insiders are always the real problem
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Nov 11, 2005 10:29 PM EDT |
Every business from the dawn of time has had more problems from the inside than the outside. Yeah, Hollywood makes it look so easy- the evil cracker sits down to the keyboard, goes into a deep trance, types accurately at 300 words per minutes because he left his haxx0r programs in the other computer, and in seconds announces triumphantly "I'm in!" A more typical scenario is the minimum-wage security guard looting the restroom supplies; pissed-off janitors walking off with everything that isn't nailed down; and temps given much too much access to things they shouldn't, like customer account data. Yeah, some folks like to mess around on the network- but why bother when you can simply walk out with the goodies? |
| jimf Nov 11, 2005 10:31 PM EDT |
I think it is interesting that the auditors & contractors, who are probably workers who were 'let go' and Temporary workers, often hired that way to avoid paying benefits. When I started my career, loyalty to the company was unquestioned and it was easy to subscribe to a company's goals. You were certain that if you did right by them, that the company would reward your efforts. There was also a personal connection between management and the employee which has almost entirely disappeared. The erosion of any kind of loyalty to a company has closely followed the stockholder driven economy which only rewards those monthly dividends. Sanjay Uppal says "If a company doesn't take care of its people, then the workers won't have that much loyalty either." and that pretty well sums up who is at fault here and what the real solution should be. Of course the corporations will just go the expedient way and throw a band-aid on the problem by adding another layer of 'security'. But don't tell me this will 'solve' the real problem. You reap what you sow. |
| helios Nov 12, 2005 4:21 AM EDT |
"The erosion of any kind of loyalty to a company has closely followed the stockholder driven economy which only rewards those monthly dividends." This observation is not only valid, it's brilliant in it's simplicity and implication....I would think it could be the basis for a profound thesis. helios |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2005 5:37 AM EDT |
Quoting:The erosion of any kind of loyalty to a company has closely followed the stockholder driven economy which only rewards those monthly dividends. I think you've missed the boat on this one. Dividend-collecting stockholders are not the problem, for two good reasons. Dividends represent a distribution of profits. A company should make a profit. Otherwise, you must wonder what purpose it serves in the economy. People in it for the dividends don't tend to be short-term investors. Long-term investors care about the viability of their investment, which includes the quality of the workforce. The real-problem is "investors" who are more concerned with stock market plays than actual investment. Remember the "day-trader"? This stuff really took off in in the 90s thanks to a change the Democrats stuck into the tax code, one of those "should've seen that coming" kind of things. The change removed tax deductability for all salary costs above $1,000,000 per year to an individual. It really spurred the growth of stock options as compensation and greatly increased short-term focus in companies. Face it -- when your executives get paid for stock performance, they will find a way to make the stock perform. It wasn't far from that to Enron and friends. |
| jimf Nov 12, 2005 5:55 AM EDT |
Thanks helios, I have asperations... We'll see :) |
| jimf Nov 12, 2005 7:42 AM EDT |
dinotrac said:
"The real-problem is "investors" who are more concerned with stock market plays than actual investment." Yes you make a valid point with that one dinotrac. The situation became critical with short term investors becoming a major influence. But that is what our Business economy has become today. I don't see that's changed at all. Whatever the reason, most of today's investors have no interest in anything more than the monthly dividend. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 12, 2005 8:14 AM EDT |
dino - you are on to something, but you are shooting at the wrong target:Quoting:... "investors" who are more concerned with stock market plays than actual investment. Remember the "day-trader"? Day-traders are small time felons that are usually robbed of their cash daily. Go to a big outfit that bets a bit longer term, e.g. playing massive bets against small margins sometimes based upon information that is unavailable to most of the investment community. Then step back a bit further to the investment banks, from which the funds are loaned to make these quick kills and the trading [sell/buy] of unowned stock shares. More like currency speculations where the money is made on the fractional differences on the perceived values of currencies at a given moment. The scary part is so few are really aware of either the size of these "investments" or the inscrutable nature of the transactions. txt |
| dinotrac Nov 12, 2005 8:32 AM EDT |
txt - Day-traders are merely symbolic. They were people who got their pockets picked because, in the extreme short-term, markets are not very predictable. Worse, in the extreme short-term, they are vulnerable to manipulation. Yes..the large scale timing plays you talk about are a problem because the people have no interest in the company itself. They are more like arbitragers than investors. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 12, 2005 8:54 AM EDT |
dino - it's important to use the correct symbols! A guy with a gun racking in all that cash is a nasty, dangerous felon, but most times does a very small fraction of the damage of the guy in a corporate management position that manipulates stock values, disinvestes strategically or diverts retirement funds for the benefit of only those well connected. Pick the wrong symbol and the harshness of the law is misdirected. |
| set Nov 12, 2005 9:30 PM EDT |
Let me toss this equally ill informed speculation out there:
It seems that in the late 90's, capital was loose, and speculation was
rampant. Businesses with the right buzz words, like 'internet' and 'web'
were attracting money left and right, regardless of their viability. Companies
were spending big on IT, and lots of people with a suitable resume and
maybe a cert were getting good paying jobs in the sector. Even incompetent
or marginal people. Then, the bubble burst, and a lot of people lost their jobs, spending dried up, companies died their rightful unprofitable deaths. This affected a lot of people in the IT sector; Ive seen their posts in many forums, lamenting their fates, pining for jobs, jobs that pay well. And of course, they have to blame someone for this; the stock market, investment bankers, greedy dividend demanding stockholders, evil corporations, whatever soothed their egos. Ive seen them crow about how they will relish the time to come when petty managers will rue the day that IT fell from grace, as they are forced to grovel before them as some sort of second coming of the IT masters arives. IT isnt yet in the same situation as, say steel workers, or where the UAW or airline workers are finding themselves today. Not yet. Not yet. Im not saying there arent crappy companies with poor employee relations. I would venture to guess that those arent the companies that have been paying dividends, and increasing them for decades or more, and will continue to do so. Im just saying that of the people I know who are smart and competent, they have good jobs with good companies or consultancies. Hell, I even know some morons who have good jobs with good companies;) So, Im a little skeptical when someone in this type of forum decries all industry as 'the enemy of the worker', particularly dividend paying companies. These type of protests sometimes seem to come not *from* the proletariat, but those afraid of, or disheartened to become them;) But, then, Im no more qualified to make sweeping generalizations than the next guy. And this was written in a contrarian spirit. |
| dinotrac Nov 13, 2005 12:36 AM EDT |
set - And, of course, presuming industry to be the enemy of the worker has one other tiny little wrinkle: industry tends to be the employer of the worker. There's a certain natural friction: Each would like to get as much for as little as possible while keeping the other happy enough to be productive. But, it is a symbiotic relationship. Until workers are completely obsolete, they need each other. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 13, 2005 6:29 AM EDT |
set - to write a contrarian view lacking real content or experience (and perhaps any real skills) given the breath of your attack while being ignorant of the previous posters experience takes an enormous amount of ego and confidence only the truly stupid individual is capable. [By the way I came onto my longest running assignment as the bubble was bursting, not before.] I do not think I am that good a coder, nor have I ever reached the potential, in other fields that I have extensive training, many individuals thought I had. The reason was not over confidence, but the painful knowledge how really ignorant I am. I burst onto computing with easy success only the in the first instance when I did not realize how really little I knew. Ignorance alone need not be a hindrance, provided you are willing to fight your way to real knowledge. For example, in the sciences it is the incompletely trained new arrivals that solve the really difficult problems that those with the highest level of knowledge already knew were unsolvable. I detect a tone of self satisfaction, that I would guess from my experience is unwarranted. Next time, just do not speak counter to what you guess it the thrust of most of the comments unless you can combine it with insight and/or real knowledge. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!