On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Chris Kennedy wrote:
See below.
> Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> > This supports what I've long maintained, i.e. that management doesn't know
> > the difference between "good" work and what you get when your people are
> > overstressed and overworked. Too many managers see labor as a pool at
> > which to direct money, and whenever the number of man-hours per dollar goes
> > up, they're proud, regardless of the quality.
>
> This is very true, and hardly a new phenomena. It was 1982 when I heard
> my VP of Engineering mutter the phrase "The logic analyzer you want costs
> $50,000, but engineering overtime is free". It would be difficult to
> claim that the situation has improved since.
>
> > Likewise, that old saw about
> > doing a good job doesn't wash any more in the face of management's behavior
> > of buying lots of cheap help based strictly on credentials.
>
> I'd agree, save for the fact that I can't really buy "cheap" labor in the
> local market. The vast majority of B1-B holders make the same amount as
> a US citizen because the immigration laws require it. The only way to tap
> into the cheap market is to go the HCL route, where you get a couple of
> token B1-B holders deposited on site who lob most of the work over the
> pond to some guy getting paid in rupees. While that model works for very
> specific tasks (like getting something ported to a new platform), it sucks
> for others.
>
> > However, that's the world we live in. As soon as the reality becomes one in
> > which they can import two bodies from Bangladesh, who, by the way, probably
> > have a better education and speak and write a better english than the
> > typical U.S. engineering grad, for less than what they pay you, it's time to
> > work up a current resume'.
>
> I'm not sure it's any different from any other market. When the skills you
> have become a commodity item then the only way to avoid suffering economically
> is to evolve a new set of skills which are not.
>
> > When you move on, make sure it's for more money, as every manager knows that
> > more money's a good reason for changing jobs. They don't understand that
> > you'd sometimes like to use that boat you bought with your last raise, and
> > maybe seeing the kids on Christmas or the 4th of July might be nice.
>
> It's certainly the case that this statement is true of most managers, but
> that's largely because their management (in response to their shareholders)
> are holding their feet to the fire (usually indirectly, via stock
I would submit that there is probably a lot less pressure from
shareholders directly than there is from so-called 'consumer lawyers' of
the Milberg, Weiss...Lerach ilk, who get a few small shareholders to put
their names on a suit against company "X", get it classified as a
'class-action' suit, and walk away with millions while the shareholders
get left holding an empty bag.
- don
> valuation and bonuses). That's in response to all the competing firms doing
> the same, including the guy in Madras whose banging out the same number of
> hours but costing less to do it.
>
> This isn't meant to be a defense of the situation; I'm just utterly unclear
> on how one makes it better when someone in the next country over has
> more or less the same skill set and is willing to work long hours for
> less money -- save, as I said earlier, to keep retooling ourselves
> with new skills in new technologies.
>
> > Nobody will understand getting a job you like better if it's not for more
> > $$$, and in today's market, nobody faults you for leaving, even after a
> > short time, if you get 10% or better for making the move.
>
> Actually, people *do* understand you taking laterals -- it's considered
> a damning comment on the prospects of the project that you're leaving,
> its management, the company in general or all of the above.
>
>
> --
> Chris Kennedy
> chris_at_mainecoon.com
> http://www.mainecoon.com
> PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
>
Received on Sun Jul 02 2000 - 22:43:34 BST