS.WUMPUS.Net> wrote:

> Mr. Vandemaar <vand...@home.nonet> wrote:


> : Rick Overton <rive...@pop.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> : > I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
> : > screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
>

> : No, but my company has informed its employees that burning idle CPU time
> : during business hours is OK, but the machines must be shut down after work.
>
> how absurd! don't they know that it causes more stress on the system
> to NOT run it 7x24? its the heat cycles that kill silicon, NOT the
> continuous electricity.
>

> same with cars. 90% of the wear is when you first start it cold in
> the morning.

A computer is not a car. Some concerns can be electricty, and fire hazzards.
An insurance policy might state that no equipment be energized .. The last
studdy I saw suggested leaving a computer and monitor on for the duration of
the work shift but not leaving on weekends and over night.

epo...@scoot.netis.com

unread,
Sep 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/19/99
to
In article <37e24220...@news.nic.fi>,
j.k.@gotmail.com (Jan Knutar) writes:

> You should pprobably ask for permission first if you want to run
> seti@home at work.

Ah, but it is so much easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for
permission. ;-)

If anyone ever got fired for running SETI, especially if it was a first
offense, it's a pretty safe bet that the person's boss was just itching for an
excuse to get rid of him anyway.

Dale Williamson

unread,
Sep 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/19/99
to

Depends on what area you're at. In this area (Phoenix, AZ), for
example it is _very_ easy to get fired for the slightest reason
because "replacements" can be found fast. Best Buy for example, is a
good place to work, but a worker prays every night and moring that
they don't do ANYTHING wrong at work or they're gone! One mistake and
you're history.

There are a number of other businesses down here with the same
policies.

Carolyn

unread,
Sep 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/19/99
to

Jan Knutar <j.k.@gotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37e24220...@news.nic.fi...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:37:46 -0700, Rick Overton

> <rive...@pop.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >I heard that some companies are firing people for using the SETI
> >screensaver. Anyone know anything about that?
> >
>
> You should pprobably ask for permission first if you want to run
> seti@home at work.
>
> -JK

This is beginning to sound more like a Seti urban legend to me. You hear
about something happening, but no one actually knows the person it happened
to or is that person.
I wonder if any more of these types of stories will pop up in the months to
come.
Carolyn

epo...@scoot.netis.com

unread,
Sep 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/19/99
to
In article <37e707c3...@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>,
jc...@usa.net (Dale Williamson) writes:

> Depends on what area you're at. In this area (Phoenix, AZ), for
> example it is _very_ easy to get fired for the slightest reason
> because "replacements" can be found fast. Best Buy for example, is a
> good place to work, but a worker prays every night and moring that
> they don't do ANYTHING wrong at work or they're gone! One mistake and
> you're history.

I cannot fathom why anyone would want to work for a company that treated its
employees like that.

(I don't quite understand how Best Buy could be considered "a good place to
work" if everyone is constantly looking over his shoulder, but I digress...)

Some, it's true, are forced to take any job they can get, and they have my
sympathy, but if you have a choice ... good God, why set yourself up for that
kind of stress?

I've only worked two "permanent" (a damned lie if ever there was one) jobs
since 1970, once in 1979 and once in 1991, and couldn't wait to get out of
there both times.


Dale Williamson

unread,
Sep 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/19/99
to

I know what you mean. Today, finding a "long time job" is almost
impossible. The closer you get to any kind of retirement, your chances
of getting laid off grows to almost 90%. Hell of a way to run an
economy in my opinion.

Roger Halstead

unread,
Sep 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/21/99
to
Just a note...
The company I retired from two years ago was still helping me with career
advancement right up to the day I turned in my request for retirement.

I had started work young and could have retired some years earlier.
I had worked as a sys admin, Developmental Analyst, and finally as a project
manager. They still didn't want me to go and I heard one of my ex bosses
tell his people that they were not to continue calling me after I retired<G>

The day I turned in my request my boss told me that he had just put me in
for a promotion.

So, there are still good companies to work for out there.


--
Roger (K8RI)
N833R CD-2 (World's Oldest Debonair?)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste
Dale Williamson <jc...@usa.net> wrote in message

news:37e54a66...@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com...

Dale Williamson

unread,
Sep 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/21/99
to
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 02:08:17 GMT, "Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net>
wrote:

>Just a note...
>The company I retired from two years ago was still helping me with career
>advancement right up to the day I turned in my request for retirement.
>
>I had started work young and could have retired some years earlier.
>I had worked as a sys admin, Developmental Analyst, and finally as a project
>manager. They still didn't want me to go and I heard one of my ex bosses
>tell his people that they were not to continue calling me after I retired<G>
>
>The day I turned in my request my boss told me that he had just put me in
>for a promotion.
>
>So, there are still good companies to work for out there.

That's really cool. Nice to know, too, that there are still some out
there.

Roger Halstead

unread,
Sep 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/21/99
to

--
Roger (K8RI)
N833R CD-2 (World's Oldest Debonair?)
http://users.tm.net/rdhalste

Claudia <diespam...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:7s8s5d$k5g$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr...
>
> Roger Halstead wrote in message ...


> >Just a note...
> >The company I retired from two years ago was still helping me with career
> >advancement right up to the day I turned in my request for retirement.

<snip>

> >The day I turned in my request my boss told me that he had just put me in
> >for a promotion.
> >
> >So, there are still good companies to work for out there.
>

> Well, I guess it wasn't just the company- sounds to me like you
> were an exceptional employee if they didn't want to see you go.

Well, thank you <blush>

And...even a guy my age can still blush...at times...

Then again the other-side-of-the-coin could have been a big shortage of
skilled help, or people willing to work for what they wanted to pay<G>
I worked with Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS), which is a
rapidly growing segment in the chemical and medical industries.

Actually they payed quite well...
Not like Silicon Valley, but well.

Roger
>
> cheers
> Claudia
>
>
>
>


Claudia

unread,
Sep 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/22/99
to

Roger Halstead wrote in message ...
>Just a note...
>The company I retired from two years ago was still helping me with career
>advancement right up to the day I turned in my request for retirement.
>
>I had started work young and could have retired some years earlier.
>I had worked as a sys admin, Developmental Analyst, and finally as a
project
>manager. They still didn't want me to go and I heard one of my ex bosses
>tell his people that they were not to continue calling me after I
retired<G>
>
>The day I turned in my request my boss told me that he had just put me in
>for a promotion.
>
>So, there are still good companies to work for out there.

Well, I guess it wasn't just the company- sounds to me like you
were an exceptional employee if they didn't want to see you go.

cheers
Claudia

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages