Ross Perot May be Our Last Chance! [ NOT! ]
Ed Nilges
>>
>>EDS was simply trying to make sure they got some return for investing in training
>>that increased the marketability of their employees.
One more point. I made the mistake of focusing on my "marketability"
for years, learning the garbage that big companies wanted me to learn
(such as VSAM, for God's sake) instead of doing what I wanted (like
learn C, or painting in egg tempera.) With the result that at 42 I am
on my ass, divorced, in debt, and headhunters don't call me any more.
Fortunately, I have my health and I can do what I want NOW (yes, I
learned C).
Message to you young folks: fuck "marketability" and slaving for big
companies. Don't betray your dreams. Oh, and fuck Perot, too, and his
false promise that we'll return to the Affluent Society if we just
spread cheek for the CEO.
Eric Sieferman
>
>One more point. I made the mistake of focusing on my "marketability"
>for years, learning the garbage that big companies wanted me to learn
>(such as VSAM, for God's sake) instead of doing what I wanted (like
>learn C, or painting in egg tempera.) With the result that at 42 I am
>on my ass, divorced, in debt, and headhunters don't call me any more.
>Fortunately, I have my health and I can do what I want NOW (yes, I
>learned C).
>
>Message to you young folks: fuck "marketability" and slaving for big
>companies. Don't betray your dreams. Oh, and fuck Perot, too, and his
>false promise that we'll return to the Affluent Society if we just
>spread cheek for the CEO.
Hear, hear! Wonderful advice which I, too, had to learn the hard way.
Other things to watch out for:
Avoid the "wave of the future" syndrome. This occurs when you
are told that you MUST learn (X) because (X) is going to make
(mainframes, COBOL, unix, Ethernet, ...) obsolete. If you
want to take the risk, you may be getting in at the beginning
of the next Microsoft; or, you may be getting involved with
next year's Chapter 11 fiasco.
Actually, working for a big company AT FIRST can be OK if
you take advantage of the opportunies they provide. Bigger
firms are more able to afford training their employees than
smaller firms. Take the education and run. Feel no sense
of obligation or guilt; most organizations I know plan
on a certain percentage of employees doing this.
And if the Perot/EDS lifestyle appeals to you, skip the
middleman and advance to the Marines!
--
| Eric Sieferman | Seattle Mariners... |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S. | here today, |
| sief...@u.washington.edu | here tomorrow |
Ed Nilges
>
>The employee benefits because 1) EDS pays competative salaries/benefits and
>2) there is a market (other employers willing to pay) for their skills.
The market for Cobol/JCL (especially without goodies like CICS command
level or DB2) has been drying up for some time. Universities and
technical schools provide this training. EDS is charging the employee
for something that benefits EDS primarily and the employee, only
secondarily. It's akin to the company store or docking employee's
paychecks for breakage or wastage. It shows a basic lack of respect for
the employee and an assumption that the employee will screw EDS out of
the training. This assumption is self-reinforcing; when people are
treated this way, they naturally become bloody-minded and begin to act
in a way that justifies the treatment.
Programming is EITHER dog work or else it's a highly creative, hence
rewarding, activity. If it's the former, there is absolutely no excuse
for not automating it. If it's the latter, then people will do it
partly for the sheer joy of creation. These people will NOT have to be
monitored and punished at the drop of a hat. When will industry learn
this simple truth?
>
>Yes, businesses are just dying for employees that "go through the motions". :-)
Yes, Russ, they are. Read Francis Walnut's article in this week's
Computerworld. A common phenomenon today is the dismissal or hounding
of the highly skilled employee on a variety of pretexts including "he
does not work well with people" (often said about soft-spoken technical
wizards who work in homeless shelters on their off hours: what management
means, of course, is that the technical whiz is physically nauseated by
the alcoholic, abusive end user with whom he must work.)
The important thing in many white collar environments today is showing
up on time (very important because so readily measured, using the logic
of the drunk who looks for his keys in the light even though he knows
they are in the darkness) and repeating management pieties. Behind this
facade, an enormous amount of theft of time goes on. Nor is the
problem restricted to the US; the Wall Street Journal recently published
an article on how the long hours of the Japanese salarymen covers-up
work activities that include reading the newspaper, chatting, and
drinking.
Businesses are dying for people who don't rock the fucking boat.
>> involuntary servitude.
>
>You must have an interesting definition of "involutary servitude".
If you cannot leave a job without undue harm, that's involuntary
servitude. The indentured servant of the eighteenth century was
probably told, "you're not an involuntary servant, you can head for the
wilderness and get eaten by bears." The latter-day I.S. with child
support and two kids living with him and his second wife is told, "you
can go to jail." I have a very normal definition of I.S.
>
>
>Are you willing to provide that job and guarantee that it will always be
>in the same location? (The great thing about America is that you have the
>opportunity to do it better, if you think you can). The reality is that
>market conditions change and sometimes customers are lost and so are jobs.
>EDS at least makes an effort to relocate, rather than lay off, employees.
>(GM provides a great contrast to EDS). If the neighbor can find another
>job in his comunity, great.
How odd, the Germans seem to be able to provide jobs throughout the
former Federal Republic. The Japanese don't have pockets of
unemployment. Yet in America (the "greatest" country in the world) the
worker must chase jobs all over an enormous land-mass.
>
>> And Perot is part of the CEO class that has seen
>> nothing wrong with asking employees to move or lose their jobs, chiefly
>> because the CEO class can live where it wants. IBM (stands for "Ive
>> Been Moved") has done this for years, but it has always recognized the
>> pain of relocation with generous dollar incentives. Why can't EDS do
>> what IBM has always done?
>
>What does IBM do that EDS does not? And who says that there are not
>incentives? Often relocation is an opportunity for advancement.
IBM pays for relocation. They don't loan the employee the money. And
only in myth is relocation an opportunity for advancement.
Eric Sieferman
>
>The market for Cobol/JCL (especially without goodies like CICS command
>level or DB2) has been drying up for some time. Universities and
>technical schools provide this training. EDS is charging the employee
>for something that benefits EDS primarily and the employee, only
>secondarily. It's akin to the company store or docking employee's
>paychecks for breakage or wastage. It shows a basic lack of respect for
>the employee and an assumption that the employee will screw EDS out of
>the training. This assumption is self-reinforcing; when people are
>treated this way, they naturally become bloody-minded and begin to act
>in a way that justifies the treatment.
>
>Programming is EITHER dog work or else it's a highly creative, hence
>rewarding, activity. If it's the former, there is absolutely no excuse
>for not automating it. If it's the latter, then people will do it
>partly for the sheer joy of creation. These people will NOT have to be
>monitored and punished at the drop of a hat. When will industry learn
>this simple truth?
>
I've been waiting almost twenty years for industry, both private
and public, to learn this. Wake me up when it happens.
Ed Nilges
My lad, you have not converted DOS (not MS-DOS: Disk Operating System,
aka dogass operating system, running on smallish IBM mainframes) to MVS.
It is true that on unix and micros, it is possible to develop
sophisticated conversion tools when changing one variant of software to
another. However, in the largescale and mediumscale IBM mainframe world
where EDS does a lot of business, this is not as easy. With the
exception of REXX, there are no tools of the quality of SED or AWK, and
even the developers of REXX were innocent of the mysteries of regular
expressions. Also, managers in largescale IBM shops tend to frown on
tool development as "wasting time", with the result that consultants,
especially, must do the most insanely boring things "by hand" so as not
to displease the customer.
Ed Nilges
>
>Wrong. Employees are not required to attend phase II training.
I'll bet they are pressured into taking it. Russ, you have insider
information and are also able to repeat the Party line, which is of
course carefully tuned to make EDS policies sound as employee-friendly
as possible. The bottom line is that OTHER companies do not pressure
new hires into signing notes, and Perot's company did. OTHER companies
do not run racist and sexist ads in their employee magazine and Perot's
company did.
>
>
>EDS does not force its employees to use EDS relocation resources.
I think the point was that whereas humane companies PAY for goddamn
relocation, EDS loans the employee the money.
>
>> EDS training's valuation is
>> entirily in the hands of EDS.
>
>Employees can take external training, but EDS will not pay for it.
At other companies, the employee can take job-related training and the
company pays for it.
By the way, wasn't EDS at least a tacit supporter, in 1986, of the
revocation of "safe-harbor" tax treatment of data processing consultants
who get jobs through brokers. This is the infamous Section 1706 of the
1986 tax "reform" package (aka the "let's screw data processing
consultants, French teachers, graduate students and the rest of those
creeps, and leave the fatcats alone" package.) Can anybody tell the net
where EDS and Perot stood on this, which destroyed the livelihood of a
lot of highly competent data processors?
>
>EDS could not survive if employees stayed for only two years. It is
>not in EDS's interest to have high employee turnover.
Harnh? Most companies in the business THRIVE on this sort of turnover.
Mike Dedek
|> In article <1992Jun18.1...@hemlock.cray.com> r...@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
|> >
|> >Wrong. Employees are not required to attend phase II training.
|>
|> I'll bet they are pressured into taking it. Russ, you have insider
|> information and are also able to repeat the Party line, which is of
|> course carefully tuned to make EDS policies sound as employee-friendly
|> as possible. The bottom line is that OTHER companies do not pressure
|> new hires into signing notes, and Perot's company did. OTHER companies
|> do not run racist and sexist ads in their employee magazine and Perot's
|> company did.
|>
EDS is not the only company that requires employees to sign notes in return
for training. I know of some folks who worked for a company (CGI, I believe)
who had to sign a note, and at least one of them was sued by the company
when he quit before his time was up.
Please note, I am not saying this is o.k., but I can see the point of view
of companies. If I have a B.S., I've paid anywhere from $20-$100k or so for
my education. If I don't have a B.S., should I expect my company to pay
that to train me, only to have me run away as soon as I got the training.
|> >
|> >
|> Harnh? Most companies in the business THRIVE on this sort of turnover.
Yeah, if they spend minimal on training, they can benefit by replacing high
paid experienced employees by lower paid entry-level employees.
-Mike
Michael Polen
|>
|> EDS is not the only company that requires employees to sign notes in return
|> for training. I know of some folks who worked for a company (CGI, I believe)
|> who had to sign a note, and at least one of them was sued by the company
|> when he quit before his time was up.
|>
|> Please note, I am not saying this is o.k., but I can see the point of view
|> of companies. If I have a B.S., I've paid anywhere from $20-$100k or so for
|> my education. If I don't have a B.S., should I expect my company to pay
|> that to train me, only to have me run away as soon as I got the training.
|>
|> |> >
|> |> >
|> |> Harnh? Most companies in the business THRIVE on this sort of turnover.
|>
|> Yeah, if they spend minimal on training, they can benefit by replacing high
|> paid experienced employees by lower paid entry-level employees.
|>
employees from other companies. Companies that focus on internal promotion
and development as their *primary* employee strategy, eventually succumb
to inbreeding.
Russ Anderson
> >
> >Conversions can be called a lot of things but "boring" is not one of them. :-)
>
> My lad, you have not converted DOS (not MS-DOS: Disk Operating System,
> aka dogass operating system, running on smallish IBM mainframes) to MVS.
Actually, that was exactly the conversion that I was involved with.
> It is true that on unix and micros, it is possible to develop
> sophisticated conversion tools when changing one variant of software to
> another. However, in the largescale and mediumscale IBM mainframe world
> where EDS does a lot of business, this is not as easy. With the
> exception of REXX, there are no tools of the quality of SED or AWK, and
> even the developers of REXX were innocent of the mysteries of regular
> expressions. Also, managers in largescale IBM shops tend to frown on
> tool development as "wasting time", with the result that consultants,
> especially, must do the most insanely boring things "by hand" so as not
> to displease the customer.
Yup. But it is worse that that. Several of the programs were ~20 year
old assembler programs that had been patched so many time that it
was impossible to follow. Most were COBOL programs written by people with
no concept of "structure", much less a concept of mortgage banking.
Yes, changes "by hand" are boring, but the unique bugs that are introduced,
and just happen to show up in the middle of the night, make it so much
fun. :-)
--
Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------ upon my employer or anyone else. (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
egni...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
I think that IBM customers must enjoy spending large ammounts of money
to achieve poor results. I remember once converting a massive database
from info to dbase III+, to do this I simply wrote a small program to
read the info description and write out the corresponding dbase. This
took about a week to do the whole thing. Then when I ran benchmarks I
discovered that the IBM PC AT was outperforming the Prime... Hmmm. Then
I looked at the times take to sort, info took O(n^2) time... hmmm!
Because of these results the IBM PC project was hastily abandoned.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Scott Barman
>
>Programming is EITHER dog work or else it's a highly creative, hence
>rewarding, activity. If it's the former, there is absolutely no excuse
>for not automating it. If it's the latter, then people will do it
>partly for the sheer joy of creation. These people will NOT have to be
>monitored and punished at the drop of a hat. When will industry learn
>this simple truth?
And a lot of time it is both. Why? Because the computer industry (as
opposed to an industry using computers--there is a difference!) has
learned it and it takes time to provide the programs needed for
automating it. Prime examples are the GUI builders and CASE tools.
I think your problem is that you are looking at the EDSs and IBMs of the
technical world and looking at banks and other large corporate users on
the other side. There are very creative things coming out of other
areas. The goal is to find them! I'm sorry you found yourself stuck in
that end of the industry but that is no reason why to condemn the entire
industry.
>>Yes, businesses are just dying for employees that "go through the motions". :-)
>
>Yes, Russ, they are. Read Francis Walnut's article in this week's
>Computerworld. A common phenomenon today is the dismissal or hounding
>of the highly skilled employee on a variety of pretexts including "he
>does not work well with people" (often said about soft-spoken technical
>wizards who work in homeless shelters on their off hours: what management
>means, of course, is that the technical whiz is physically nauseated by
>the alcoholic, abusive end user with whom he must work.)
Has anyone ever figured out why many computer people have this view of
users? Maybe it's because of arrogance. Instead of trying to
understand the users and thier needs programmers dismiss them as stupid
when all they want is their programming done and a reasonable
explanation of how to use that program. There are times I bite my
tounge to prevent the "you stupid idiot"-type comment. I have to stop
myself and remember that there was a point in time I did not know which
end of the bit was up and it had to be explained to me in terms I
understood. Yes, it is difficult, but social graces are, too!
>The important thing in many white collar environments today is showing
>up on time (very important because so readily measured, using the logic
>of the drunk who looks for his keys in the light even though he knows
>they are in the darkness) and repeating management pieties. Behind this
>facade, an enormous amount of theft of time goes on. Nor is the
Unfortunatly, this is true but there's a flip side to it. Programmers
have for quite some time used the difference in attitude and discipline
as a weapon against management. Why? I never like to be chained to a
desk or my workstation. But why can't I tell my boss that programming
is not like the 9-to-5-punch-the-time-clock-world instead of telling
that person to "fuck off, you don't understand!" Why can't you make them
try to understand? Why can't you talk with them in a langauge that
they understand to teach them the differences? Have a reasonable
discussion and you will see how far it will go! I do that all the time.
I do that here, in my current position. I am supposed have that
punch-the-clock attitude here. I don't and I've explained to my boss
why, deliver what I say I deliver, and do what I have to eventhough it
is contrary to company policy. Approaching it nicely and calmly works,
try it, you may be surprised!
>Businesses are dying for people who don't rock the fucking boat.
Don't work for business... find a technically-oriented organization to
>>You must have an interesting definition of "involutary servitude".
>
>If you cannot leave a job without undue harm, that's involuntary
>servitude. The indentured servant of the eighteenth century was
>probably told, "you're not an involuntary servant, you can head for the
>wilderness and get eaten by bears." The latter-day I.S. with child
>support and two kids living with him and his second wife is told, "you
>can go to jail." I have a very normal definition of I.S.
I think I know your problem. I.S. is not the entire industry as it
relates to computers. There is MORE than that (THANKFULLY)! I.S. is
usually associated with an MIS department where I tell people the M
stands for Mismanaged. I have made a career staying away from those
types!
--
scott barman | < This space for rent >
sc...@asd.com |
(I can barely speak for myself, you expect me to speak for my employer??)
Scott Barman
>>>
>>>EDS was simply trying to make sure they got some return for investing in training
>>>that increased the marketability of their employees.
>
>One more point. I made the mistake of focusing on my "marketability"
>for years, learning the garbage that big companies wanted me to learn
>(such as VSAM, for God's sake) instead of doing what I wanted (like
>learn C, or painting in egg tempera.) With the result that at 42 I am
>on my ass, divorced, in debt, and headhunters don't call me any more.
>Fortunately, I have my health and I can do what I want NOW (yes, I
>learned C).
There is a point that I do think you are missing. Companies want
certain skills and if you want to work for them then you must learn the
skills that they need. The choice is yours. Either learn the damned VSAM
or work elsewhere. It seems like a simple concept to me. It did not
take me 20 years to figure this out... only until I went out to look for
me second job in this crazy field. I am sitting here today being
creative and still learning new things (X and Motif). Am I marketable?
Not to someone running MVS, COBOL, or even DOS. But if someone wants an
experienced Unix person with about a year's experience in X, let's talk.
>Message to you young folks: fuck "marketability" and slaving for big
>companies. Don't betray your dreams. Oh, and fuck Perot, too, and his
>false promise that we'll return to the Affluent Society if we just
>spread cheek for the CEO.
Yea, follow this advice and you are better off going to some mountain
to heard yak. Otherwise, you can use the brain given to you not only
figure out what you like, learn it, but to go and find companies who do
the things you like to do. Not every company is into VSAM, Microshit,
or other brain damaged stuff. There are companies who do C, X Windows,
and even do so with interesting applications--and many of these
companies have great working environments (at some time I could tell you
about my days programming at NBC)!
They key thing here is to use your brain. Use it to look out beyond the
EDS and IBMs of the world. There are far better fish in the sea, bait
your hook and go fishin'. Otherwise find another career orr crawl
under a rock, as the above poster seems to suggest.
David Van Beveren
: >
: >The market for Cobol/JCL (especially without goodies like CICS command
: >level or DB2) has been drying up for some time. Universities and
: >technical schools provide this training. EDS is charging the employee
: >for something that benefits EDS primarily and the employee, only
: >secondarily. It's akin to the company store or docking employee's
: >paychecks for breakage or wastage. It shows a basic lack of respect for
: >the employee and an assumption that the employee will screw EDS out of
: >the training. This assumption is self-reinforcing; when people are
: >treated this way, they naturally become bloody-minded and begin to act
: >in a way that justifies the treatment.
: >
: >Programming is EITHER dog work or else it's a highly creative, hence
: >rewarding, activity. If it's the former, there is absolutely no excuse
: >for not automating it. If it's the latter, then people will do it
: >partly for the sheer joy of creation. These people will NOT have to be
: >monitored and punished at the drop of a hat. When will industry learn
: >this simple truth?
That is the most self-righteous thing posted in this group in a long time.
You live in America and work to make money. Everyone does. You need a basic
sustenance. I am not saying you want or need a lot, but you do need some. In
fact, if you were offered the chance to make more, all other things being
equal, you would take it.
'sheer joy of creation'? Give me a break. Either you are on drugs, or you are
being completely financially supported by someone else.
EDS did not start this policy until they had been bitten many times by
people who 'screwed them' out of their payback after training. EDS provides
a valuable commodity by training these people. They can get jobs in almost
any city with this training. EDS' training is well known as being excellent.
If they leave before EDS has seen a return on their investment, that is
breach of contract by the employee. How can you question this?
You cannot blame a company for making money. Nobody is being forced to go to
work for EDS. They are successfully doing business. This is a free-market
economy in action. If you don't like their terms, don't join their team.
By the way, Ross Perot has not been involved with EDS for some time. Yet,
they still pursue this policy aggressively. This is no longer his doing.
How can you say he is at fault? If others running the company thought it
was wrong, they would have changed the policy soon after he left. This did
not happen. Why? it makes good business sense.
--
David Van Beveren e-mail: d...@eis.com
Consulting Engineer
EIS Ltd. Professional Software Services
"The opinions presented ARE those of Emerald Isle Systems!"
Michael P. Deignan
>EDS did not start this policy until they had been bitten many times by
>people who 'screwed them' out of their payback after training. EDS provides
>a valuable commodity by training these people. They can get jobs in almost
>any city with this training. EDS' training is well known as being excellent.
EDS is not the only company with such a policy. One consulting company I
worked for - Keane, Inc. - had a similar policy where if you left before
two years of service after going thru their training program, you would have
to pay a pro-rated amount of money back to them. At the time I was there
this figure was about $8k, no doubt it is more now.
A college friend of mine had the opportunity to go to work for EDS. Their
"training program" consisted of approximately a half-year of training in
Salt Lake city, after which they assign you anywhere in the world - just
like the military, in a sense. Considering that their starting salary was
in the mid-20s, and you received a paycheck in addition to housing etc.,
when you were in training, it is not entirely unreasonable to make people
pay this back if they leave your firm within some pre-determined period of
time. After all, EDS is investing at least $20k in salary and expenses per
trainee.
Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, as long as you
understand the terms up front. She did. And, if you're single, it makes
for a fun time, travelling all over the US and abroad.
Not that you'll ever get the commie-lib "train me for nothing"
types in this newsgroup to agree to with this....
MD
--
-- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM,
-- Domain: m...@anomaly.sbs.com / These Opinions Generally
-- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / Represent The Opinions Of
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / My Company...
Lawrence C. Foard
>: >Programming is EITHER dog work or else it's a highly creative, hence
>: >rewarding, activity. If it's the former, there is absolutely no excuse
>: >for not automating it. If it's the latter, then people will do it
>: >partly for the sheer joy of creation. These people will NOT have to be
>: >monitored and punished at the drop of a hat. When will industry learn
>: >this simple truth?
>: >
>
>That is the most self-righteous thing posted in this group in a long time.
>You live in America and work to make money.
I make money to live I don't live to make money. Money is a means it is
not the ends.
>Everyone does. You need a basic
>sustenance.
One must eat to live, this doesn't mean that eating any food you can find
24 hours a day is better than eating what you need and enjoy eating.
>I am not saying you want or need a lot, but you do need some. In
>fact, if you were offered the chance to make more, all other things being
>equal, you would take it.
No I wouldn't unless it was a matter of not being able to survive otherwise.
I'm presently considering various job possibilities in Boston, jobs paying
$20K but providing the chance to contribute to serious science are much
higher on my list than those paying almost twice as much but of the "make
yet another spreadsheat for Messy-Loss" variety. This is better than
starving, but you only live once, I'd rather work at an interesting job
while I'm alive than leave $200,000 in the bank when I die.
>'sheer joy of creation'? Give me a break. Either you are on drugs, or you are
>being completely financially supported by someone else.
I've enjoyed most jobs I've had, because I don't take every offer that comes
along even if this means being poor for a while. Is an extra $10K a year
worth sacrificing 8 hours of what could be a creative an enjoyable day?
As a result of working on interesting things when I was supposed to take
a mundane job I now have many more years of useful experience than I would
if I had taken the highest pay.
--
Tired of Microsoft hype? Try Linux the only real OS for the 386/486 ______
that costs less than your computer does. ftp tsx-11.mit.edu \ /
cd pub/linux and say goodbye Messy-Loss and 1/2 an OS. \ /
-- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support, Resumes, Etc.-- \/
David Van Beveren
: >I am not saying you want or need a lot, but you do need some. In
: >fact, if you were offered the chance to make more, all other things being
: >equal, you would take it.
lfo...@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) responds:
: No I wouldn't unless it was a matter of not being able to survive otherwise.
:
: I'm presently considering various job possibilities in Boston, jobs paying
: $20K but providing the chance to contribute to serious science are much
: higher on my list than those paying almost twice as much but of the "make
: yet another spreadsheat for Messy-Loss" variety. This is better than
: starving, but you only live once, I'd rather work at an interesting job
: while I'm alive than leave $200,000 in the bank when I die.
Like I said, 'all other things being equal' just slow down and read what I
wrote.
:
: >'sheer joy of creation'? Give me a break. Either you are on drugs, or you are
: >being completely financially supported by someone else.
:
: I've enjoyed most jobs I've had, because I don't take every offer that comes
: along even if this means being poor for a while. Is an extra $10K a year
: worth sacrificing 8 hours of what could be a creative an enjoyable day?
: As a result of working on interesting things when I was supposed to take
: a mundane job I now have many more years of useful experience than I would
: if I had taken the highest pay.
Like I said 'all other things being equal'.
There is a very big difference between working for the 'sheer joy of creation'
and working for 'an extra $10K a year'.
Ed Nilges
>: >rewarding, activity. If it's the former, there is absolutely no excuse
>: >for not automating it. If it's the latter, then people will do it
>: >partly for the sheer joy of creation. These people will NOT have to be
>: >monitored and punished at the drop of a hat. When will industry learn
>: >this simple truth?
>: >
>
>That is the most self-righteous thing posted in this group in a long time.
Too bad.
>You live in America and work to make money.
I live in America, the "moronic inferno", it is true. I work to make
money and to meet my responsibilities, AND to develop my capabilities as
a human being to the fullest.
Everyone does. You need a basic
>sustenance. I am not saying you want or need a lot, but you do need some. In
>fact, if you were offered the chance to make more, all other things being
>equal, you would take it.
I have the chance to make more, since I work currently in a university
and (because of my society's contempt for education except insofar as it
can be used for self-aggrandizement) I could make tons more in private
industry. I've made tons more in private industry. But all other
things are never equal, and the daily company of clowns out to screw the
company for money while they are being simultaneously screwed of
self-respect is not something that I can abide anymore.
>
>'sheer joy of creation'? Give me a break. Either you are on drugs, or you are
>being completely financially supported by someone else.
The fact that you think you can infer from my antique and idealistic
language to drug use only shows how decadent our society has become.
No, I have encountered the sheer joy of creation, clean and sober, in
ways you will never guess. You will never know what it feels like to
get a compiler working in 8K of storage when they said it couldn't be
done (and certainly not by a long haired hippie wierdo Commie freak.)
And as to being financially supported by someone else, talk to my
ex-wife, who has received almost 100 grand from me.
>
>EDS did not start this policy until they had been bitten many times by
>people who 'screwed them' out of their payback after training. EDS provides
>a valuable commodity by training these people. They can get jobs in almost
>any city with this training. EDS' training is well known as being excellent.
>If they leave before EDS has seen a return on their investment, that is
>breach of contract by the employee. How can you question this?
>
H. Ross Perot did to Texas Blue Cross exactly what is verboten in the
EDS agreement. Why is there one rule for him and another for his
employees?
G. Host
> Article <1992Jun21.1...@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> From: kd...@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
> A college friend of mine had the opportunity to go to work for EDS. Their
> "training program" consisted of approximately a half-year of training in
> Salt Lake city, after which they assign you anywhere in the world - just
> like the military, in a sense. Considering that their starting salary was
> in the mid-20s, and you received a paycheck in addition to housing etc.,
> when you were in training, it is not entirely unreasonable to make people
> pay this back if they leave your firm within some pre-determined period of
> time. After all, EDS is investing at least $20k in salary and expenses per
> trainee.
> Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, as long as you
> understand the terms up front. She did. And, if you're single, it makes
> for a fun time, travelling all over the US and abroad.
> Not that you'll ever get the commie-lib "train me for nothing"
> types in this newsgroup to agree to with this....
I agree that the there are a number of students out there after
getting free or almost free education who thinks that the companies
should continue this even when it is not in their best interest.
I have been hired by companies where moving expenses were not
rembursed unless you stayed a year; I waited 11 months before
shipping my furnture to insure I was going to stay at the company.
Before the policy was implemented new grads would of moving down,
with all of their household belongings, waiting for the security
clearance and leaving for another company at higher pay.
I know one new grad who had an offer at a company but the position
would not start for 8 months so he took the job at the company
I was at, moved his household stuf down (including 4 weeks in
comapny-paid for housing for him and his family) a spent 4 months
in traing and was considered the key man on the new software
for the three weeks before he gave his notice. Oh yeah, they
paid for him and his family to fly down and look for a house
before he took the job.
There are not commie-lib students - there are welfare-lib sttudents.
I wish I could find a company which would be willing to send me to
training for 6 months - I would be glad to promise that I would
stay at the company for two or three years; instead I find companies
with sin-wave employment who hire you on the premisi that you
are a 'permanent' employee rather than someone hired for a job.
The EDS deal sounds pretty good to me - where do I sign up?
--
Glenn Host | I don't pretend to speak for anybody else but myself!
12307 Tigers Eye Ct |
Reston, VA 22091 | I will public post abusive email! Be warned!
(703) 620-1141 |
Michael P. Deignan
>I agree that the there are a number of students out there after
>getting free or almost free education who thinks that the companies
>should continue this even when it is not in their best interest.
Tell me about it. Generally these are the same people who think that
industry "owes" them a job.
>There are not commie-lib students - there are welfare-lib sttudents.
Yes, I stand corrected
>I wish I could find a company which would be willing to send me to
>training for 6 months - I would be glad to promise that I would
>stay at the company for two or three years;
The first job I had was at a consulting company, where they sent me to
an extensive training course for three months at Boston University. Not
only did they pay for my classes (40 hrs/wk worth of classes, mind you!)
but they also paid for my single-bedroom apartment in Downtown Boston,
$20 per day for food, and $5/day for phone calls.
Overall, they probably invested close to $15k in my training. The catch?
I had to work for them for two years - if *I* chose to leave within that
time frame then I would have to pay back $8k pro-rated over two years.
If, on the other hand, they laid me off, I pay nothing.
Was it a good deal? You bet. I got what was at the time state-of-the-art
training in the IBM mainframe business world, and instantly became
marketable for $45k in the Boston area.
>The EDS deal sounds pretty good to me - where do I sign up?
Dunno, its been years. Maybe ro...@perot.com can give you some info! :-)
MD
--
-- Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.) / "Its okay dear,
-- Domain: kd...@anomaly.sbs.risc.net / you can show me...
-- UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz / I'm a Doctor..."
Ed Nilges
>gh...@ra.nrl.navy.mil (G. Host) writes:
>
>>I agree that the there are a number of students out there after
>>getting free or almost free education who thinks that the companies
>>should continue this even when it is not in their best interest.
>
>Tell me about it. Generally these are the same people who think that
>industry "owes" them a job.
Nobody "owes" anybody anything. However, after majoring in engineering
or computer science, it is understandable if the student feels a bit
ticked-off when told that he's acting as if industry "owes" him a job
when he protests inhumane treatment (such as getting an offer contingent
on signing a note.) It is also understandable that the student feels
angry when told that his long and expensive university education in
computer science is "academic" and "irrelevant" by the very people who
refuse to consider applicants WITHOUT a BSCS.
Eventually you come to realize that this is just a language-game (in
Wittgenstein's sense.) Companies will say what they must in order to
depress wages and ensure a large supply of workers. But I do not wish
to discount the damage that this does to individuals who cannot avoid,
as human beings, investing their actions with a MEANING that is
consistently denied by the greedy and the power-mad.
>
>
Ray Sanders
years because of a "consolidation" to New York. Yes, I was given a choice
of moving to NY (income tax +10%, COL +n%, no family, wife without job, etc)
or taking their buyout package. It is better than being handed a pink slip
so I can't complain. But at 53+ years and 25 years without hunting for a
job it is not the same as when I came to IBM at 30 or so. If I can find
a job....But I still believe IBM is (or was?) a good employeer. I still
have benefits until I retire.
Michael P. Deignan
>However, after majoring in engineering
>or computer science, it is understandable if the student feels a bit
>ticked-off when told that he's acting as if industry "owes" him a job
>when he protests inhumane treatment (such as getting an offer contingent
>on signing a note.)
Give us a break! You expect the student to invest 4 years of his/her time
and money, with the expectation of getting a decent job coming out of
college, yet you don't think that a company which invests $20k in
training that graduate is entitled to a reasonable expectation of at
least re-couping that investment?
>It is also understandable that the student feels
>angry when told that his long and expensive university education in
>computer science is "academic" and "irrelevant" by the very people who
>refuse to consider applicants WITHOUT a BSCS.
Try to explain to your client whom you are charging $1000 per day that
"oh, well, the individual we are sending you doesn't have any real
industry experience - but they have been extensively schooled on how
to solve your problem."
Try telling passengers on an airline "Your pilot is making his maiden
flight tonite, but don't worry, he's had extensive training in the
simulator..."
>Eventually you come to realize that this is just a language-game (in
>Wittgenstein's sense.) Companies will say what they must in order to
>depress wages and ensure a large supply of workers.
Yeah, then why do those same companies give 25-50% pay increases over
the course of the next 18 months, huh? After all, if they are looking
for low-wages and large supply, seems they would just kick them out
the door with a poor review...
Lawrence C. Foard
>egni...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>It is also understandable that the student feels
>>angry when told that his long and expensive university education in
>>computer science is "academic" and "irrelevant" by the very people who
>>refuse to consider applicants WITHOUT a BSCS.
>
>Try to explain to your client whom you are charging $1000 per day that
>"oh, well, the individual we are sending you doesn't have any real
>industry experience - but they have been extensively schooled on how
>to solve your problem."
If your making $1000 a day on a person they only need to stay 1
month after training for you to recoup your investment...
Of course you ignore the fact that the training is really just more
schooling. The person out of training still is just "extensively schooled".
You also ignore the fact that many peoples time in college includes work
experience. The work study jobs I had programming in college where no less
challenging than the consulting I did after college.
A college graduate may have already been working for years before
even going to college. I consulted senior year of high school, and
a friend of mine worked as an imbedded controller program through
highschool. Fresh out of college can be anywhere from 0 real experience
to 8 or more years.
Michael P. Deignan
>The market for Cobol/JCL (especially without goodies like CICS command
>level or DB2) has been drying up for some time.
"Been drying up for some time"? Care to cite a reference for this claim?
As someone who works in that particular industry, I can say that while
the industry has experienced a slow-down over the past three years (gee,
I seem to recall something about a recession...) it is hardly "drying up".
Again, it appears you will attempt to fabricate facts out of thin air in an
attempt to justify your position.
>Universities and
>technical schools provide this training.
I disagree. For the longest time, I was an advocate of my college getting an
IBM system for us to work on (we had a Data General). My position was that
IBM is the predominate machine in the business world, and as a business
college we should duplicate what the industry has. The college's position
was "we are here to provide you with an education, not provide you with
a skill".
There are some schools which specifically provide you with JCL training, etc.
These are generally the same ones (at least in this area) which also teach
you how to be an oil-burner repairman and an air-conditioning repairman.
For some reason, the idea of hiring one of these people does not strike me
as being a smart decision. The person may be technically competent, but
when the client asks about background education, and I say "New England
Institute of Oil Burning ServiceMen", I get laughed out of the place;
whereas if I say "Harvard Business School", the reaction is much different.
>EDS is charging the employee
>for something that benefits EDS primarily and the employee, only
>secondarily.
A more-marketable skill-set is a "secondary" benefit to the employee?
>It's akin to the company store or docking employee's
>paychecks for breakage or wastage.
While some companies may not openly dock pay for breakage, most require
you to make a notation somewhere when you do break something. If individual
X breaks $50 worth of stuff, and Y breaks $5, who do you think is going to
get the better review and higher pay increase?
>It shows a basic lack of respect for
>the employee and an assumption that the employee will screw EDS out of
>the training. This assumption is self-reinforcing; when people are
>treated this way, they naturally become bloody-minded and begin to act
>in a way that justifies the treatment.
People are aware of the commitment prior to joining the company. If they are
unwilling to make the commitment, then they should not accept the job. Simple.
>Programming is EITHER dog work or else it's a highly creative, hence
>rewarding, activity" babble deleted...
>what management
>means, of course, is that the technical whiz is physically nauseated by
>the alcoholic, abusive end user with whom he must work.)
His/her job is to work with that alcoholic, abusive end-user. Just because
one individual is a shithead doesn't give the other employee the right to
be one.
>Nor is the
>problem restricted to the US; the Wall Street Journal recently published
>an article on how the long hours of the Japanese salarymen covers-up
>work activities that include reading the newspaper, chatting, and
>drinking.
So what? Different culture, hardly a valid comparison. Japanese businessmen
often have a mistress who's house they can go to after work. The reason:
getting home too early is a sign you are a failure at work - get home
early and your neighbors will know you are not an asset to your company.
>Businesses are dying for people who don't rock the fucking boat.
Nothing gets done if everybody is too busy being a "trendsetter".
[socialist concept of "everyone is entitled to a job" paragraph deleted]
>How odd, the Germans seem to be able to provide jobs throughout the
>former Federal Republic.
Funny, thats not what I've read...
>Yet in America (the "greatest" country in the world) the
>worker must chase jobs all over an enormous land-mass.
Awwwwww.... <sniff> My heart bleeds. Poor baby.
Perhaps you should migrate to Japan or Germany then?
Michael P. Deignan
>If your making $1000 a day on a person they only need to stay 1
>month after training for you to recoup your investment...
Not really, since you have nasty things like salary and overhead to pay,
but maybe two months :-)
>Of course you ignore the fact that the training is really just more
>schooling. The person out of training still is just "extensively schooled".
Training merely insures that the individual has some degree of technical
competence (measured by the employer) in a particular area.
>You also ignore the fact that many peoples time in college includes work
>experience. The work study jobs I had programming in college where no less
>challenging than the consulting I did after college.
You ignore the fact that many people who graduate from college with work
experience will not be seeking "entry level" positions in industry which
have training programs associated with them.