Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Networking Businesses Technology

Nokia-Siemens Axing 17,000 Positions 87

alphadogg writes with troubling news for the network hardware joint-venture between Nokia and Siemens. Quoting the article: "Struggling network infrastructure vendor Nokia Siemens Networks is planning to cut 17,000 jobs worldwide, as it aims to cut $1.35 billion from its costs by the end of 2013, the company said Wednesday. About 23% of the company's 74,000 employees will be laid off. The 4 1/2-year-old joint venture between Nokia and Siemens has been struggling to compete with Swedish Ericsson and Chinese vendor Huawei. Parent company Nokia's ongoing problems have made Nokia Siemens' situation even more difficult."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nokia-Siemens Axing 17,000 Positions

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23, 2011 @01:38PM (#38150190)

    Unless perhaps you're looking at a CEO's salary, there are other areas besides HR that cost a company money. Add to that:

    The 4 1/2-year-old joint venture between Nokia and Siemens has been struggling to compete with Swedish Ericsson and Chinese vendor Huawei.

    Equipment and facilities can be purchased or leased again. But innovation and attracting and retaining key talent is priceless. What are they losing in order to save their budget?

  • by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2011 @01:46PM (#38150272)

    Equipment and facilities can be purchased or leased again. But innovation and attracting and retaining key talent is priceless. What are they losing in order to save their budget?

    Who cares? It's more important that they keep their profits high for each quarter, so the CEO can get a bigger bonus. Why should the CEO care about his company's long-term future?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23, 2011 @01:50PM (#38150290)

    Slashing people shows bankers a willingness to be ruthless assholes so they will then loan money. I've seen various solutions, none that do much good.

    In one case I know of the Nokia cellphone side gutted the staff of a critical infrastructure product that was intended to bring up a US data center.

    They 'laid off' everyone with zero notice and pretty much told to go home.

    The way they terminated those employees is what rankled. They got the standard Nokia severance.

    A friend in that group went on to make more money, less bureaucracy, better health care and much better job security and they didn't have to get any windows phone shit on them.

  • by scamper_22 ( 1073470 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2011 @02:35PM (#38150742)

    "Everyone is saying IT is immune from the economy"

    who is saying that?
    The only people who say that are those who profit from saying it. Educational institutions who want more business. CEOs and others who want more cheap labor. Governments who have become dependent on infinite economic growth to fuel their spending.

    Talk to regular people, regular engineers... and we all say IT is just as vulnerable. With free trade and a globally educated work force... most of IT is as expendable as manual labor is. Sure if you're in the top 1% of your field, you might always have a job...but that's pretty much true of any active field.

  • by jpapon ( 1877296 ) on Wednesday November 23, 2011 @02:36PM (#38150750) Journal
    You apparently see government as a destabilizing force in the market, causing uncertainty.

    I would say that government is actually the key stabilizing force in the market.

    Where the Fed can cut interest rates to 0% or raise them to 10%?

    This argument is silly, the Fed's chief goal is market stability, and sustained growth.

    Do you want to explain how a company can plan years into the future when the EPA can declare tomorrow that oxygen is a pollutant?

    The EPA is around to protect the environment; if your business model requires you destroying the environment to succeed, then you need to deal with the fact that the general populace doesn't want to sacrifice their breathable air so you can turn a profit.

    Where Congress can pass a new minimum wage or new tax that makes your business model unsustainable?

    If your business model requires paying workers wages that keep them below the poverty line, then you shouldn't (and shouldn't be allowed to) put it into practice. It seems like you would argue that slavery is good business model, if only the damn government would stay out of your way.

    The success of your business shouldn't be valued over the success, happiness, and prosperity of society as a whole, sorry.

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...