100 Best Companies To Work For 534
Misha writes "Fortune.com is publishing a list of 100 Best Companies to Work for. Quite a few tech companies, with a few semi-startups, like Xilinx, who 'protected its employees from a nasty downturn in the industry by refusing to abandon a no-layoff policy. Workers took a 6 percent pay cut, but the CEO led the way with a 20 percent cut.'"
Re:hm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hm (Score:5, Insightful)
20% pay cut... (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't get this bullshit about CEOs telling their employees to take a pay cut, and trying to convince them it's OK by cutting their own pay.
20% off of (say) $1 million still leaves $800K - whereas 6% off $50K leaves you with $47K. The CEO can still buy that beach house, but you'll have to cut back on essentials. Thanks for nothing.
By region, occupation, etc. JavaScript (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'd like to see a list that's occupationalized (IT jobs), and then perhaps regionized, but it's better than nothing I suppose.
Oh, and on a side note, did anyone else get a half-dozen JavaScript errors loading this page (IE6)?
Re:hm (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course he still ended up making an order of magnitude more than the workers. This is the kind of thing we wouldn't have to worry about if programmers were unionized.
Huh? Ignoring the fact that union's suck, exactly how do unions influence what the CEO makes? Last I checked, the president of General Motors still makes orders of magnitude more than the "workers".
As an aside, I love that word 'workers' -- as if anyone above a certain income level (i.e., anything more than YOU make) don't actually work.
Who really cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the summaries (Score:5, Insightful)
The supermarket chain lets workers take off to volunteer and to care for sick pets
How cool is that? I'll bet there aren't many companies that will give you time off to take care of your dog when it gets sick. Until it was law many didn't even offer maternity leave. Some companies just get it. Treat your employees well, and they'll be happier and treat the customers well.
Re:20% pay cut... (Score:5, Insightful)
The CEO's 20% cut equates to $200,000. That's how much he's cutting the company's expenses. It would take 67 of those $50K workers, each taking a 6% pay cut, to cut expenses by the same amount.
So this CEO, who normally contributes 20 times as much, is in this case contributing 67 times as much toward keeping everyone from suffering a 100% pay cut (unemployment).
Now, whether the CEO's yearly contribution to the company is actually worth 20 times the average employees', is of course, debatable
As far as "cutting back on essentials," that's easier to do with a 6% pay cut than with a 100% pay cut.
Re:20% pay cut... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have to cut back on essentials because you're making less than $50K, you need to learn some damn spending habits.
P.S. an XBox is not an essential.
Re:hm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:20% pay cut... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least he's making the gesture.
I think a programmers union would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hm (Score:4, Insightful)
It is good to have a union when you have an employer that does not care about the working conditions. I would rather work without a union than with one.
Re:I think a programmers union would be good... (Score:5, Insightful)
*coffeespew*
Why yes, I've just realized it! You're right! This industry absolutely does not value its employees. It's the worst industry in the world! I mean, my employer - who provides me with the coffee I spewed, the keyboard and 21" monitor on which I spewed it, and the T1 through which I described said coffeespewing to the world, obviously hates me and exists solely to make my life miserable for as long as I sit in this comfy chair (OH NO! NOT THE COMFY CHAIR!) with full lumbar support.
Harrumph. I'm going to hang out with those Mexican guys on the street corner, and go pick berries in a field for minimum wage for 8 hours a shift. Thanks to Beloved Leader Kim-Jong-Chavez, I now get 15 minutes off, twice a day, and an extra 15 minutes for lunch! But at least it's only backbreaking work for 8 hours a day, not 12. (Of course, if I was physically able to, I wouldn't be allowed to work a 12-hour shift even if I wanted to get in some extra hours to feed my family, because that might take jobs away from other Union Brothers!) Yes sir, bring on those Union jobs in Unionized industries, because those are the industries where workers' careers are valued! I wonder if United Airlines is hiring?
Semi-startup? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Founded in 1984 and headquartered in San Jose, Calif., Xilinx employs approximately 2,600 people worldwide."
" Publicly traded on NASDAQ o Symbol: XLNX Fiscal Year 2002 revenues: $1.02 billion; net income, $52.2 million"
May I have some of whatever it is you're smoking?
Where's VA Software? (Score:4, Insightful)
- DDT
Re:20% pay cut...some CEOs deserve what they get. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, there are some dead beat CEOs out there, but some of them earn it.....
Our CEO has been working for minimum wage for 18 months (he only takes that so he can keep his insurance coverage). He's traveling 3.5 weeks a month and if we are a little short of cash at the end of the month will write a personal check. He also bought all the engineers new high end workstations on his personal credit card. He works way harder and longer hours than any engineer I've met in my 17 years in the biz.
If this company takes off, he deserves every penny and then some. When you say that you want a regular paycheck and to sleep in your own bed each night, you give up the right to complain about all those folks taking serious risks with both their $ and personal time.
it wouldn't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
--unemployed guy driving by walmart, knowing all this stuff is cheap and on sale. He thinks to himself, "uh huh, big deal, doesn't mean as much as it did when I still had a job".
Previous #1 company missing (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm no (Score:3, Insightful)
Truck driver would strike, and the flow of good would come close to halting.
Now imagine if every IT worker in America said "Stop hiring from overseas, or we will strike?"
Imagine what would happen in any company if they got no support, no code, Nno queries run, no reports... it would slow down the first dat, and be completly stopped by the end of the week.
really all we want is fair pay, seniority, and a globle umbrella to by are insurance and 401k from.
I'm not talking about not being able to fire someone incompetant, I'm talking about the need for proof, anf the company to be damn sure a person is incompetent.
Ahem... 20x $ != 20x output (Score:3, Insightful)
So this CEO, who normally contributes 20 times as much
I do not buy into the assertion that because a CEO is earning 20x, he's contributing 20x. Nor would I buy into its converse (the assertion that he's getting 20x because he contributes 20x). CEOs are grossly overpaid, and the reason is simply that there's a good ol' boys network of MBAs networking their way to these obscene salaries, and company boards that are so lacking in vision that the boldest thing they can do is burn money by hiring the most expensive person possible for the ceo role. This is one of the most fundamentally wasteful and distasteful facets of US biz, and must change as a prerequisite to the average American deriving security and self respect from being in the workforce. As in may other cross sections of the workforce, some CEOs are visionaries while others are flat out idiots... but unlike most other sectors, there is virtually no correlation whatsoever between CEO salary and CEO merit. One obvious example is Fiorina but there are many others, and most aren't even high-profile in the media. Somewhere along the line people have somehow elevated CEOs to the status of gods, where they don't even think of questioning how value is truly being created and will simply go by the numbers. Sure, the CEO has the power to fire his workers... but you still won't find my nose up his rear end.
.
Re:Forgot one... (Score:2, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned any government job (well, 99.9%) is a permanent retirement. I'd have to ask "What's life for?"
Is this real? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing that the article was written by the Fortune Magazine PR department. Friends of mine at Intel are routinely overworked, because Intel will not hire enough people.
Remember, Fortune is a "what the rich want you to think" company.
From Super-size to Down-size (Score:5, Insightful)
"15k for car, including payments" If you are spending 15,000 a year for a car you are overspending and could downsize your life to get by a little easier. There's public transportation (~$30 per month), car pooling ($negligible), a $1000 used car, or SUPER-SIZE it and get a $7,000 car for $199 a month for two years.
People just don't think of VOLUNTARILY downsizing their lifestyles. Once they get to 40-50-60-75-100 k a year any regression means pain. It all has to get stripped away via reposession or bankruptcy. Which usually happens after they've lost their jobs and blew through their limite savings trying to find that next 'perfect' job. They never think: "I'll get something to fill that gap until I can something good comes along". Meanwhile people in bahrain work for 30-50 bucks a week and will travel hundreds of miles on foot to get jobs like that. People here complain about walking a quarter mile, they get in their damn SUV's to go two blocks to the store.
When a CEO takes a 20% pay cut so that employees don't have to take a 100% pay cut I think that's a big deal. Especially considering that most people could give a shit about what happens to their coworkers much less what happens to the below way below them on the corporate ladder.
When people get to a certain lifestyle they forget how to rewind and downsize to their previous lifestyle. They forget that they can go without that dinner out, those nice clothes, that 20+k SUV, that nice house. They forget that at one point they struggled in a $24k job and before that they struggle under a $14k job. They think they should just keep continuing to struggle under a $40 or $50k job. They forget that they once lived in a shithole with roaches and peeling walpaper and no cable. They forget that they worked flipped burgers or mopped floors. They forget working two jobs. They forget that they used to spend so much time with work and family and friends that the electricity bill for the month was the same as a dinner out. They forget that McDonald's is a convenience not a necessity. They forget that they could feed a family of 6 on ~$300 a month. They forget that they once didn't have a cell phone/pager or the internet. They forget that way back when wasn't really that bad.
People forget that their ancestors (voluntarily or otherwise) travelled thousands of miles in the worst conditions to make it somewhere for work. Again I'll say it, some people bitch about walking less than a mile to get somewhere.
It has a lot less to do with geography than it does with perspective. I'm sure that if you looked where you live you could find plenty of people nearby living on substantially LESS than what you make. Be thankful you have the OPTION of going from 50-40k instead of possibly being a $18-0k person.
People look at the CEO and say "BFD he's already overpaid so what if he takes a cut". The fact is that he didn't have to, he could have cut some employees, hell he could have done like most CEO's and jumped ship to another company, or just taken the 6% pay cut every other employee got. He could have just covered his own ass but he didn't. Think about how many people here would take a pay cut so that others could stay employed or a company succeed. How many people here would think "hmmm.... maybe it's time to start looking for something else" or "well if they just got rid of 'John' that's enough for people to not have to take a cut".
Re:Protectionism is for the selfish. (Score:4, Insightful)
But protectionism is good when it is applied to *YOUR INDUSTRY*. It means that you can be less productive but still make oodles of cash. It's only bad when it's applied to someone else's industry, because then stuff costs more, and your standard of living is lowered. Er, wait, maybe that is a little bit selfish.
(But try to convince the average person that economics isn't a zero-sum game.)
why yes...yes it is (Score:4, Insightful)
I own a home, I help to protect my home by firmly locking the door when I leave. I have the option of answering the door when someone knocks on it, or I can ignore the knock. That is my right and option. If I think in my judgement opening the door at that particular time is a "good idea", then I am free to do so. I hear a knock, there's a girl scout selling cookies. No probs, it's a "good deal" to me, I am happy with the trade. On the other hand I hear a knock and I see someone I don't wish to speak to-for any reason-it is my right to not answer the door and talk or do business. I am "protecting" myself based on my evolving analysis of "life".
There comes a time you have to make decisions on what is important not only for yourself personally, but for your family, your neighbors and neighborhood, and your nation as a whole. The US is now in a spiraling-->down deficit in economics and in good quality jobs(yes it's headed that dirtection), in diverse vertical manufacturing and agriculture and in informational technology, both hardware and software. We used to be great at that stuff, but now we seek others to do the work, but for short term profits for *some folks* here.
I am of the opinion that we would be more advised to "protect" these industries over the long haul rather then to trade them off for short term profits in the near term. That doesn't mean we can't trade, and it also doesn't mean we should just give away the store so that 1% of our population can get fabulously wealthier, and the other 99% enjoy cheaper stuff for a few years then go broke and out of work. What happens in the other nations is not completely our business, nor should it be. We can be friends, ewe can trade, but we aren't required to just give it away. We as a nation went through that development phase long ago, it just isn't our fault to ensure that rapid change takes place "over there" at our expense. We can pick and choose on it, and by and large we are a generous people. the world is changing though, and swiftly.
Anyone has to ask themselves, if a large nation basically gives away(sells off cheap) it's manufacturing base, then gives away (sells off cheap) it's informational services base, and gives away (sells off cheap) it's food production base..uhhh..what's left? Really, what's left?
If you follow our trends over the past two decades, then extrapolate them to any sort of logical conclusion, you will see that this "future" if followed as being done now would result in the US as primarily a two class society with WARFARE as it's only profit making export.
Think on it, see if that is correct. Take away eventually all the normal jobs the US middle class has, what is left over?
Now, ask yourself, you REALLY want to see that? If all we in the US have left for work in this nation is manufacturing weapons, manufacturing prisons, and that's it,throw in bread and circuses crap like hollywood and pro sports and videogames for grins, well, what do you think we'll be doing for a living here? Big hint-you won't like it.
I already don't like it and I live here. My momma didn't raise no son who couldn't learn from history.
"Protecting" my nation from that fate is a *good deal*. "Protecting" anyone else's "your" nation from that you should consider as an even "better" deal.
Re:Where's VA Software? (Score:1, Insightful)
where's the innovation on this site? where are the signs of caring?
we have dupes. we have stories that are ads now (2 in the last 2 days). we have no innovation. no new features, unless you count larger ads and a system to take money.
face it, va would only be a great place to work because no work happens.
Re:Microsoft is #20???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Due to their unique grip on the marketplace, Microsoft is able to extract more money out of their customers per employee than almost any other company in the world. Of course they can afford the luxury of treating their employees very well.
Re:hm (Score:2, Insightful)
Globalization rapes programmers, no doubt, but trade and globalization are not the same.
Re:Ahem... 20x $ != 20x output (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? And what measurements did you make in order to come to that conclusion? A good CEO is worth every penny he or she is paid, while bad ones aren't worth a single penny or a single share of stock. Good CEO's can drive the company to new business, higher profits, and allow their employees to share in that wealth.
Further, before you denigrate all CEO's, what about the lowly guy (or group) that came up with an idea, marketed it, and formed a hugely successful business from it. It's their company; they risked a lot to make it, and worked very hard for it. Who are you to dictate to them what's "reasonable"?
I for one am a bit tired of the constant vitriol on
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:% Minorities? % Women? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good question, Vic. The answer is this: diversity.
No, the real answer is "racial quotas", which is the total opposite of a meritocracy. Companies are rampantly reviewing their workforces to make sure they've got "enough of the minorities" to keep the lawsuits away. Is this really the best we can do? Whatever happened to "this person is the best one for the job because of their superlative skills" instead of "we're hiring you because you're black"?
Whatever good intentions there were when "affirmative action" was put in place have long since degenerated into reverse discrimination these days. Discrimination of any type, whether it's in favor of or against minorities, is a bad thing and is actually illegal, although in this liberal day and age you'd have a hard time getting any judge (who wants to keep their job) to rule in such a manner.
Re:% Minorities? % Women? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're endorsing is discrimination, my friend, and unless I missed something somewhere it's against the law to discriminate against someone based on their race, religion, creed, age, sex, or national origin. Of course, you're saying that it's perfectly alright for some people to be discriminated against as long as some other people benefit from it. Right...you just keep on feeling righteous about your attitude. Just know that if you reversed the words "black" and "white", you'd have Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the rest of the race-baiting entourage threatening lawsuits, boycotts, and more. But if you're white...hey, don't feel bad, some other white person got hired somewhere, so you're just out of luck. Sounds an awful lot like what happened to black people back in the 60's. It wasn't right then, it isn't right now.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others" -- George Orwell, Animal Farm
Re:why yes...yes it is (Score:2, Insightful)
As to mexico, their castillian "elite" are some of the more classic and vile racists on the planet. Their exploitation of indian and mestizos is well documented, as are their abuses in the military, the federales, and in "business" in general. Major high level drug production and smuggling is just one of their crimes, and a lot of that effects the US tangentially in parallel with our for-profit scam drug "wars". Mexico's failed political and economic model based on graft and bureaucracy over the past 80 years or so have caused their problems more than any other single factor. Mexico is a nation rich in natural resources including abundant fossil energy, two great oceans with seaports, vast good agricultural land and a willing and enthusiastic workforce, yet they still struggle economically. 10% of their population has emigrated, primarily to the US, because their globalist two class society rulers in government and business are-racist lamers. Goons. All they are doing with the connivance of our high level goons is exporting their "revolutionary" potential, it's a sort of defusing of the situation so they can continue their scams and corruption and stay in power.
It is perfectly acceptable to "notice" this and as US person, who appreciates the basic concepts of right and wrong and good and evil to consider this "wrong". And it's also acceptable to consider destroying our existing middle class to be a "not" good idea in an attempt to fix this situation. There are better ways to go about this, and to be humane about it, certainly better than the path we have been set on by our so called "leaders". For an extremely simplified gist, it's possible for BOTH nations to create more jobs without resorting to huge population moves or destroying numbers of existing jobs. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Personally, if forced to choose between the two, I would much rather go to war against the mexican organized government criminal cartel than with iraq, they are a bigger long range and immediate threat, IMO. But that's a totally different topic for another time. There's a variety of reasons, but not right now.
Don't worry, you'll "get it" when it's your turn on the unemployment dole, and when that runs out, to take one of the upcoming government "New Deal part two" work force project jobs.
And no, that isn't far fetched as all. It's coming, get used to the idea, you and I have been sold out. The US has millions of people who thought their skills (blue and white collar, across the board)and job were sorta kinda secure, and they weren't. There's millions more independents who are having a harder and harder time finding shorter work contracts that pay less and less. And even more millions who bought into the stock market because "they knew what they were doing" and believe "everyone can be a winner" in the stock market casino and parroting globalism and "free trade" as some sort of automagical economic panacea. Whoops, that got drove home the past few years for 90%+ of the "investors". All this and more is happening, very, very quickly.
And yes, plenty of individual exceptions,and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt you don't "fit" any of those above categories-yet- but in general terms, I am correct, as it isn't opinion, it's just noting empirical data.
One reply for AC. You are welcome for the comments.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:% Minorities? % Women? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you understand your own prejudice? By your logic, a person's intelligence, work ethic, and morals matter less than what class they belong to. My experience has been that there is not a strong correlation between the two. I would much rather have a smart broker who has my interests in mind than one who knows how to dress well and where the best place to have lunch is. I don't care if they're white trash or like rap.
It's not prejudice. It's a simple fact: if you live in new york, you will find a lot of black people that have no business inside of a stock exchange (a lot of white people too). Now, saying that blacks and mexicans aren't employable is racist on its face, but you must accept that the presence of black and hispanic ghettos distorts the 'labor pool'. If your population is 20 percent black, but a third of those people are poor, with absentee parents, then there won't be as many black stockbrokers or bankers. You can't just ignore reality and play the race card every time someone brings this up.
Re:% Minorities? % Women? (Score:4, Insightful)
What I can tell you is that certain potential employees look at the %minority/female statistics not as an indicator of how "diverse" a company is, but as a sign that a significant number of minorities and women felt comfortable in joining the company.
Your chances of running into minorities (if you are white) outside of work are not that high, with the exception of the prominent metro areas in this country. But if you take the attitude displayed in this thred towards some of the women in your life, you really shouldn't wonder why you're home alone on a Friday/Saturday night.
Re:hm (Score:3, Insightful)
At least unions would guarantee a fairly predictable pay schedule that would be commesurate to ones experience as opposed to being blatantly based on 'networking' the way it is now.
Re:Protectionism is for the selfish. (Score:2, Insightful)
The job of the leaders of our nation is to protect the citizens of our nation, first and foremost - or so that's the theory, at any rate. Certainly doesn't seem the practice with the Bush coup d'etat.
I don't, however, believe in tariffs or protection schemes. They only end up benefiting the rich, as pretty much every government move does. What I do believe in is telling our government to 'piss off' when it comes to certain aspects of the economy. Some examples:
- no more tax breaks for corporations
- no tax incentives for moving jobs overseas; if anything, impose tax penalties for every non-U.S. citizen employed by a business.
- if some Third-World piss-hole of a country decides to nationalize a U.S. business's assets, let them. Tell the crying execs of that business "if you had built your factory in America you wouldn't have had to worry about that. Sucks to be you". And with that, absolutely no U.S. intervention, military or otherwise, for countries that decide to go this route.
The duty of this nation is to it's citizens first, and to anything else a very distant second.
Max
Re:I'd re-check the maths... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this:
Initial cost of the car: 7000
Downpayment: 500
Financed: 6500
Interest: 9%
Term: 3 years/ 36 months
Monthly payment: 229.31
Total cost: 8255
better?