From 2008 - Meg Whitman on California jobs: I am a HUGE fan of increasing the number of H-1B Visas!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Run time: 01:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSfYiVKzUjw   Posted on YouTube: March 26, 2008 By YouTube Member: mahalodotcom Views on YouTube: 10711   Posted on DU: October 02, 2010 By DU Member: Amerigo Vespucci Views on DU: 402

 

[droidamus2]

1. Meg Whitman can kiss my ...

Meg Whitman can kiss my a$$. What she is really saying is we would rather give jobs to people from other countries that will work cheaply (and sometimes not so cheaply) than train, retrain or give chance to our citizens that could fill the same jobs. I am an IT worker that was laid off in 2003 after 15+ years with the same company. At that time I chose to step away from the IT business and try my hand at creating my own business (in this case a small crafts oriented business). Due to sickness in the family the business never became lucrative enough to support my wife and I. in 2008 I decided it was time to return to the work-a-day world and started upgrading my training (my past experience was in older technologies) and studying to get some certifications. Being on older (56), returning worker I have received a few interviews but to this point no actual job offers. I am caught in the catch-22 that the job level I need is somewhere between entry level and a mid-level position but I have the years of experience and that should be seeking a more senior position. Therefore businesses are not willing to consider me for lower level positions because they believe I will get bored or not be happy with the money (with a mortgage and bills I would be happy with any reasonable paycheck) on the other hand I don't have the 3-5 years or more of demonstrable experience in current technologies so they don't want to give me a chance to 'get up to speed' while on the job. Here I am an experienced IT worker willing to take a step back to take a step forward but I can't get a job yet the IT companies keep whining about how they can't find workers here and have to import workers from overseas. Don't raise the number of H1Bs lower them, create major penalties for companies shipping jobs overseas and put United States citizens at the top of the list for United States jobs and put America back to work! END OF RANT!!!

[Xipe Totec]

2. Actually, she wants to give the expensive jobs away. She wants Americans to pick lettuce instead nt

[Amerigo Vespucci]

3. I worked in IT at Cisco during the June 2001 bloodbath (8500+ layoffs)

The number of people sent packing was actually higher because Cisco's quarterly review cycle dictates that there must be a "bottom 5% ranking" in every department, and the people who end up on that list are normally shitcanned by the next quarter. So they scared / intimidated a great number of people to leave of their own free will by simply pointing to the layoffs and saying "that could be you," although they said it in the famous Cisco slimeball manner to avoid lawsuits.

I could write a book. I'd have to have my attorney go over every word before submitting it to a publisher, but I saw and heard things behind the closed doors of that place that would seriously alter its image as "one of the best companies to work for" (if that falsehood actually still exists).

[droidamus2]

4. I always wondered

Especially during the Internet boom it always seemed to me that the industries hiring/firing/layoff policies revolved around the idea that we will hire large numbers of new workers, let them work for a while, pick off the best performers and layoff the rest. As with shampoo you then repeat the process as needed. Sounds like that is exactly what Cisco was doing (in the end I wouldn't be surprised if the 'bottom 5%' was a lot bigger than 5%). One obvious flaw in this idea is that if a particular department has done a real good job in their hiring you may end up laying off workers that are actually above average to great producers in favor of hiring new workers that are of unknown ability.

On a side note (and a regular rant on my part) I think one of the biggest problems in corporate America is the MBA holding manager. Many of these 'managers' have rarely if ever worked as 'labor' (cutting the neighbors grass doesn't count) and therefore their view of labor is very 'theoretical' as taught in whatever particular masters program they attended. I took enough business classes in college to know that some of their 'theories' aren't necessarily connected to the reality of every day work. The worst part is these 'MBA managers' are taught to see labor as 'a cost of doing business', not people with families and bills and lives but simply a cost of doing business. Therefore if you need to cut 'costs' and labor is one of the biggest 'costs' you have then you 'cut costs' not fire people or layoff fathers and mothers. It is a very disconnected position to be in to be making massive amounts of money but have no identification with those doing the actual work.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

5. All true...

...each department manager had to offer up a human sacrifice to the bottom 5% every quarter. And in doing so, they send some fine, talented people packing.

Also worth noting is the fact that Cisco manages using principles developed by L. Ron "Scientology" Hubbard. That's where the "top" and "bottom" 5% concept came from. The article below references Cisco using Hubbard's "training" principles, but the idea of praising the people at the top 5% (who are virtually "untouchable" if they continue to hit their targets) and crucifying / intimidating the bottom 5%...while constantly reinforcing to the middle 90$ that they coud end up in either group...is pure, 100%, unadulterated L. Ron Hubbard management principles.

A Cisco manager enthusiastically shot off her mouth a few years ago on this subject, which sent Cisco's P.R. people scrambling:

Cisco exec backs Hubbardist courses

By John Leyden • Get more from this author

Posted in Business, 11th May 2001 16:56 GMT

Free whitepaper – The Register Guide to Enterprise Virtualization

A senior Cisco official has lent her name to an article which praises training methods based on the teachings of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard.

In a publication called Government Technology Cisco's training manager for Worldwide Manufacturing, Peg Maddocks, enthusiastically backs Hubbardist training methods.

Maddocks is fulsome in her praise of the "100 per cent Proficiency Training" program she received from Californian firm Effective Training Solutions. The article makes clear this Web-based self-learning package is "based on research conducted by best-selling American author L. Ron Hubbard in the 1960s and published as a lecture series covering 'study technology'".

In the article Maddocks is quoted as stating: "We trained the 130 people, and we shut off the paper (process) within a three-week period. Now, when we do something new, people want 100% Proficiency modules. One group, which mostly focuses on IT processes, now trains everyone using 100% Proficiency."

The article, which was published in 1998 but has only recently popped up on Usenet, raises a number of questions: what is 100 per cent Proficiency Training and how is it related to the principles of Scientology?

We tried to contact Cisco's Maddocks who's now Cisco's manager of Internet Learning Solutions - without success. We also tried to speak to Effective Training Solutions, which is run by Scientologist Ingrid Gudenas, to ask whether it still did work for Cisco.

Again our messages and emails have not been answered, although when we phoned up the firm's offices a junior member of staff said she believed the firm still did work for Cisco.

Critics of Scientology have said that the courses offered by Effective Training Solutions are a re-branded version of Scientology teachings.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this interesting footnote is Cisco's apparent endorsement of Scientological training methods. We would welcome the company's comments.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/11/cisco_exec_backs_hubbardist_courses/

[Yavin4]

7. All Big Employers Do This

They let go of the bottom 5% in order to make room for new hires. It works great when the economy is bad and folks are desperate for work. It does not work so great when the economy is doing well and people have their choice of employer.

[Bitwit1234]

6. So an agreement to take more jobs from this country swell

what in the hell is wrong with republicans. You know I didn't study business administration. I am not an expert on politics. BUT damn it I have enough sense to know that the reason the economy is not going anywhere is

1 - people don't have jobs..because the GOP sent them overseas with tax breaks for the
big companies that did so.
2 - another reason the economy is down, no jobs, no money to spend at what business we
have left, so THEY can hire, but what the big companies with the money aren't doing.
3 - with no jobs, there is no tax money coming in. The government has a deficit. And
if the give the tax cuts to the richest in this country the deficit will soar.

These things are simple even for me to figure out. Since republicans scream and yell they are fiscal conservative why in the devil don't they know this. But then we all know they do, they just want to make sure corporations and the super rich continue to rake in the money.

[Yavin4]

8. Republicans Exist To Do The Bidding of the Wealthy

And the wealthy really don't care about the long term implications of their strategies just as long as they max profits in the short run. They don't care about govt budget deficits, high unemployment, and falling consumer demand. They simply don't care.