23 Jan 07
My wife got layed off on the last round of Pfizer cut-backs (2006). Pfizer has been buying up alot of smaller pharma companies, in the last few years, and now its too fat. It has alot of redundent management & manufacturing. It's trying to trim back the fat. "Fight back", hmmm...they offer outgoing employees very nice "packages" to walk out the door peacefully. The thought of turning that down, and paying lawyer fees just for the possibility of staying on is pretty daulting for most.
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by Dace AceThat's exactly right. I've been involved in layoffs before and had a few near misses myself. The problem is twofold - one you already mentioned. But the second problem is large companies buying out smaller ones.
My wife got layed off on the last round of Pfizer cut-backs (2006). Pfizer has been buying up alot of smaller pharma companies, in the last few years, and now its too fat. It has alot of redundent management & manufacturing. It's trying to trim back the fat. "Fight back", hmmm...they offer outgoing employees very nice "packages" to walk out the door pea ...[text shortened]... and paying lawyer fees just for the possibility of staying on is pretty daulting for most.
So a company like Pfizer buys up lots of their competitors. Then when the layoff inevitably come, and they always do, the layed off workers have fewer and fewer choices for employment in their line of work. Their work experience would be more beneficial if they could stay in the same field, but due to Pfizer buying out competitors it's tough to find smaller versions of Pfizer to work for. So most layed off workers end up trying to "recareer". Depending on their age that can be easy or extremely difficult.
Either way - Pfizer wins. And doesn't care.
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by wibWhich is great for the economy because then a large company makes a large profit instead of turning their company into nothing more than a jobs program .
That's exactly right. I've been involved in layoffs before and had a few near misses myself. The problem is twofold - one you already mentioned. But the second problem is large companies buying out smaller ones.
So a company like Pfizer buys up lots of their competitors. Then when the layoff inevitably come, and they always do, the layed off workers hav ...[text shortened]... e that can be easy or extremely difficult.
Either way - Pfizer wins. And doesn't care.
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by MerkThat shows intense ignorance of economic reality. I guess you think a monopoly would be the best possible market situation; the one company would make the most possible profit and the least number of jobs. That would be "great" for the economy, wouldn't it?
Which is great for the economy because then a large company makes a large profit instead of turning their company into nothing more than a jobs program .
23 Jan 07
Originally posted by wibIn this case, though, didn't they sell a company?
That's exactly right. I've been involved in layoffs before and had a few near misses myself. The problem is twofold - one you already mentioned. But the second problem is large companies buying out smaller ones.
So a company like Pfizer buys up lots of their competitors. Then when the layoff inevitably come, and they always do, the layed off workers hav ...[text shortened]... e that can be easy or extremely difficult.
Either way - Pfizer wins. And doesn't care.
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by MerkNo. You missed the point. When a large company buys out smaller competitors it's not good for the economy. It's good for the large company. That's the only reason they do it. That's the only reason they do anything.
Which is great for the economy because then a large company makes a large profit instead of turning their company into nothing more than a jobs program .
25 Jan 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYour use of the odious term "retard" is offensive to me and certainly to anyone who is developmentally delayed. This probably violates the terms of service agreement you signed, so I suggest you refrain from disparaging people with developmental disabilities.
What a retard! A sale of $16.6 billion isn't a PROFIT of $16.6 billion! Go back to school before you try to lecture someone about business, dolt.
EDIT: Try having someone read the whole article to you:
Excluding the gain from the sale of the consumer division, earnings totaled $3.05 billion, or 43 cents per share,
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterBS. Cry to the mods if you're so offended. And the term as used doesn't have anything to do with the "developmentally disabled".
Your use of the odious term "retard" is offensive to me and certainly to anyone who is developmentally delayed. This probably violates the terms of service agreement you signed, so I suggest you refrain from disparaging people with developmental disabilities.
26 Jan 07
Originally posted by wibI think the idea is that the large company is more efficient, and that's why it was able to buy out the small companies. Efficiency is good for the economy.
No. You missed the point. When a large company buys out smaller competitors it's not good for the economy. It's good for the large company. That's the only reason they do it. That's the only reason they do anything.