re: Lucent Execs Get Richer Think about it: You've got to lay off 60,000 to save a little shareholder value (hypothetically). You can't think too much about the X who will never earn as much again, the Y who end up in divorced, the Z who break and end up in a mental hospital, and all the other human upheaval executive decisions might cause. You've got to do what's right for the company, and that can really hurt a lot of people.
I have to comment at this one. Being the CEO and determining that you have to lay off 60,000 is probably a lot easier than being a first or second line manager. At the CEO level it's all just numbers. Not to say that they don't care, it's just much easier for them to be ignorant of the individuals.
When you're the person actually picking names it's much harder because you probably hired the person, know about their kids, etc. Neither position is an easy one to be in, but IMHO the first line manager has a much harder job because it hits closer to home.
Surely you can't be serious. I've been sitting here, reading through this entire discussion thread and I don't know what to think. There are a few people such as Belzebutt who seem to have it together. As well as some others who appear to be new names around here. But are things truly so desperate that few of the rest of you can afford to sell some stock and maybe buy a clue?
The most difficult person to figure out is optigirl. I can't figure out if her parents are first cousins, or if she's the really smart one on here and is just having fun messing with the guy's heads. She's certainly inspired the most responses of anyone.
One thing that has amazed me about this thread is how few people actually have taken the time to read up on the whole Lucent fiasco. Before putting up any more foolish posts, I would recommend that you do a search for "lucent" right here on LightReading.com. They have a surprising number of very informative articles. They don't always get the facts right, but only someone who is on the inside would know that.
Those who question the obscene compensation awarded to the Lucent execs mentioned in the article are on the right track. This has nothing whatsoever to do with market forces and average compensation for comparable positions. It has to do with criminal stupidity and a board of directors who could be poster children for the word "collusion."
I mention the word "criminal" because the mismanagement brought upon Lucent by Rich McGinn and his buddies is indirectly responsible for the deaths of at least two people in the Lisle/Naperville area. In the first round of layoffs last February, a young software engineer who was being groomed for a promotion to technical manager was abruptly laid off. This young man was so totally devastated by what happened that he went home, killed his fiance, and then himself.
That was how our year started in Lucent. And as if there wasn't enough stress with the massive layoffs that had been announced, the company began to request a massive police presence at each location, every time there was another round of layoffs.
Oh, and speaking of those personnel cuts, why don't we be honest and give the real facts. In January 2001, there were approximately 140,000 people employed at Lucent. By the end of the year we were down to 60,000. I suppose optigirl would say that 57% staff reduction is not too shabby in the cost reduction department. It sure did wonders for the stock price.
Oh wait. The stock went down by 90%. Silly me.
I could go on, but why bother? The Lucent apologists among you will just refute anything else I could say with your dubious "facts." Yes, the entire telecom industry suffered a massive downturn last year. But you simply can't compare Lucent to Nortel and the others. Lucent was far out front at the start of the year. What killed us was the incredibly stupid targets set by Mr. McGinn and later by Grandpa Schact. Anyone who dared to question them was fired or had their careers ruined. Those high level managers who are left are the ones who kept their mouths shut.
Pay them retention bonuses? Please give me a break. No company in their right mind would hire any of those buffoons. Yes, Ben Verwaayen was hired away by British Telcom. But let's face it, he likely went to them and offered his services. And since we don't know what his compensation at BT will be, we don't know if he's stepping up, down, or just getting the hell out. Besides, he was a relatively new import to the company. The rest of those clowns have been there for many years and they aren't likely to go anywhere. When retirement time comes for them we'll have to pry them out with crowbars.
I mentioned the word "collusion" earlier. Does any of you really think that Henry and the board did the right thing by giving Richie that retirement package that can only be described as truly obscene? Yes, I understand that he had a contract with the company that said he was entitled to that plus his cool million a year. I also understand that Henry and the entire board of directors abandoned their fiduciary duty to the stockholders by going ahead and paying him that money. After the things he did, they should have refused to pay him a dime. Of course, they also should have filed a massive lawsuit against him for his clearly illegal contributions to, and partnership in Zhone Technologies while he was CEO of Lucent.
Rich McGinn and the Lucent board of directors are singlehandedly responsible for losing the life savings of a lot of people. Oh yes, I understand that common sense tells us we shouldn't have all of our eggs in one basket. Having such a high percentage of your 401(K) in one stock was not too smart. I can't really explain it other than to say that you just had to be there inside the company from the day when AT&T first split us off.
Many of us were scared that we were being abandoned. But as time went on, we quickly found that there were a lot of companies who refused to buy from AT&T and who now were only too happy to buy the best class five switch in the world. Let me tell you, those were some heady days back then. After working for AT&T all those years, it was really nice to work for a company that most of us viewed as a labor of love. And to see all of that promise destroyed by the most incredible mismanagement imaginable ...
Those of you who work for other companies shouldn't despair. The good ones like Nortel and Cisco will be back. And Lucent will not likely see 2003. There has been a lot of talk over the last few months about the Lucent restructuring phase 2 and how well it was going. Funny, I have yet to hear about the fact that the company has now moved on to "phase 3" and that they are still having those biweekly layoffs.
Optigirl, if you really do own Lucent stock, I'm very sorry.
re: Lucent Execs Get RicherThis may be a little off the discussion, but do you think it is morally OK to take a job that you know you would quit as soon as the market picks up? Out of necessity of course.
My little experience tells me that companies raise their eye brows when they see someone who quits a job in a short period of time. They feel that they can judge your ''morality'' as an individual. However, when it comes to companies laying off people (whether long time loyals or recently hired employees), there is no questioning about moral responsibility, because it is presented as a ''company'' decision, rather than an individual's decision.
re: Lucent Execs Get RicherWhen spending the first six years of my career at IBM, I met the the bluest of the blue, many of which married and divorced multiple times but always committed to their employer, and they didn't let anything stop them from helping put a man on the moon. Their talents, achievements, and careers were inspirationanl and the space station plans were equally grand.
The surprise came to everyone when Gerstner sold the division and the last remaining rock to their identities was taken away.
The many years since reveals the ones who did the best figured out how to move on sooner than later.
None received just consolations for their commitments.
re: Lucent Execs Get RicherMight want to leave the professional athletes out of that group. Just take a look at Mike Utley or Dennis Byrd. Just another day on the gridiron, they leave on a stretcher, never to walk or work again. LU execs don't need to worry about those kinds of hazards in their jobs. Let's compare apples to apples.
Let's put this into perspective. $1M/yr divided by 365days/yr divided by 24hrs/day = $114/hr!!!! Yes, some of these people work very hard but there is NO WAY they can "earn" this kind of money. If this is a free market, then something is seriously f'dup. (Yes, this goes for professional athletes, too!)
re: Lucent Execs Get RicherAre you nuts? The sock police are gonna run around making sure that a CEO sells all his prior stock acquisitions when he changes jobs? Get a grip!
>Anyone that is running a company and is openly >invested in a competitor should be in jail!
Think about it: You've got to lay off 60,000 to save a little shareholder
value (hypothetically). You can't think too much about the X who will
never earn as much again, the Y who end up in divorced, the Z who
break and end up in a mental hospital, and all the other human upheaval
executive decisions might cause. You've got to do what's right for the
company, and that can really hurt a lot of people.
I have to comment at this one. Being the CEO and determining that you have to lay off 60,000 is probably a lot easier than being a first or second line manager. At the CEO level it's all just numbers. Not to say that they don't care, it's just much easier for them to be ignorant of the individuals.
When you're the person actually picking names it's much harder because you probably hired the person, know about their kids, etc. Neither position is an easy one to be in, but IMHO the first line manager has a much harder job because it hits closer to home.