Rodion_Romanovic Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:09 pm
LMFS wrote: GarryB wrote:The real problem is that the focus is on profit for the share holders and nothing else... work the workers as hard as you can with as few as you can get away with... pay them minimum wage and expect 100% effort 24/7... who cares about the customer or customer service... keep the chit chat for your own time, no gossip and how many customers can you serve per hour... volume is what counts.
It is easy to fool a boss who has never done the job and doesn't really know what you do, but then you get a paranoid one that thinks you are scamming them and just screwing around most of the day...
Companies with no social conscience and no morality are what are destroying communities and countries...
Of course it is the way of doing business that results in such idiots being selected to positions of responsibility. Dishonest approach needs dishonest implementation. But there are also companies that are actually trying to do things more or less right and get infected too by that totally ridiculous approach because it is the way companies are supposed to be run today
I am quite annoyed also when I hear it by the upper management in a company (that maybe is producing world class engineering products). They say the scope of this company is to produce profit for the shareholders...
Bullshit: the scope of the company should be to produce high quality products, to continue innovating and creating good conditions for the employees, while of course remaining financially viable.
But financially viable does not means that it has to allow shareholders to have short term gains that can impact the future of the company. In some fields having investors that want short term gains means that you have to compromise the future, since the choices you make now will affect the company after 5 or 10 years.
As an example, if you decide to cut the R&D expenses because you make most of the money from after sale support of already existing products, it is possible that in 10 years you'll go bankrupt, because your old products are in the meanwhile obsolete and not anymore used by the customers, and the new products developed in the meanwhile are either non existing or not good enough.
Furthermore, If a good engineer decides to join a company is because he wants to contribute in developing and designing new exciting products, definitely not because he wants those assholes shareholders to buy another yacht with the money stolen from the company.
I believe anyway that strategic companies should not go in private hands, unless we are talking by a brilliant entrepreneur who owns the company and also loves and knows the area in which the company operates.
Finally, I understand the needs for good accountants... they are really important. But we should not let those financial people (that in most cases would just be mediocre accountants with huge ego and no practical skills) rule countries and strategic companies...