Airlines Cut Minimum Pilot Experience to 500 hours and Below

Robert M. Gary writes:

But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
company took the risk and the company lost their money.

The company imposed the risk on its employees, and the employees lost.

The owners of the company choose the compensation package of their
executives and its the owners who have to pay it.

When a company has a large number of anonymous and institutional shareholders,
its owners have virtually no influence on how it is run.

Gatt writes:

Did I not mention that a whole hell of a lot of engineers, etc, lost their
jobs? Accountants, technicians, service employees...HP Corvallis just
about imploded and parts of their new campus were a ghost town last time I
was there.

HP is still firing people worldwide, even though it is turning a profit. It
is firing people because the profits aren't big enough.

You guys can justify it all you want, but, Hewlett Packard is a shell--a
joke--of what it was when I was there in 1993 when employees were happy,
jobs were secure and HP inket and laser printers were worldwide industry and
technology leaders.

Unfortunately true.

Robert M. Gary writes:

Now that is a different argument. What you are arguing now is the
primary purpose of a company. To me, the primary purpose of a for-
profit company is to maximize return to their investors. In fact in
the U.S. companies have a legal, fiduciary responsibility to do just
that.

Over what time period?

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Gatt writes:

I'm sorry, but, there's a Burgerville down the road that pays better
than $11/hr, and a car dealership that pays better too; why would I
invest tens of thousands of dollars, submit myself to annual medical
exams, corporate nonsense (such as pilot salary) and inherent job
insecurity, and then separate myself from my family for less than
what the guy flipping burgers or selling Toyotas down the street
makes?

Because (1) you start out with a tremendous love of flying, and (2) by
the time you figure out how poor you'll be, you've already invested a
great deal in the training and the profession, and you're afraid to
throw it all away.




Nope, wrong again, fjukkkwit



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gatt writes:

Yeah, if he's fully-qualified.

What does "fully qualified" mean?



Everything you aren't


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Robert M. Gary writes:

But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
company took the risk and the company lost their money.

The company imposed the risk on its employees, and the employees lost.

The owners of the company choose the compensation package of their
executives and its the owners who have to pay it.

When a company has a large number of anonymous and institutional
shareholders, its owners have virtually no influence on how it is run.


Yes, they do fjukktard


Wrong again


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gatt writes:

Did I not mention that a whole hell of a lot of engineers, etc, lost
their jobs? Accountants, technicians, service employees...HP
Corvallis just about imploded and parts of their new campus were a
ghost town last time I was there.

HP is still firing people worldwide, even though it is turning a
profit. It is firing people because the profits aren't big enough.



That what they told you?


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Robert M. Gary writes:

Now that is a different argument. What you are arguing now is the
primary purpose of a company. To me, the primary purpose of a for-
profit company is to maximize return to their investors. In fact in
the U.S. companies have a legal, fiduciary responsibility to do just
that.

Over what time period?



Good grief


Bertie

On Nov 28, 12:45 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Robert M. Gary writes:
But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
company took the risk and the company lost their money.

The company imposed the risk on its employees, and the employees lost.

Then the employees should start their own company. Since all business
involves risk, its not possible to ask someone to take risk but
guarantee that they never lose. If you go to the casino are you going
to issue a guarantee that you will not lose? Investing in a business
or choosing an employer is legal gambling; that's life.

The owners of the company choose the compensation package of their
executives and its the owners who have to pay it.

When a company has a large number of anonymous and institutional shareholders,
its owners have virtually no influence on how it is run.

Man, you also play simulated CEO! That is so far from any reality of
the business world its not funny. Just go to finance.yahoo.com and
look at how much of any public company is controlled by a few
institution or fund managers.

-Robert

On Nov 27, 11:06 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:01:19 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:
But HP didn't ask you to put one dime into her severancebucket. The
company took the risk and the company lost their money. I wouldn't
want to live in a world where I have to get permission from the gov't
to decide how I want to risk my own money.

But you do. It's called tax laws. Permission and direction (by tax law) are
ultimately, the end result of your investment choices, are the same thing.

Since most companies in the U.S. operate under the same tax law that
is not usually a major part of an investment decision. Some people may
look for tax efficient mutuals or tax exempt munis but usually come
with a lower rate of return.

-Robert