What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
49 Comments
- TexMexRex, on 11/05/2009, -5/+24Strange timing with Windows 7 out the door so recently. We'd like to thank our fabulous employees for helping with our new flagship product, but don't let the door hit you in the ass!
- roodammy44, on 11/05/2009, -2/+18Temp contractors weren't showed in these figures. That's a whole different figure.
These were all full time employees. - zephc, on 11/05/2009, -3/+18Steve Balmer: "Congratulations everyone on a job well done in our Windows 7 release! Sales are up, and this is our best Windows version yet! Everyone whose last name ends in M, N or O, please stay seated - everyone else is free to go back to their offices"
- barcardi, on 11/05/2009, -0/+12made redundant = shipped to india
- brad3378, on 11/05/2009, -0/+12Stockholders: "thank you for your sacrifice so that I may profit from it."
- marshdabeachy, on 11/05/2009, -2/+11I would say that it benefits the person with the job.
- brad3378, on 11/05/2009, -8/+17Yet another argument in favor of a 32 hour work week.
As the workplace becomes more efficient through the use of computers, automation, robots, etc., it starts making more and more sense to replace the 40 hour work week with something smaller like a 32 hour work week. What's the point of being a technologically superior society if we still need to spend 40 hours a week pretending to be fully busy at work?
40 hour work weeks are obsolete.
Getting rid of them would also help our unemployment numbers.
Why not hire 40 workers at 32 hours each instead of 32 workers at 40 hours each?
I for one would welcome 3 day weekends.
If you want to continue working 40 hours, maybe you should be earning overtime for anything past 32 hours while I spend my newly freed up hours at home. - brad3378, on 11/05/2009, -0/+7So to play the devil's advocate,
why not switch to a 70 hour work week?
What makes 40 hours the optimal number?
If one worker can perform the duties of two, then why is the second worker needed?
Wouldn't it be better to keep people working so they aren't collecting welfare and unemployment benefits? - bcassner, on 11/05/2009, -1/+7I guess no company is safe from economic turmoil. Hopefully no one will be let go from the customer support division. It might cost money to talk to them but at least you can bitch to someone.
- kaelyiesta, on 11/05/2009, -3/+7No it isn't. If you assert that a 32 hour work week decreases the amount of labor production for a given individual then you are asserting that less production will correct the problem of decreasing production. If you assert that a 32 hour work week provides the same amount of productivity, then it has nothing to do with the problem at hand(but I grant that such an assertion isn't proven to be a false claim, in fact I've seen merit for that argument). However, either way this is NOT an argument in favor of that.
Less production does not solve economic problems. Better direction of it through the correct incentives does. - seltaeb4, on 11/05/2009, -5/+9And it shows.
- diggingisfun, on 11/05/2009, -8/+12Many of the employees were temporarily contracted for Windows Vista / 7
- Swarms, on 11/05/2009, -3/+7Microsoft has about 93,000 employees. 6,000 represents a cut of about 6.4%. Considering most were probably brought on specifically for the Win 7 launch, that's really not that much. Having a job for the sake of having a job is stupid and benefits no one.
- brad3378, on 11/06/2009, -0/+4@d3dm
I gave you a +1 and added you to my friends list because you make valid points.
Here's a few honest questions:
How many hours should be in an optimal work week?
How many hours should be worked before overtime kicks in?
Should these numbers be the same?
If you were an employer, would you accept a compromise?
For instance, how about giving 35 hour work weeks legal "full time" status while requiring 45 hours of labor before overtime kicks in? Who wins and who loses in that scenario? - Clodhopper, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4lol, norton.
- Zapple100, on 11/05/2009, -1/+4 A lot of people will be hurt by not getting the 8 hours of pay if it goes to 32 per week
- jmkiii, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3I think that's the queens slang.
- Matteos, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3@brad3378
"why not switch to a 70 hour work week?
What makes 40 hours the optimal number?"
ummm... sleep? - millem, on 11/05/2009, -3/+6FYI, the link has a redirect Virus according to my Symantec.
- publiclurker, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3A lot of companies do. That way they only have to pay severance on the reduced pay.
- ethana2, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3I like the irony.
- skipdog172, on 11/05/2009, -3/+6you people really blow my mind. so businesses should just employ tons of people who aren't needed just to "give people jobs"? yeah, that'll pull us out of this economic mess. lol
- mcphilip, on 11/05/2009, -0/+3i remember watching the british office and it taking a bit to realize why everyone was worried about redundancies. crazy british euphemisms.
- Ajajadude, on 11/05/2009, -2/+4Which means companies will expect even more work out of their "full time" employees seeing as they'd be working less hours.
Companies seem to love cutting resources such as manpower while simultaneously raising the workload. - ivanmarsh, on 11/05/2009, -5/+7...now if they'd only get rid of all their redundant code.
- bjgodby090978, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2This does not take into account other expenses of more employees such as work space, benefits, 401k contributions and on and on and on.
40 workers are a GREAT DEAL more expensive than 32, no matter how many hours they work.
Just saying - ShnowDoggie, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2The problem is that a lot of the workers on the low end of the pay scale already have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet. They would be better off working more hours at one job. But due to overtime that employers have to pay, these workers end up getting a second job in order to get more hours. Reducing work hours to 32 will push many more workers into this unfortunate situation. (Federal mandated benefits could help this because then each worker has a somewhat fixed cost associated with their benefits. However, while related, that is another story...)
- N01SE, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2Why do companies not issue temporary pay cuts before resorting to lay-offs?
- Ymeg, on 11/05/2009, -5/+7and the capitalist slash-burn machine rages on. Microsoft is just looking for another way to burn through the human resource.
- user500, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2and the taxpayers all those extended benefit $$ are coming from somplace
- andreo, on 11/05/2009, -2/+4I agree! Unemployment is far more beneficial to society!
/s - 1longtime, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2This is already happening frequently, but not because someone wants to provide a leisurely three day weekend..
No, it's so companies won't have to offer any of the benefits that are offered to full-time employees, like medical insurance, paid holidays, and 401k.
The typical reason that corporations reduce full-time staff: to increase profits, not to benefit workers. - IamNomad, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1i signed in for the first time in three months to say the following...
how many other then privlidged few work LESS THAN 40 ???
im including lunch in this as well. - brad3378, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2Yes, it is a compromise.
Some would earn less while others who continue to work 40 hours a week will have paychecks including some overtime pay. For those only working 32 hours, they will have more time to spend on doing things that save them money such as growing their own food, fixing their own car, etc.
If I had my choice, I'd chose a lower paying 32 hour week so I could spend more time & money with my family and with my hobbies. I would even consider adding a few hobbies (and spending money, stimulating the economy) if I knew I would have the free time to finish them. - damnshoes, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1what type of a virus? name?
- jsffive, on 11/06/2009, -1/+2***** an ***** who makes so much money, that he has the goddamned LUXURY of only working 32 hours a week.
Brad3378, I hope you lose your job, and can't find another one, you lazy *****.
You sit at a desk on your fat ass all day, just waiting to go home, posting stupid comments on Digg, collecting your paycheck as you go out the door, and you're completely oblivious to the fact that there are people out there who don't have the luxury of working less hours a week. They work fifty and sixty hours a week, just to make ends meet, and you sit there in your ivory tower, and wax effete, about how we should move to 32 hour weeks?!?!
Again, ***** you. My guess is that you're a government contractor, aren't you? - shnuffy, on 11/05/2009, -1/+2"Made redundant."
Gotta love that one. - 5thdigg, on 11/05/2009, -1/+1The average american office worker does far less work than 40 hours a week. Screw saying "you work this many hours a week" How about you say "You do this job this week and you get paid for it". That way if it takes someone 2 hours to do it or someone else 8 hours, same pay.
- mrBitch, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1@ zephc, RE: " .. Steve Balmer: "Congratulations everyone on a job well done in our Windows 7 release! Sales are up, and this is our best Windows version yet! Everyone whose last name ends in M, N or O, please stay seated - everyone else is free to go back to their offices"
That's actually scary, because it sounds plausible... - skipdog172, on 11/05/2009, -2/+2YEAH UR RIGHT ALL COMPANIES SHOULD KEEP EMPLOYEES THAT ARE UNNECESSARY JUST TO BE NICE!!!
- mrBitch, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1Zing!
- mrBitch, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1More irony RE: Windows 7 being "more secure" :
http://digg.com/apple/80_of_Viruses_Love_Windows_7
" .. Microsoft didn’t claim Windows 7 (and Vista) were super secure only as long as you ran AV software. The implication was that there was great resistance to vulnerabilities in the OS itself .. " - rrwest, on 11/06/2009, -0/+0Now I don't know if things are the same for the US as in Canada, but do these figures reflect only direct hires or do they reflect the supprot staff and temporary contractors as well?
Just wondering what the real jobless toll for Microsoft comes to. - inactive, on 11/05/2009, -3/+2Nah, not if that person has actual talent and value. He'd be better off where he's needed.
- mbraynard, on 11/05/2009, -4/+2Even in economic booms, a company should churn out it's bottom 5% of people.
Time to by some M$ stock again. - skipdog172, on 11/05/2009, -5/+3Oh noes, a company isn't employing unnecessary workers!
Crazy how you guys expect companies to employ people that aren't needed just to "be nice". It doesn't make sense and it doesn't benefit society. - scamper22, on 11/05/2009, -3/+0sure, when you're willing to employ Microsoft Staff using tax payer dollars... then we can talk.
I am sure MS would have no problem keeping people on staff if the bill is picked up by someone else... you know... look how nice the public sector is to work for with their job security... - d3dm, on 11/05/2009, -5/+2@brad3378,
I get the feeling that you've never signed the *front* of a paycheck. If you only want to work 32 hrs/week, you should look into a part-time job, or perhaps move to France.
An employee that decides to take time off from work in lieu of increased pay is going to cause the employer to lose money. An employer makes more money off of an employee's work than the salary/benefits paid to the employee (this is the company's profit). If you choose to work a day less per week, the amount of profit the employer makes on that day is decreased. Why would an employer want to do something that would decrease profits? - seobro, on 11/05/2009, -12/+3Hasta la VISTA baby, seems like win7 is another scam.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is