Cisco set to can 10,000 employees

Well guess who's not buying another Cisco product. Seriously though, when companies as a collective continue maximizing their profit margins on the backs of their employees, THAT'S what perpetuates stagnant economic demand, not to mention perpetuate the out of control income disparity. Companies have to break away from the paradigm that downsizing their workforce is plan a or b. What happens when they do this is that there's a decrease in the overall income pool of consumers and thus economic demand shifts in the negative direction as more and more companies continue similar practices, such as layoffs or inexcusably low compensation. In a sense, the private sector is shooting itself in the foot; by taking such actions to increase short-term profits (wall street mentality) they are inexorably hindering their long-term economic security.

Personally I will not be buying a Cisco anything. I run Network magic. The map is useful at times but the rest of the functions I rarely use. Think I'll just delete it off my HD.
Ship it to China!
Jeff

Smart move Cisco. By trimming costs, you will become more competitive, grow larger, and hire more people.

YES, this is what the free market is all about and why it works so well.

And the 70s business model of stupidity continues as usual... It's like jackalguy was saying, fire all the folks that got you there and then have to rehire them when the economy comes back around to suit your favor? If it weren't for the fact that this happens in 20 year cycles, corporate America would have been burnt down for real a long time ago.

Forget the moral implications, even ethically you can't be treating people this way. My god! 54% of the market share!?! They're suing everybody that moves over patent infringements (of variations that simply boggle the mind) and their canning 10K people? Who's ass in this House of Caligula has fattened to the point that they need another couch shoved together so they have a palatial throne wide enough?

I mean NASA just ground out the brightest minds on the planet at the rate of 15K, now we have another 10K (which I don't know if this is international or not), but seriously... Enough is enough.

"Smart move Cisco. By trimming costs, you will become more competitive, grow larger, and hire more people.

YES, this is what the free market is all about and why it works so well."

Oh you are a Cisco employee who still has his job for now.
Good luck with that....
Jeff

That's a old Cisco Logo you guys keep using, it was changed about 2-3 years ago.

Originally posted by g_slide:

---

That's a old Cisco Logo you guys keep using, it was changed about 2-3 years ago.

---

And that's what Cisco said about their employees too... So should we stop acknowledging your comments for 54.2% of forum rules?

cisco makes linksys products.

Smart move Cisco. By trimming costs, you will become more competitive, grow larger, and hire more people.

I have a good friend who works for Cisco. He LOVES his job, works hard and it supports his family. I would hate to see him get fired. It would be devastating in this poor economy.

Maybe if Cisco cut their astronomical pricing instead of firing good people, they could increase market share by more volume sales. But I guess 54% is not good enough. It's sad that the American worker has taken a back seat to our weekly trash pickup and Indian outsourcing.

To much GREED rears it's ugly head once again in American business. What a tragedy.

Originally posted by ChiefBrdy:

---

To much GREED rears it's ugly head once again in American business. What a tragedy.

---

So long as tweaded, powdered, pampered assed rich snot the 3rd gets his bloated undeserved bonus check at the end of the year he is under the assumption that nothing else in this world is his concern. In the meantime, in order to get his undeserved bonus, he leaves a swath of destruction in his wake. This behavior & squallid remains leaves others with both a bad example to model their behavior 'and' an ill feeling of "why should I have to clean up after this arsehole" that compounds over time into the demonic decrepit mess we have today.

They used to shoot or hang people with ethics like this not too long ago... Others that saw the error of their ways did the right thing and hanged themselves or did their best to eat the business end of a 44 Magnum. Now all of the sudden this is radical thinking...

No one has ever been shot or hung for bad ethics.
People who get bonuses earned them.
Lowering prices does not hire people.
All businesses expand and contract - govt does too.

It is sad that simple business economics eludes so many - so many who have never run a business in their lives but will gladly tell others how it is done.
Really sad.

Originally posted by Blessedon:

---

No one has ever been shot or hung for bad ethics.
People who get bonuses earned them.
Lowering prices does not hire people.
All businesses expand and contract - govt does too.

It is sad that simple business economics eludes so many - so many who have never run a business in their lives but will gladly tell others how it is done.
Really sad.

---

As an economics major, you sir scare me.

Cleared up
Jeff

did not delete that as i commented that cisco owns linksys so was not me.

No problem. The reply was there then disappeared.
Since you are the moderator, I thought it maybe you..

No harm, no foul.
Jeff

might want to edit that comment that you posted before mine.

"might want to edit that comment that you posted before mine."
Done
Jeff

Originally posted by Blessedon:

---

No one has ever been shot or hung for bad ethics.
People who get bonuses earned them.
Lowering prices does not hire people.
All businesses expand and contract - govt does too.

It is sad that simple business economics eludes so many - so many who have never run a business in their lives but will gladly tell others how it is done.
Really sad.

---

I have run & continue to run my own business... screwing my employees is not part of the business model. My success & failures have all been decided more on the facts of whether I chose to beat the system or endorse the system. Coercion & cheating allowed for a better bottom line & bitter employees with capitalism cheering my name while following the rules brought me to my knees financially & left me with happy employees and restful nights knowing that I had done the right thing.

You sir must have either failed your classes dismally or are practicing the latter of the economic rape forum. Academia is either teaching Anal Intrusion 411 as a graduate prerequisite now or you are flatly being facetious in order to provoke more banter.

All of your comments boarder dismissal on the grounds of semantics & your abuse there of. Use of ethics, bonus' earned & ratio of people hired to lowered pricing are all subject to context to which you supply nothing. The expansion & contraction of government has little to do with this example of economics in relation to Cisco.

Simple economics would have told 'you' that Cisco is still going to have to pay unemployment insurance to those fired for 6 months (or longer if they apply) and the severance packages are an upfront expenditure that save nothing for the company. If & when the company has to come back on line to full force they will have to go back onto a hiring binge & lose even more on the retraining & labor losses incurred, which will still be hirer than the tax write off.

Nice try, but I know the 'even deeper' games these jerk waters play that your initial comment seems to be defending, but really don't think folks want to waste more time reading here.

Originally posted by LordRuss:

---

I have run & continue to run my own business... screwing my employees is not part of the business model. My success & failures have all been decided more on the facts of whether I chose to beat the system or endorse the system. Coercion & cheating allowed for a better bottom line & bitter employees with capitalism cheering my name while following the rules brought me to my knees financially & left me with happy employees and restful nights knowing that I had done the right thing.

You sir must have either failed your classes dismally or are practicing the latter of the economic rape forum. Academia is either teaching Anal Intrusion 411 as a graduate prerequisite now or you are flatly being facetious in order to provoke more banter.

All of your comments boarder dismissal on the grounds of semantics & your abuse there of. Use of ethics, bonus' earned & ratio of people hired to lowered pricing are all subject to context to which you supply nothing. The expansion & contraction of government has little to do with this example of economics in relation to Cisco.

Simple economics would have told 'you' that Cisco is still going to have to pay unemployment insurance to those fired for 6 months (or longer if they apply) and the severance packages are an upfront expenditure that save nothing for the company. If & when the company has to come back on line to full force they will have to go back onto a hiring binge & lose even more on the retraining & labor losses incurred, which will still be hirer than the tax write off.

Nice try, but I know the 'even deeper' games these jerk waters play that your initial comment seems to be defending

---

Your say your success is due to fraud yet blame Cisco...for what?
Cisco has broken no law nor any promise to their employees.
As you yourself have stated; they are quite generous.

Again, it is foolish to misconstrue ethics violations as crimes; there is no such law.
I do not represent Cisco nor any other private concern. I am in fact a government employee. However, I respect the crucial role big business plays in our world, and that to hire or fire is not ignoble.

Originally posted by Blessedon:

---

Originally posted by LordRuss:

---

I have run & continue to run my own business... screwing my employees is not part of the business model. My success & failures have all been decided more on the facts of whether I chose to beat the system or endorse the system. Coercion & cheating allowed for a better bottom line & bitter employees with capitalism cheering my name while following the rules brought me to my knees financially & left me with happy employees and restful nights knowing that I had done the right thing.

You sir must have either failed your classes dismally or are practicing the latter of the economic rape forum. Academia is either teaching Anal Intrusion 411 as a graduate prerequisite now or you are flatly being facetious in order to provoke more banter.

All of your comments boarder dismissal on the grounds of semantics & your abuse there of. Use of ethics, bonus' earned & ratio of people hired to lowered pricing are all subject to context to which you supply nothing. The expansion & contraction of government has little to do with this example of economics in relation to Cisco.

Simple economics would have told 'you' that Cisco is still going to have to pay unemployment insurance to those fired for 6 months (or longer if they apply) and the severance packages are an upfront expenditure that save nothing for the company. If & when the company has to come back on line to full force they will have to go back onto a hiring binge & lose even more on the retraining & labor losses incurred, which will still be hirer than the tax write off.

Nice try, but I know the 'even deeper' games these jerk waters play that your initial comment seems to be defending

---

Your say your success is due to fraud yet blame Cisco...for what?
Cisco has broken no law nor any promise to their employees.
As you yourself have stated; they are quite generous.

Again, it is foolish to misconstrue ethics violations as crimes; there is no such law.
I do not represent Cisco nor any other private concern. I am in fact a government employee. However, I respect the crucial role big business plays in our world, and that to hire or fire is not ignoble.

---

You're absolutely right, the common practice of the private sector increasing its bottom line by laying off or firing or poorly compensating employees has no negative effect on overall economic demand when such practices become the norm across the entire private sector. In other words, youre absolutely correct that a decrease in the income pool of consumers is in fact not a shift determinant of demand. Did you pick up on the sarcasm there? I hope so, because as previously stated (and unaddressed), that is what's occurring: the private sector is unknowingly or uncaringly gimping long-term economic demand -- and thus the economy as a whole -- in order to satisfy potentially manipulated short-term market trends on wall street or to simply focus on short-term profit with no foresight on investment or the consequences of doing such.

Originally posted by Blessedon:

---

...your success is due to fraud yet blame Cisco...for what?
Cisco has broken no law nor any promise to their employees.
As you yourself have stated; they are quite generous.

Again, it is foolish to misconstrue ethics violations as crimes; there is no such law.

---

I never said I blamed Cisco for my success or failures, to insinuate otherwise is rhetorical spin & again fights for a childish stance for the conservative entitlement means to be right. Had you read my comments correctly instead of reading 'into' them you would have seen I stated that. I was against their continued support of wrecking the working class, padding the upper class & glossing over economic standards that don't /won't work & never will; that are continuing to be practiced over the last 60+ years.

Just because a rule/law isn't "on the books" doesn't mean people don't depend on a person's word or a deal made from a handshake. Once again, if you believe that to be true, Google up the thousands of court cases of verbal commitments taken to court & won over individuals that thought they could bow out simply because they thought they didn't have it in writing.

You can't have it both ways. Argue that ethics don't matter & then say that companies like Cisco are great & that they contribute to society while behaving as they seemingly do. I'm well aware that situations do happen & jobs will be lost, but not for the simple fact of healthy corporate bonus' & shareholder portfolios. Mirroring what, but not expounding on what jackalguy was saying.

Calling me out as a fraud in order to instantly void my facts & POV is usually saved for politicians & lawyers. Bludgeoning a disproportionate fact into the spotlight prior to making a less than important point is a childish game issued by someone who can't sufficiently argue their case. I argued economics & ethics & yet you still haven't brought a quantifiable argument back other than to say that I had to be a criminal to prove my point (something I already stated).

Being a government employee is of little concern & only lends itself as fuel for one small indicator, you have the potential for more job security than the folks reliant on the corporate sector you so admire. Your hiring & firing methodology is under a completely different rulebook than the rest of the world & thus hazed your vision. And for your information I was a GOV employee too, so I am also privy to that rule book. Now that most of the states are under a "right to work" hiring ethics standards (& yes, that's exactly what it is) these companies can hire & fire at a given whim, what hope is there for the working class.

"There shouldn't be an argument for ethics"... I believe you should read a few paragraphs explaining ethics before commenting any further.

I'm in the computer business. A great contract working from home 5 days a week. Renewable every 2 years. I do happen to have a wide variety of skills. As a result I get a lot of calls from recruiters.

Ironically, on Thursday I got a call for a job at non other than Cisco. It was a 6 months contract to hire and only about 20 minutes from my house. I told the lady as Cisco is about to can 10,000 people, "NO THANKS."

Now they are left with a hole in their area of need albeit temporary and infinitesimal by any standards. I'm sure there are 1000's who would jump at the opportunity. Be that as it may, my issue DID have an effect on them. Add to that, low employee moral as a result of the layoff announcement which could result in a loss of productivity, unemployment payouts, severance packages (as someone already mentioned) and you have a short term and likely long term recipe for little gain.

It's easy to say it's just business and they are doing the right thing. But when you find yourself at the business end of a pink slip crying 'poor me!' you might feel differently.

Well said

As a Cisco engineer I am disgusted but as the guy says its always the small man that gets the nasty end of the stick...