Am I Good or Evil

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Rastus
It doesn't really matter. The way you describe your company shows it is doomed anyway. The law of diminishing returns will get it eventually anyway. They need to always have new products come out or they won't make it.

Actually our only major competitor has removed operations from Canada, my company has a 90% marketshare for the product I make.

 

[Vic]

Inefficiency will always view efficiency as an evil.

 

[Vic]

Whoa the forums are trippin'

 

[flexy]

>>>
Am I profiting from the misery of others or am I helping to improve efficiencies such that the facility remains open and our economy continues to thrive.
>>>

uhm..it's your job.

first GOAL is maximaze profits (respective minimize losses)....by cutting jobs etc..etc.... of course we/i dont LIKE it...i dont like jobs outsourced to India or Bangladesh either.

But a company going bankrupt because costs are too high and NOTHING being done about it is not a good way either. Either way, how you look at it, people will suffer.

But its good that you have "moralic" thoughts about it i guess...if you really feel BAD (and maybe on a certaion level you are right)...you say you get paid well for what you did..you can alwas give some money to charity.

As said...you for sure wouldnt have gained anything if the management/you would NOT have done anything...and at the end *everyone* would've suffered by closing the facility altogether.

This is a complex subject and i dont have a solution either....eg. outsourcing/cost cuts/temporary workers without health insurance...etc..etc.. but if i had a solution how to boost the economy as a whole i'd for sure say 🙂

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
My company manufactures products with litte differentiation relative to our competitor, therefore our margins are razor thin, cost minimization is paramount and as a result the company is fairly cut-throat.

As the process engineer and maintenance manager at one of the facilities, most of my cost cutting comes as a result of pushing our employees harder, reducing labour activities, and combining job duties in a strong union environment.

Most of my improvements and cost savings result in layoffs for people with few applicable skills and who have been with the company for 15+ years. I have done very well in driving these costs as low as possible; every decision financially motivated.

Of course I am compensated well as a result.
Am I profiting from the misery of others or am I helping to improve efficiencies such that the facility remains open and our economy continues to thrive.

Thoughts/Opinions/Questions?

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Rastus
It doesn't really matter. The way you describe your company shows it is doomed anyway. The law of diminishing returns will get it eventually anyway. They need to always have new products come out or they won't make it.

Actually our only major competitor has removed operations from Canada, my company has a 90% marketshare for the product I make.

The two bolded lines contradict each other. The people that own the business are full of sh!t and you go right along with them for your benefit at the expense of the peons, therfore you are full of sh!t too.

Hope you are proud of the downfall.

Not Evil, just suck at being human.

Originally posted by: Howard
Business is business. Don't let dmcowen tell you otherwise.

and that's bullsh!t too. :roll:

What goes around comes around, that's why history repeats itself, because people suck.

 

[Vic]

Would it be better for you, Dave, if his company became inefficient, uncompetitive, went bankrupt, and EVERYONE there lost their jobs?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
Would it be better for you, Dave, if his company became inefficient, uncompetitive, went bankrupt, and EVERYONE there lost their jobs?

YES

If the product is needed that bad another Company that treats the peons right will pop up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Would it be better for you, Dave, if his company became inefficient, uncompetitive, went bankrupt, and EVERYONE there lost their jobs?

YES

If the product is needed that bad another Company that treats the peons right will pop up.

Once again you demonstrate your economic ignorance. All that scenario you describe would allow is for an inefficient company to acquire a monopoly with which to rape the public price-wise. And the more the public needs the product, the more they would be raped.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Would it be better for you, Dave, if his company became inefficient, uncompetitive, went bankrupt, and EVERYONE there lost their jobs?

YES

If the product is needed that bad another Company that treats the peons right will pop up.

Once again you demonstrate your economic ignorance. All that scenario you describe would allow is for an inefficient company to acquire a monopoly with which to rape the public price-wise. And the more the public needs the product, the more they would be raped.

and just how long do you expect the peons of the world to put up with these lose lose scenarios???

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Would it be better for you, Dave, if his company became inefficient, uncompetitive, went bankrupt, and EVERYONE there lost their jobs?

YES

If the product is needed that bad another Company that treats the peons right will pop up.

Once again you demonstrate your economic ignorance. All that scenario you describe would allow is for an inefficient company to acquire a monopoly with which to rape the public price-wise. And the more the public needs the product, the more they would be raped.

and just how long do you expect the peons of the world to put up with these lose lose scenarios???

What lose-lose is that, Dave?

Efficiency is what makes for all the technology improvements around that you take so much for granted.

Fsckin' stupid moron... why don't you just quit lying and trolling and admit that you can't see the bright side of the sun

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Would it be better for you, Dave, if his company became inefficient, uncompetitive, went bankrupt, and EVERYONE there lost their jobs?

YES

If the product is needed that bad another Company that treats the peons right will pop up.

Once again you demonstrate your economic ignorance. All that scenario you describe would allow is for an inefficient company to acquire a monopoly with which to rape the public price-wise. And the more the public needs the product, the more they would be raped.

and just how long do you expect the peons of the world to put up with these lose lose scenarios???

The "peons" of the world have been "putting up" with it since time immemorial.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Would it be better for you, Dave, if his company became inefficient, uncompetitive, went bankrupt, and EVERYONE there lost their jobs?

YES

If the product is needed that bad another Company that treats the peons right will pop up.

Once again you demonstrate your economic ignorance. All that scenario you describe would allow is for an inefficient company to acquire a monopoly with which to rape the public price-wise. And the more the public needs the product, the more they would be raped.

and just how long do you expect the peons of the world to put up with these lose lose scenarios???

The "peons" of the world have been "putting up" with it since time immemorial.

Yeah, and damn I sure wish we could back to hunting and gathering... :roll:

 

[aidanjm]

yes. you are repulsive. your business methods are repulsive. the people who reward you for your approach are repulsive.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
yes. you are repulsive. your business methods are repulsive. the people who reward you for your approach are repulsive.

The purchasers of his products are the people who reward him.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Would it be better for you, Dave, if his company became inefficient, uncompetitive, went bankrupt, and EVERYONE there lost their jobs?

YES

If the product is needed that bad another Company that treats the peons right will pop up.

Once again you demonstrate your economic ignorance. All that scenario you describe would allow is for an inefficient company to acquire a monopoly with which to rape the public price-wise. And the more the public needs the product, the more they would be raped.

and just how long do you expect the peons of the world to put up with these lose lose scenarios???

The "peons" of the world have been "putting up" with it since time immemorial.

Yeah, and damn I sure wish we could back to hunting and gathering... :roll:

People capitalize and are capitalized upon regardless of the economic system. It's just that in the hunter-gatherer society, rather than having today's equivalent of welfare, they simply died.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Whisper

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Would it be better for you, Dave, if his company became inefficient, uncompetitive, went bankrupt, and EVERYONE there lost their jobs?

YES

If the product is needed that bad another Company that treats the peons right will pop up.

Once again you demonstrate your economic ignorance. All that scenario you describe would allow is for an inefficient company to acquire a monopoly with which to rape the public price-wise. And the more the public needs the product, the more they would be raped.

and just how long do you expect the peons of the world to put up with these lose lose scenarios???

The "peons" of the world have been "putting up" with it since time immemorial.

Yeah, and damn I sure wish we could back to hunting and gathering... :roll:

People capitalize and are capitalized upon regardless of the economic system. It's just that in the hunter-gatherer society, rather than having today's equivalent of welfare, they simply died.

Obviously being laid off, getting a few weeks vacation with unemployment, and then finding a new job, is infinitely preferable to starving to death.

 

[bctbct]

The way to define the answer to this is in the words of the OP.

Some here are trying to anaylze the industry, but OPs question relates to him, he didnt ask if the company was good or evil.



"Of course I am compensated well as a result."

" $$$... "

"You don't shoot a guy saving you hundreds of thousands of dollars "

" Actually our only major competitor has removed operations from Canada, my company has a 90% marketshare for the product I make. "

Stunt I have seen this many times over the years and while you may not be "evil", you are on you're way to becoming evil.

I understand that cutting cost to stay competitive is necessary, ask yourself if you are trying to spring board your carreer off of being an ax man. Ask yourself if your intentions are to inflate your salary by cutting others.

I am a midlevel manager and have seen both sides to this. Having managed more than a 1000 people in my career I have never made a labor based decision thinking that it would increase my salary or push me up the ladder.

I have seen this from other managers and they just dont last.

Just because a guy can make 900 widgets in a day does not mean that he should bust his ass everyday so that a high level manager can profit.

High level manager waste more time than anyone in my experience, bad ones expect the little guy to afford them this luxury.

I am from the era of an honest days pay for an honest days work. I admit, I am a little out dated for the new corporate world philosphies.

That is the difference between good and evil.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: MrChad
It's the nature of business. How many people does your company employee? Think of it this way ... if you didn't cut costs by letting a handful of people go, how many people would be out of work if your company went belly-up?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: bctbct
The way to define the answer to this is in the words of the OP.

Some here are trying to anaylze the industry, but OPs question relates to him, he didnt ask if the company was good or evil.

"Of course I am compensated well as a result."

" $$$... "

"You don't shoot a guy saving you hundreds of thousands of dollars "

" Actually our only major competitor has removed operations from Canada, my company has a 90% marketshare for the product I make. "

Stunt I have seen this many times over the years and while you may not be "evil", you are on you're way to becoming evil.

I understand that cutting cost to stay competitive is necessary, ask yourself if you are trying to spring board your carreer off of being an ax man. Ask yourself if your intentions are to inflate your salary by cutting others.

I am a midlevel manager and have seen both sides to this. Having managed more than a 1000 people in my career I have never made a labor based decision thinking that it would increase my salary or push me up the ladder.

I have seen this from other managers and they just dont last.

Just because a guy can make 900 widgets in a day does not mean that he should bust his ass everyday so that a high level manager can profit.

High level manager waste more time than anyone in my experience, bad ones expect the little guy to afford them this luxury.

I am from the era of an honest days pay for an honest days work. I admit, I am a little out dated for the new corporate world philosphies.

That is the difference between good and evil.

As a manager in a strong union environment, if I were to pick up a tool of any kind...they would get their pens ready to write a grievance. My honest day's pay is derived from my ability to reduce costs.

Our highest variable cost by far is labour and that's where cost savings must come from; I don't think of it as axing to move up, but I do understand where the cost savings must come from and this is what we are judged on.

You assume I don't have the support of the workers...but I do; I have a great deal of respect for them. But at the end of the day the company has expectations to stay in business and it's my responsibility to make it happen.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: bctbct
The way to define the answer to this is in the words of the OP.

Some here are trying to anaylze the industry, but OPs question relates to him, he didnt ask if the company was good or evil.

"Of course I am compensated well as a result."

" $$$... "

"You don't shoot a guy saving you hundreds of thousands of dollars "

" Actually our only major competitor has removed operations from Canada, my company has a 90% marketshare for the product I make. "

Stunt I have seen this many times over the years and while you may not be "evil", you are on you're way to becoming evil.

I understand that cutting cost to stay competitive is necessary, ask yourself if you are trying to spring board your carreer off of being an ax man. Ask yourself if your intentions are to inflate your salary by cutting others.

I am a midlevel manager and have seen both sides to this. Having managed more than a 1000 people in my career I have never made a labor based decision thinking that it would increase my salary or push me up the ladder.

I have seen this from other managers and they just dont last.

Just because a guy can make 900 widgets in a day does not mean that he should bust his ass everyday so that a high level manager can profit.

High level manager waste more time than anyone in my experience, bad ones expect the little guy to afford them this luxury.

I am from the era of an honest days pay for an honest days work. I admit, I am a little out dated for the new corporate world philosphies.

That is the difference between good and evil.

As a manager in a strong union environment, if I were to pick up a tool of any kind...they would get their pens ready to write a grievance. My honest day's pay is derived from my ability to reduce costs.

Our highest variable cost by far is labour and that's where cost savings must come from; I don't think of it as axing to move up, but I do understand where the cost savings must come from and this is what we are judged on.

You assume I don't have the support of the workers...but I do; I have a great deal of respect for them.

But at the end of the day the company has expectations to stay in business and it's my responsibility to make it happen.

No you don't.

Don't try and bullsh!t with empty words, that's an even more slap in the face.

Here is what is bound to happen to your Company.

10-29-2006 Pink plastic flamingo faces extinction

LEOMINSTER, Mass. - The day Mayor Dean Mazzarella turned 40, he got a surprise. "After I woke up and went out for my morning run, I came back and there were 40 pink flamingos in my front lawn," Mazzarella recalled. "Someone had put them there as a joke."

Now that he's 49 ? "the same age as the pink flamingo," he notes ? he hopes both he and the iconic lawn ornament that his city claims as its own will still be around next year to celebrate 50.

But the original version of the plastic flamingo may be singing its swan song after inspiring countless pranks ? and being alternately celebrated as a tribute to one of nature's most graceful creatures and derided as the epitome of American pop culture kitsch.

Union Products Inc. stopped producing flamingos and other lawn ornaments at its Leominster factory in June, and is going out of business Nov. 1 ? a victim of rising expenses for plastic resin and electricity, as well financing problems.

The small privately held firm has been in talks with a pair of rival lawn ornament makers interested in buying the molds and resuming production of the flamingos, designed in 1957 by local son Don Featherstone.

"We think the flamingo will go on," Keith Marshall, Union Products' chief financial officer, said at the company's aging brick factory, where just a few years ago more than 100 employees churned out flamingos by the millions.

 

[Stunt]

100 employees?! yikes, no wonder they went out of business.

No factory should be larger than 50 employees for such a specified product.

 

[Martin]

Well, are you genuinely bothered by doing what you do, or are you just throwing this out to see what ATOT thinks?

If its the former, you can solve your problem by moving to different company/industry. If you were working for a growing company, you'd probably be more concerned with aquiring talent and managing growth, rather than the focus on layoffs and cost cutting that is the main concern in stagnant and declining industries/companies.

 

[L1FE]

The work you do is not evil and should be expected in any competitive marketplace. Coming onto these forums and then stating "$$$" and going on about how much upward mobility you have, though, doesn't exactly make you seem like the most pleasant person.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Martin
Well, are you genuinely bothered by doing what you do, or are you just throwing this out to see what ATOT thinks?

If its the former, you can solve your problem by moving to different company/industry. If you were working for a growing company, you'd probably be more concerned with aquiring talent and managing growth, rather than the focus on layoffs and cost cutting that is the main concern in stagnant and declining industries/companies.

Actually my dad's company is the exact opposite.

He has high margins, not enough employees for the work and all skilled workers. Different business models and different competitive forces.

I'm happy where I am; just wondering what ATOT had to say on the matter. Sometimes it's challenging, but you have to push on.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Greenman
What a miserable way to make a living. It?s like being the guy who has to decompress the cats and dogs at the pound, it might be necessary, but it?s nothing you can ever feel good about.

$$$...

Is that wrong?

No, it's not wrong, and I'm not judging you or what you do for a living. My point is that such a position wouldn't be rewarding to me. I understand that competition in business is often brutally Darwinian, that?s the nature of free enterprise, and that keeps products and services affordable. But I couldn't do your job because in doing whats right for your company, you have to inflict damage or hardship on others. That would eat away at me like a cancer.
There are many things more important to me than money, and there is a very long list of things I simply will not do, no matter what the reward is. And I never hide my actions behind the phrase "it's just business". If you're an evil person in the business world, you're an evil person, period.
With all that said, doing an unpleasant but necessary job isn't evil, and doesn't make you a bad person, it's just not something I could do.