Quarterly yammerings

It’s that time again—end of a quarter when we get cascading messages of hope and prosperity from our executives on high. For those of you who haven’t experienced this before, allow me enlighten you: First there’s a message from god (aka, the CEO) telling us the state of the company. Then comes a message from demi-god (or the eVP, aka executive vice president) giving us the spin of the state of the company for our business unit. And lastly, there’s a message from a mini-god (our VP) telling us the impacts for our division.

We all sift through these emails looking for clues—will there be layoffs, if so when and how many? Will we get [another] pay cut? Will we be reorganized? You get the drift. After the stream of coordinated messages, comes the cadence of All Hands meetings. Where did that “All Hands” terminology come from? As in, all hands on deck? Are we pirates? Cruise ship pursers? I’m not sure. Anyway, we all gather together and get uplifting, well scripted messages about what all this means for us.

Sometimes something interesting is revealed in these meetings, most of the time we watch them to see if we can tease out executive politics—such as, is the VP of Product Management vying with the VP of Business Development for the eVP’s favor? Is the CTO sleeping with the VP of Marketing? That kind of vital stuff.

This week, our VP excitedly told us that even though revenues were down (furrowed brow and frown), profits were up (BIG smile). We sat in the audience pasting a matching smile on our faces while thinking, isn’t that a reflection of cost cutting? And weren’t those cost cutting measures essentially our pay cut? So doesn’t that mean that the company turned a profit, giving shareholders a return on their investment (aka cash in their pockets), by taking money out of our pockets? Call me crazy pals, but I think it does.

Some brave soul asked about this. S/he submitted the question electronically, so I have no idea if s/he is still employed with the company. The question was phrased very politely: this pay cut is hurting, is there any sign that once revenues upturn our full pay will be reinstated? I must say, I thought the VP was a bit annoyed by the question.

He started his answer by saying this action was beyond his control (Apparently, it was god’s decision. And god called the pay cut a “salary correction” in his state of the company address, so we know where he stands.), but he could guarantee that when the company did turn around it would reward those who worked hard to make that happen. He also said that the company would not keep all the profits in that case, he was sure it would give some back to us to fund further R&D and budget increases. In other words, so that we could make more profit for the company.

Since when, buddies, is giving people back what you took from them “rewarding” them? And if I read all this correctly, he told us to sit down, work harder, and we’d be rewarded later by being asked to work even harder than that. Oh, and if we’re lucky enough or high enough in the food chain for our contributions to be recognized, we might get a little reward.

There was an article this week in a technology trade rag stating that a certain profitable company was closing production in a small European country, and moving the work to India. The prime minister of the European country called the action “disgusting”—saying that the citizens of his country had worked hard to help the company make money and now the company was abandoning them. Would anyone in power in this country even raise this issue? I think not. I heard someone say recently that capitalism was a good engine but it was not a good foundation for a culture.

What do you think?

Unhealthy preoccupation

I’m obsessing about this executive pay thing. Truth be told, I’ve been having heart palpitations about this for years, even before the government bailout made it trendy. That CEO I was writing about earlier? The one who cut his $1.5 million base pay as a gesture of sympathy whilst tucking his $48 million bonus in his theoretical bra strap? Just wanted to report that last year his salary went up 68%. And you can’t tell me that his stellar performance at the helm warranted this raise, as shareholder return for the same period of time fell 28%. Trust me kids, even in the best of times [we’re talking the 90s here] us lowly tech workers were thrilled to see anything above 10%. And we’ve been seeing the bottom of 3% ever since.

I know, I know, so what’s new with this, Mary? Nothing, it’s just the trendy bailout thing and the paycut I’ve received and the cynicism of throwing $300K over the fence to show that times are tough all over makes me sick.

And get this: Four of the ten hightest-paid executives on the AP’s list for financial firms have been the biggest bailout recipients. Goldman Sachs guy got $42.9 million, and so did the dude over at American Express. Yeah, that’s right: those two banks got billions [no hyperbole here, really billions] in bailout money.

How am I sposta get up and go when these guys have gone up and went with such gusto?

What do you think?

The Cynicism of Others

Far be it from me, pals, to be critical of the cynicism of others, living most of my life in aforesaid state [I’ve been reading legal briefs lately, let the reader be warned], but this one’s got me going. Remember I told you a while ago about the pay cuts at my company? Twenty percent at the top, trickling down to the bottom dwellers like me who get 5% less each pay period? Well the results are in and I’m gonna blow. Check it out:

The CEO put forth this emotional case detailing that to keep the company viable we all had to make sacrifices and he’s taking the biggest hit. I read yesterday that his 20% cut only applied to his $1.5 million base pay. No surprises, I spilled those beans weeks ago. And no secret that he still gets his bonus, presumably bolstered by having cut costs company-wide with the damn pay cut. But get this: his bonus is $48 MILLION DOLLARS [can you hear my heart pounding from where you sit?].

Now, okay, I get it, he’s a smart guy, he’s making the big decisions. And our company is doing okay, not failing like BabyLith, who’s CEO only got $11 million dollars for running that company into the ground. A year that is, $11 million a year. But to throw $300,000 back at the employees as a gesture of magnanimity [yes, that’s a word, I looked it up] while tucking $48 million in his bra strap [just a symbolic statement, I’m not suggesting he’s a cross-dresser, how would *I* know?]…kids, that’s even more cynical than your friend Mary can fathom.

I’m trying to imagine someone saying, “Mary, you’re the best damn blogger this side of the Atlantic. Here’s $50 million dollars, bring it on!” Would I sheepishly turn aside, blushing slightly, and say, “Oh come on guys, I do this for the love of it, I don’t need your money”? Likely not, I’d realize that every weekly blog post [I could probably do them weekly with 50 Gs sitting in the bank] would rake in upwards of $1 million…assuming two weeks for the winter shutdown and a modest trip to Aruba every year {snigger, let the record show: I’ve never even been to Aruba}.

I found out too that colleagues in other parts of the world had to vote on whether or not to accept the pay cut. Apparently, other countries have laws that PROTECT workers. Go figure. Anyway, at least one country decided they’d rather continue paying the mortgage than work for free [oh come on! What would the world be without hyperbole?]. Now those who voted for the cut are waiting for the axe to fall [that’s hip talk for “layoff” as opposed to tech talk of “RIF” which stands for Reduction in Force, not Rest in Foreclosure].

It’s all got me thinking about what my superstar Bill Maher has been saying: when’s enough enough? Do we need CEOs to be managing for growth constantly? Yes, we had some good times in the 90s, but do we have to have year-over-year growth that makes mega-mega millionaires mega-mega bajillionaires?

What do you think?

Ooblick of Inactivity

Sorry to have been offline for a while, Fellow Tekkies. I’ve been in a quandary on how to discuss recent events. You see, a company I used to work for, we’ll call it BabyLith, was just bought by a company we’ll call MegaLith. Before that sale went down, BabyLith was in negotiations with yet a third company, which we’ll call MondoMegaLith. The whole thing’s pissed me off in ways I can’t even be sarcastic about. But I’ll try.

I worked at BabyLith for a long time—longer in fact, than I’ve ever worked ANYwhere. Or really ever did ANYthing, being somewhat of a moss-less rolling stone. At least I was in my youth, which is swiftly passing me by (but man alive if that isn’t another story). So back to BabyLith and the long time thing: for something like 13 years, if you discount the months I was unemployed after they misguidedly laid me off and the excruciating year I was a BoredAtHomeMom (talk about another story).

During those years at BabyLith, I was stunned by the over-the-top politics at play. Scads of time and money, not to mention opportunity, was wasted as executives fought over who SHOULD be doing something, who SHOULD be controlling the budget, and who SHOULD be getting the credit (are you sensing yet another story?). Those of us wielding none of the power and all the responsibility would get some really great ideas and then get stuck in gobs of ooblick as our leaders duked it out, keeping us from doing much of anything.

Not entirely surprising then that BabyLith wasn’t doing so well. Enter MondoMegaLith stage left.

MondoMegaLith, or MML for short (ever noticed how many tech companies rely on acronyms? Sounds so much more mysterious, keeps investors in the dark, IMHO), announced an interest in buying BabyLith. BabyLith’s stock started to rise, after being in the tank since the dot.com bust—you remember that, when people started to realize that the dot.com boom was built on Mr. Bubble and twine? The pundits were all atwitter about the merger of diametrically opposed corporate cultures—BabyLith being a baggy shorts and flipflops kinda place whereas MML cornered the market in the 80s on button down oxfords. Then BabyLith said no dice, we’re not agreeing to getting bought by MML.

The Fourth Estate flew into a giggly gurgle pronouncing the audacity of BabyLith, struggling as it was, to turn down MondoMega’s magnanimous bailout. Little bits of foam formed at the corners of my mouth as I thought about how the mucketymucks had mucked up the careers of my friends still at BabyLith trying to make their mortgage payments. I did some reading (okay, I was obsessed) to find out more about The Deal.

Turns out MML was unwilling to pay the exorbitant fees associated with BabyLith’s Change of Control clauses. If I follow this correctly, BabyLith had extended a fairly common practice of guaranteeing top executives piles of pay should the company be bought, way beyond the top level of executives. Also known as a Golden Parachute, you see, enabling ThoseWhoMakeMore to be gently place on the street rather than thrown out like your average lackey. It’s a variant of the currently popular discussion going on about the Bailout—top executives have to be encouraged to stay in bad times and in good. One supposes that there are fewer CEO jobs than chump jobs, so I guess it makes sense. That assumes that the top executives are GOOD, of course, which they wouldn’t be if they’ve led the company into the toilet, but what do I know? So back to our story: MML, a presumably well-run firm, said, “The f*ck?”

For me, Tekkies, sunlight broke through the hovering gloom. My last four or five years at BabyLith were haunted by yearly and then semi-annual layoffs—times when the likes of us were encouraged to put our heads down and work harder lest the blade strike (in my case, again) and out we went. It was always us little guys, whom I’ve affectionately called the dweebs, who were left out in the cold. Scores and scores of the Indians were led out the doors whilst the Chiefs sat closer to the campfire smoking their peacepipes (sorry, think I extended that metaphor a tad too far). Well no freaking wonder! It wudda cost BabyLith way more to let the Chiefs go, what with their severance clauses.

Sure, there were other reasons that MondoMega was backing away: SEC investigations stretching the negotiations out for months, even years. A closer look at the books. A feeling of superiority. But the change of control thaing has a ring of truth in it for me.

All seemed lost. Our heroes and their feckless leaders were drifting on a rudderless raft into the smoke and mist. When off in the distance was heard the sound of hooves beating hard over the mountaintops. Scores of arrogant executives in rainbow-colored golf shirts covered the shoreline; a deal was struck. All the upper echelons of management would get their multiple years’ pay, book deals would be signed to describe the backstage negotiations. BabyLith’s technology and license rights would be assimilated into the company known as MegaLith. All was well.

And here’s where I can’t be sarcastic. All’s well unless you’re a nameless, faceless dweeb—at least as viewed from way on high. It’s estimated that between 40% and 70% of the company’s workers (remember them: the folks who have good ideas and work hard?) will be laid off after the deal closes. Jobless in the Worst Economy Since The Depression. No, I can’t be sarcastic now. Just pissed.

What do you think?