Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 23rd Nov 2012 14:03 UTC
In the News Hard to believe, but articles are popping up at business websites claiming that venerable Hewlett-Packard may fail. In their most recent fiasco, HP wrote off a loss of $8.8 of their $11.1 US billion acquisition of Autonomy and have alleged fraud in the deal. Revenue is down 7% from a year ago and the stock has hit a 10-year low. The company is laying off 27K employees but that may not be enough. Some speculate HP might be broken up into parts with buy-outs involved. This article from last May offers a good in-depth analysis of how all these problems came to pass.
Thread beginning with comment 543100
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Actual HP employee
by kwan_e on Sat 24th Nov 2012 14:59 UTC in reply to "Actual HP employee"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Honestly the layoff coming are necessary. We have bulked up because of the acquisitions and we can't support the company at the size we are today, it does suck though for 29K people.


Why the hell not layoff the incompetent fuckers who made the poor acquisitions? Why the hell hire people whose only "strategy" is get rich quick through acquisitions in the first place?

They've basically got a whole small town of qualified people that they're going to throw away when in fact it could be cheaper and better in the long run to retain them and retrain them at a small cost. Think about what 29K people could think up now that they're not busy.

The place I work for, they're always encouraging employees to go "above and beyond". But then they completely decimate the headcount, leaving one person to do three people's jobs and they expect them to have time to do frivolous things.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Actual HP employee
by lucas_maximus on Sat 24th Nov 2012 21:09 in reply to "RE: Actual HP employee"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Why the hell not layoff the incompetent f--kers who made the poor acquisitions? Why the hell hire people whose only "strategy" is get rich quick through acquisitions in the first place?


Bureaucracy and Politics, I worked in two mega bureaucracies now and I know politics. The game doesn't make sense if your think everyone is working for a common goal.

They've basically got a whole small town of qualified people that they're going to throw away when in fact it could be cheaper and better in the long run to retain them and retrain them at a small cost. Think about what 29K people could think up now that they're not busy.


It depends, in large organisations there are a lot of people that tend to be almost useless, but not damaging enough to get sacked.

I suspect a good number of those people were glorified secretaries.

The place I work for, they're always encouraging employees to go "above and beyond". But then they completely decimate the headcount, leaving one person to do three people's jobs and they expect them to have time to do frivolous things.


It normally the way, we have talented programmers (a lot better than I) firefighting legacy systems all day. I am currently the sole developer that has 100% of his time working on the CMS ... go figure.

Edited 2012-11-24 21:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Actual HP employee
by Delgarde on Mon 26th Nov 2012 00:59 in reply to "RE: Actual HP employee"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Why the hell not layoff the incompetent fuckers who made the poor acquisitions? Why the hell hire people whose only "strategy" is get rich quick through acquisitions in the first place?


Agreed, but getting rid of them doesn't get them out of the hole. Yes, senior management are hugely overpaid as individuals, but collectively they're small-beans compared to the cost of paying salaries for tens of thousands of workers. So even if they get rid of the bad execs (as they should), they still need to get rid of large numbers of regular folks as well.

Think about what 29K people could think up now that they're not busy.


In theory. In practice, they still need to be paid now that they're not busy. I've been in that position, and when the company isn't making money, the first priority tends to be to stop doing stuff that's losing money

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Actual HP employee
by Soulbender on Mon 26th Nov 2012 02:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Actual HP employee"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So even if they get rid of the bad execs (as they should), they still need to get rid of large numbers of regular folks as well.


True but what I think is grating is that the management hardly ever is let go and if they do it's usually with a hefty package. It's like getting paid incredibly well to screw up and that's not how capitalism is supposed to work.

when the company isn't making money, the first priority tends to be to stop doing stuff that's losing money


Like spending all day on the golf course....

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Actual HP employee
by Vanders on Mon 26th Nov 2012 11:16 in reply to "RE: Actual HP employee"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Why the hell not layoff the incompetent fuckers who made the poor acquisitions?

Er, they have. Shane Robison was one of the first out the door when Meg Whitman arrived. He was head of HP's Office of Strategy & Technology (OS&T), which is also gone. OS&T were responsible for almost all acquisitions within HP.

Disclaimer: I work for HP.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Actual HP employee
by zima on Wed 28th Nov 2012 17:44 in reply to "RE: Actual HP employee"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The place I work for, they're always encouraging employees to go "above and beyond". But then they completely decimate the headcount, leaving one person to do three people's jobs and they expect them to have time to do frivolous things.

Yay for efficiency!(?) ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2