Oracle to Layoff 2000 Jobs

Joey Benington writes "Oracle plans to cut 2,000 jobs across the Siebel and Oracle work forces after completing its merger with Siebel last week. 'We will retain 90 percent of Siebel's support, development engineers, sales and sales consultants,' said Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. 'Most of the Siebel cuts will be in the back office, and nontechnical staff. The majority of the cuts will be Oracle people, not Siebel.'"

And no doubt Oracle's stock will rise . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . on the news. What a screwed up world we live in today.

Its People!

[jamesl]

Oracle to layoff 2000 jobs

It should read, "Oracle to layoff 2000 people" Not jobs, people. People are losing their jobs. Its a sad thing.

Re:And no doubt Oracle's stock will rise . . .

[blair1q]

Correct, but it's screwed up by design, and it was designed centuries ago under a buttonwood tree.

Stock = ownership.
Jobs = cost.

When you cut costs, you please ownership.

Do not pretend that being allowed to buy and sell stock in public markets means you care for employees. It does the opposite. It makes you yell at CEOs to constantly improve production rates while reducing costs. In the end, this non-resident-owner system results in a totally amoral business climate. People do not matter, and tenths of a penny per share per quarter do.

If the SEC required CEOs to measure and report employee happiness, and the shareholders considered that part of the value of their holdings, then it might be important to care. But none of that happens, so people are meaningless except as high-maintenance capital machines.

Never understood this attitude

[bigtallmofo]

It should read, "Oracle to layoff 2000 people" Not jobs, people. People are losing their jobs. Its a sad thing.

A person losing their job is a scary thing for that person and their family. It's not necessarily sad. What is your philosophy when it comes to this? Once someone is given a job, does that mean they have it for life regardless of performance of the person or the company that person has chosen to align themself with? I can understand this statement coming from a brief moment of idealism or naiveness, but people lose their jobs. That's a necessary and proper action to maintain the economy as a whole. The realistic viewpoint is that most of the people laid off (especially the good ones) will go on to even better jobs.

That is not sad. Scary for them, but not sad.

Let me guess

[bigtallmofo]

Sad? Everyone in the tech industry should get laid off at least twice. Except me, but I'm really fucking good. (and I mean this in the least arrogant sense possible - most of you will never even glimpse my level, never mind achieve it.)

Based on this rant, I'm going to guess you just got a job in IT working at the help desk and can't believe how stupid those idiot users are. You know a lot about Windows XP and still think you know everything. You're likely a few years away from realizing just how little you do know and attaining humility.

It's OK. Many IT people go through this phase. Best of luck to you.

You forget...

[IAAP]

that here in the US of A, spending beyond our means is a way of life. [Joke]Why, we have to. Without out us, the rest of world's economies couldn't grow. So it's a moral imperative that we run up huge amounts of debt! [/Joke]

I, myself, ask that nobody give me anything for Christams. I don't need anymore stuff. I have too much stuff as it is. But, unfortunately, there seams to be this "law" somewhere that people have to buy "stuff" for others and spend waayyy too much money.

I really wish Christmas was about friends and family. Getting together and having a nice meal, party, or whatever - no gifts! Sadly, that's not the way it is - at least here in the US of A.

This is NOT an Oracle thing -- it's an acquisition

[PeeAitchPee]

Layoffs are inevitable when one company buys another one. It's not "sad," it's a part of working in high-tech. Redundant positions are eliminated while typically (most of) the best people in sales, marketing, PS and dev are kept. Legal, HR, finance etc. usually totally get wiped out. Get over it and use it as an opportunity to find a better job. As for the Larry-bashing crowd: say what you want about Oracle and / or Ellison, but the fact is that it didn't really matter who bought Siebel -- layoffs were inevitable. The same thing happens when Google buys a company. I've personally been through two of them already in my relatively young career and everyone knew that layoffs were part of the deal. Besides, do you really think people who had been working for Tom Siebel were worried about something like losing their jobs? ;-)

Re:Never understood this attitude

[Anonymous Coward]

Once someone is given a job, does that mean they have it for life regardless of performance of the person or the company that person has chosen to align themself with?

The person's performance? Of course not! If you're a slacker (or just plain stupid), you need to be shown the door, pronto.

The company's performance? Well, obviously in the real world they don't, which is why it is sad (as well as, as you said, scary). They may have been sharp as a tack and working their butts off, but because of stupidity, mismanagement, greed and/or even outright dishonesty at the upper levels, they get put out in the cold--usually while those at the top keep their positions until/unless they sink the entire company.

Re:And no doubt Oracle's stock will rise . . .

[cryfreedomlove]

Please consider that often times a lay off is the most ethical thing a CEO can do. If you have 10 workers but you can only afford to pay 8, then it is the ethical choice to lay off the 2 before the finances of the business become so unsound that you have to lay off all 10.

Besides, there's a collective hiring binge in the Bay Area right now. Most of the layed off folks will probably end up at Google with more pay real soon.

Re:Job Cuts seem to be in vogue

[Antique Geekmeister]

This isn't always why layoffs happen. I've seen companies developing and releasing a good product, project market growth over the next few years that justify bringing some new staff, then have to cut back wildly as the market evaporates. It happened to a lot of good companies in the dotcom crash, and in the wake of 9/11, even if the companies were well run and actually doing good work.

When people won't buy even good products, or stop traveling out of justified fear, you have to scale back your staff. The trick is to dump, without a big golden parachute, those "big idea" people who thought that all that expansion was a good idea and spent all the investor's money on office chairs for executives.

And yet ...

[SABME]

... various government and tech leaders in the U.S. are waving their hands and bemoaning the shortage of tech workers. And wondering about the decline in students interested in engineering and computer science.

HELLO!??! What kind of idiot works their butt off studing for four years to enter a career that is stressful, demands never-ending study, and calls for ever-increasing sacrifices of personal time in return for a job that offers middling pay and doubtful prospects for long-term employment?

Oh wait ... I'm that kind of idiot ... Never mind.

Re:And no doubt Oracle's stock will rise . . .

[Daytona955i]

But what about when you can afford to pay 10 employees but you want a raise. You then lay off 2, put one of their salaries back into the company, and the other to your paycheck. Is that still ethical?