Oracle Dumps PeopleSoft Employees 258
curtain writes "The first move in Oracle's dismantling of PeopleSoft has begun. The cuts will affect about 9% of the 55,000 staff of the combined companies.
From the article:
"We're mourning the passing of a great company," Peoplesoft worker David Ogden as saying. Other employees said they would rather be sacked than work for Oracle."
money where your mouth is (Score:3, Funny)
proportion (Score:3, Insightful)
Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
When Oracle first made a bid for PeopleSoft in 2002, PeopleSoft froze all hiring, and completely halted their Linux initiatives.
Ever since then, both companies have had "financial challenges," and the combination of both companies was bound to create a lot of redundancies. It's just a pity that the combined company believes that there are over 5,000 redundant jobs in the merged corporation.
Of course, that also speaks -volumes- to both companies hiring policies. Oracle is famous for creating projects, pumping them with quick new hires, and then dumping the projects (and sometimes a hundred jobs).
It's not surprising, but what it says about corporate culture and hiring practices is sad.
Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
When two similar companies merge you obviously get overlap, and this is where the initial savings can be made, there is zero point to keeping two teams of support staff (be it in IT, HR, Marketing etc) when there is only enough work to justify the single team.
How really else can you expect it to work? Would you honestly invest in a company as a shareholder if that company had 5000+ people employeed who essentially had no job to do, just twiddling their thumbs?
Any merger that *doesn't* cut jobs, surely at least, partially a failure. You may not embrace capitalism wholeheartedly, but look around you, it's not too bad.
Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I know what 'two companies merged' really means.
I interned at a company in college that was 'merged' with another company. This was at a telecom company in the mid 1990's. One day there was a Big Boss type giving a lossy PowerPoint presentation on Big changes in the industry (i.e. the Inernet.) The next day all the old company's signs came down off the building. The day after that? I got to move from an intern cubicle to a manager's office. Of the hundreds of engineers on my floor, only a few of the interns and managers were left. Everybody got fired.
I watched super-programmers with 35 years of coding under their belts walk out and forge start-ups that made them personally rich. Meanwhile, the remaining interns^H^H^Hemployees toiled away on building 'glue' code. Once learning to do world-class software engineering, we now migrated data from the original, unsupported and well-designed systems to the new company's 'manadatory upgrade' (and piss-poor) products.
Oracle+Peoplesoft will be just as bad. I can garuntee that as soon as what's left of Peoplesoft finishes the needed 'glue' code to migrate Peoplesoft data into Oracle 11i or whatever there will be a sudden increase in PeopleSoft 'alumni.'
Any merger that *doesn't* cut jobs, surely at least, partially a failure. You may not embrace capitalism wholeheartedly, but look around you, it's not too bad.
Megers, feh! There are only stupid takeovers and product assimilation in the business world. Someone is either buying your top talent (never happens) or your top product (to shut it down.) If you couldn't hire away the top talent before, they won't stay now. Product closures is just capitalism in reverse. There is less competition and far too often the inferior product is the only product left in the market. People that think mergers are like happy marriges of two companies have never personally seen the look of pure greed on a pre-merger CEO's face.
I'm not bitter though, it's just that the idea of mergers and the reality of mergers have nothing to do with each other.
Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
Eliminate competition.
A point that most "lazzez faire capitalists" seem to miss.
A *SUCCESSFUL* merger is a purchase of a "good" company, with skilled employees. Such employees can adapt to the new corporate structure, via the guidance of competent management, to remain productive, and not redundant.
Unfortunately, such companies are difficult to find, and they are not convenient merger targets, because, more likely than not, they're already doing well on their own thankyouverymuch. Layoffs after such mergers, are usually kept to a minimum.
A *TAKEOVER* merger, is a purchase of another company, and dismantling of it's resources, purely to deprive the market of competition. It costs the buyer a lot of money up front, because they're usually buying an essentially worthless peice of junk, in order to euthanize it. Or, in cases where they're buying a company that's not totally worthless, it soon will be. The only benefit to the purchaser is the destruction of a competitor.
not the only possibilities (Score:2)
Is it that hard to believe th
Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:2)
The fact is, that the two companies merged. With any successful merger the outcome is that overall costs are cut, otherwise what is the point?
The fact is that Oracle bought out the competition and is now dismantling it. Expect to hear of more job cuts in the near future. There will also be a migration path for Peoplesoft users. Remember, you heard it here first.
Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:2)
Any merger that *doesn't* cut jobs, surely at least, partially a failure. You may not embrace capitalism wholeheartedly, but look around you, it's not too bad.
What if you can't look around you because the power is off? Why is the power off? Because you couldn't pay the electric bill because you were laid off and can't find another job. Don't worry, you couldn't pay the rent either, so you'll be out in the sunshine and the great outdoors very soon. You'll get to see heaven soon too, since you couldn't af
Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:2)
Twice the facilities, etc. etc. This is just BS and opportunism.
The main thing that people never realize in these mergers is what they do to corporate culture. This will instantly pit former people soft management(that remain) in FULL COMPETITION with the oracle management. People will form clicks as they try to save their jobs. People will rat on each other and kiss ass of who they think will keep them around.
Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable-Cl (Score:2)
Their policy of closing accounts when the balance reached $0.00 at midnight, causing me to miss getting paid, caused me to stop being a FleetBoston custome
Re:Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:2)
Re:Starting back in 2002... get your facts right (Score:2, Informative)
Second, PeopleSoft did not freeze hiring; in fact, they were madly trying to hire developers right up to the date the merger was announced in December 2004. At which point no one would show up for interviews any longer.
Third, Oracle announced long ago that they would likely lay off 6,000 people, so the current round is less than initially announced. Not that they won't lay off a few more as time goes by.
Fourth, I'm sick and
Step Three (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that was the point, wasn't it? Reduce headcount, cut costs, profit.
I suppose Oracle also wanted to get closer to a monopoly by gaining market share. The point of the whole exercise was profit, and maybe personnal aggrandizement, given the participants.
Re:Step Three (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the point was to eliminate a competitor through acquisition and enable the combined Oracle / PeopleSoft / JD Edwards to better compete in a market dominated by SAP.
Any suggestion of Oracle attempting to create a monopoly through this move is nonsense -- their market share in enterprise applications is still a pimiple on SAP's ass, even when you combine the three companies now under the Oracle banner.
Re:Step Three (Score:2)
In the world of America's Cup racing, money counts. As such Oracle Racing, with their hefty $90 million budget, nearly three times that of GBR Challenge, seem a good bet. But success rides on a question that's on everyone's lips: will Larry Ellison become the most high-profile owner/driver in world sai
Re:Step Three-"Does this make me look fat?" (Score:2)
Re:Step Three (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Step Three (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle says they won't do this, but if I were a prospective customer, I wouldn't bet my business on it. The fact is, it costs tons of money to re-wrap your business around a new ERP package, regardless of which of the big guys you buy from, and you definitely don't want to be doing it twice in three years.
What exactly would be the incentive for picking Oracle over SAP?
Absolutely none, unless you already are running Oracle business so
Re:Step Three (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Step Three (Score:2)
Who said anything about programmers?! Purchasing decision makers are responsible to someone for the decisions they make, and justifying the selection of a dying product with a fistful of Grease On Ice tickets won't get too many out of the hot seat.
Re:Step Three (Score:3, Insightful)
You have obviously no idea what you talk about. Oracle wants PeopleSoft products, wants the lucrative support contracts and will not end
Re:Step Three (Score:2)
Re:Step Three (Score:2)
> just to prove PeopleSoft customers they are welcome.
Well, I guess that remains to be seen, won't it?
Re:Step Three (Score:2, Insightful)
Larry may be good at business but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Larry Ellison may be good at business, be he sure isn't very ethical. This is a very cold, uncaring move to dominate a market.
We tend to think that we're so much better off today than we were hundreds of years ago in the fiefdoms, where battles to dominate a 'territory' were fought by swords and loyalty was bought with title. Don't fool yourself. This was a battle for territory like any other.
Things aren't so different today:
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:2)
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:2)
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't decide if you are being funny or not. You must not have been using Oracle for very long if you've only recently discovered this. It's *always* been buggy and semi-difficult to install.
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Few of the great businessmen are. back in the late 1800's - early 1900's was the great robber barrens. They made Ellison and Gates look like minor players. In today's time, there is not just ellison. We also have Bill gates. He is border line illegal and totally unethical in just about all things. But just as throughout history, caveat emptor.
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:2)
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:2)
+2 Insightful??? This is a moronic statement if I've ever heard one...nothing like painting with a broad brush. Yeah, a number of Gates' actions in business have been immoral and illegal. But saying just about everything he's done is illegal and unethical is fucking stupid. The Gates Foundation funds a lot of charitable and very good causes...more people in Gates' position should do the same.
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:2)
The Gates Foundation funds a lot of charitable and very good causes...more people in Gates' position should do the same.
There should not be anyone in "Gates' position" in this age. The monopolist robber barrons should have died out a century ago. John D. Rockefeller was also a well-known philanthropist and monopolist. Once you've looted the population, it's easy to give away money you could never spend in your lifetime. Perhaps Gates should fund the recovery and cleanup costs of everyone who has been
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:2)
Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Few of the great businessmen are. back in the late 1800's - early 1900's was the great robber barrens. They made Ellison and Gates look like minor players.
There is no real difference between the robber barrons of today and those of the 1800's. Both used money and influence to manipulate the law and the lawmakers in order to build monopolies. Same old stuff, different century. That does not make them great businessmen. I prefer to think of people like Hewlett and Packard as "great" businessmen since t
Back in the 90's (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Back in the 90's (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe there is a justification for eliminating some of these jobs, but Wall St's myopic viewpoint (job cuts => profit!!!) has always bugged me.
Re:From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
This leaves the sharks who do it out of habit, because that's how sharks make money, talking to their prey.
Re:From the article (Score:2)
If you buy stock in a company you should also be responsible if that company did something wrong.
Companies can all the rights of a person, yet none of the responsiblity to others.
Re:From the article (Score:2)
That should increase participation.
RE: Wall Street (Score:3, Informative)
"Wall Street" isn't some conglomerate of business people who sit around making decisions on whether or not company X deserves "reward" or some "punishment" for their latest business moves.
A company's stock simply moves up or down based on the "knee jerk reactions" of the majority of people holding shares when anything changes in the company.
Of course, this is obvious - but sometimes it's easy to lose sight of
Wall Street-Mutual Funds. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're forgetting that a lot of stock is actually held in mutual funds. The one's doing the buying and selling aren't the actual people who own the stock, but intermediates. You want to c
Re:Wall Street-Mutual Funds. (Score:2)
Re: Wall Street (Score:2)
If you could somehow *require* all stockholders to keep their stocks for at least a couple years before selling, then you'd see people thinking more "long-term". But things like "job cuts = profit!" are a result of shorter-term thinking. "This move means my stock is goin' up so it'll be ready to sell next month!"
I completely agree. The long-term perspective has been lost, and it makes the market more volatile. Stock ownership was supposed to be an investment and involvement with a company - not a one-n
Looks like a winning strategy to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 2. Destroy Said Technology
Step 3. Slowly Move Those Customers To Core Product
Step 4. Profit!
Welcome to Corporate America (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Corporations do best for the shareholders.
3. The majority shareholders are mostly a small group of already wealthy people.
4. Aquire companies with "leveraged synergies".
5. Fire redundant pawns. Feed jobs overseas.
6. Lower competition.
7. Handfull of shareholders get even richer at the expense of thousands of families and the business es they patronize.
8. Most people and the local economy lose.
Welcome to the American Way.
revolution? (Score:2)
Nor should they be, necessarily. Corporations are driven by function (economic growth). So long as society views that as a core goal, it makes sense.
2. Corporations do best for the shareholders.
So they SAY. In reality, this is a very complicated issue and no two companies approach this the same way. "shareholder value" is only 20 years old as a mantra. Prior to that it was about "balance of stakeholder interests", which included employees and customers.
What
Re:Welcome to Corporate America (Score:2)
2. Corporations do best for the shareholders.
Sorry, but that's only true for short-term stockholders which is the same class as the top management, and that's a bad thing. I agree with all the rest.
Re:Welcome to Corporate America (Score:2)
False. Most majority shareholders are mutual fund and pension funds primarily funded by middle class people.
>> 2. Corporations do best for the shareholders.
Therefore, corporations do what's good for the mutual funds and pension funds which benefits many average investors (ie - the majority).
>> 5. Fire redundant pawns. Feed jobs overseas.
If they were redundant - why should they have jobs? That's an ine
Oracle's Business Philosophy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oracle's Business Philosophy (Score:2, Redundant)
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women."
Conan would be proud.
-Adam
Quote is from Genghis Khan (Score:2)
Which means of course that I have to link to this. [khaaan.com]
Oracle takes a dump on people (Score:4, Funny)
To clear up some misperceptions (Score:5, Insightful)
IT people are not being laid off. Back-office people are being laid off. When you merge two companies, you wind up with two payroll departments, two HR departments, two legal departments, two accounting departments, etc.
Fifty years ago, you mostly kept everyone because everything was done manually. Today, if you have a (computerized) payroll system that can handle 40,000 employees, it can probably handle 55,000. If it can't, you generally add more hardware/IT resources, not more people. The same thing is largely true about most back-office jobs.
So, what do you do with thousands of redundant people? It's not realistic to think that you can retrain them all, or that they all want to be retrained ("hey, mister SPHR-certified HR specialist with 20 years' experience, here's a book on Java!")
The people who usually survive mergers are (a) people in the acquiring company, (b) people in the acquired company who are responsible for making/developing the product, and (c) good salespeople in the acquired company. That is certainly the pattern here.
I'm not saying that Oracle/Ellison is some lilly-white invisible-glad-hand or that the Oracle-Peoplesoft merger is a good thing...just saying that is the way it works in business and this wasn't really any surprise. This notion that "Wall Street loves job cuts" or "corporate America is so short-sighted" etc. doesn't survive that "well, what would you suggest instead?" test.
What I would suggest... (Score:2)
While you are correct about actions Oracle has taken since the merger, the fact remains that a lot of people are going to suffer for it. The PS workers, customers, and other related stakeholders are all taken for Mr. Ellison's ride.
Stupidity or... ? (Score:2)
Hmmm. It may be just me, but that seems like a rather stupid attitude to me - do you really want to give up your job, your projects and everything just because your CEO suddenly has a different name? It's not like there's another dot-com bubble exactly; these days, if you have a decent (and well-paying) job in the IT industry, you should probably try to keep it.
Of course, it just may be that those who say these things already know o
Re:Stupidity or... ? (Score:2)
"Peoplesoft had an easygoing, relaxed atmosphere. Oracle has an edgy, aggressive atmosphere that's not conducive to innovative production."
And who's taking over whom? If Peoplesoft's "atmosphere" was so conducive, why aren't they taking over Oracle?
Re:Stupidity or... ? (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity or... ? (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity or... ? (Score:3, Interesting)
The bottom line isn't the only (or even the best) way to judge the contribution of a company to society. Many of the places I've worked at have had a relaxed atmosphere, even if the actual rate of "work" or "productivity" was lower than in a competitor's more agressive business. I'd still rather work for the relaxed business. ;)
Re:Stupidity or... ? (Score:2)
In fact, I wouldn't even accept a company like that as a customer.
Re:Stupidity or... ? (Score:2)
Re:Stupidity or... ? (Score:2)
It seems to be the norm nowadays. Where are the former Compaq and DEC products and employees now?
Now only SAP and Oracle are left in that market segment, Peoplesoft and J.D. Edwards are gone.
Re:Stupidity or... ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually internal reorganizations seem to have little or no effect. This is not one of those situations. What remains of PeopleSoft is going to be a totally different place than it used to be. These people didn't hire on to Oracle, why should they go along for the ride? If they stick around and hate it, the
They stated this would happen (Score:2)
The rest would be let go...
While it sux to be them, and i know how they feel, at least they knew it was coming.. and should have planned ahead.
eventually but not for a while... (Score:2)
Peoplesoft's product line will be supported through 2010.
Dumping.. (Score:2)
Last i heard it was 2013 for support. Support is only so they can migrate people over to pure Oracle products..
The PS line is still being dropped as a viable product. At least how i define it..
Pretty messed up (Score:2)
* Pink slips were sent via FedEx, apparantly. Nice & cold.
* Local restaurants are already suffering - PeopleSoft put a *lot* of money into the local economy.
This is exactly what I mean (Score:2)
Local economies are definately one of those stakeholders as well as suppliers to PeopleSoft. When Oracle bought PeopleSoft they had no intention of making their company twice as big. Instead, cuts are being made. It may be legal to do this and ruin a lot of lives, b
People soft... (Score:3, Funny)
...life HARD.
It wasn't unexpected (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the regular-Joe Peoplesoft employees knew it was coming, and at least could make other plans. Contrast that with the implosion at Enron, where the average worker had no idea that the company was on the precipice.
Whether the local economy can support 5000 new job seekers is another question. I wouldn't doubt that some of the senior management will start new firms, employing some of those recently laid off. Others will have to uproot their lives, and move to where there's work.
Chip H.
Ellison and the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. (Score:2, Funny)
Rule 052 "Never ask when you can take"
Rule 058 "There is no substitute for success"
Rule 146 "Competition and fair play are mutually exclusive"
too-many-peoplesoft (Score:2)
The rest of the firings can't come too soon (Score:2)
Fortunately... (Score:4, Informative)
Oracle's new CRM software came from PeopleSoft; before that, it was Vantive; before that it was Systar; before that it was Scotch-Bonnet; and before that it was Mobius. My father-in-law has stayed at the same desk for fifteen years, and worked for six different companies, including Oracle. He's a real 90s kind of guy.
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this surprise anyone at all? Was this move really to bolster Oracle's position in the market or to drive a competitor out of it?
So was this as newsworthy... (Score:2)
At a nearby restaurant last night... (Score:2)
So long Peoplesoft (Score:2)
"We're mourning the passing of a great company,"
Yep. Ellison bought Peoplesoft to get rid of competition. Peoplesoft users will be left high and dry as Peoplesoft products and employees are jettisoned.
Re:The economy strikes again... (Score:4, Insightful)
What a troll. It has absolutely nothing to do with the economy, and is exactly what happens during all tech aquisitions, regardless of overall economic conditions. The jobs aren't going to India -- they're being eliminated completely.
The first to go are redundant positions, i.e., HR, finance / legal, etc. Then most of the rest (dev, PS, and sales / marketing) are typically kept for a time to absorb what they know, and then axed. The creme of the crop are kept or induced to stay, but, like the article says, most of the PeopleSoft folks I know would rather quit than work for Orifice / Horricle.
Re:Icon (Score:2)
Re:Icon (Score:2)
Re:Icon (Score:2)
Re:How will this effect support? (Score:2)
Look for Oracle's "support" to mean "force you into our inferior product line"
Re:How will this effect support? (Score:2)
Re:peoplesoft (Score:2)
Re:peoplesoft (Score:2)
Re:peoplesoft (Score:3, Informative)
Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. (Score:4, Insightful)
2. if you are good at what you are doing at work - you will not be fired
3. If you are not good at anything then why do you expect some one to support you?
I admire your ability to have that point of view. It was my own a few years back. The idea that pops into my head when I hear someone say such things now is 'young' or 'sheltered'.
Now, please do not get offended. I know these are not attributes that people want to be known for, but in this case, it also means you are lucky.
I hope that you can live your life without ever having to change the viewpoint you have.
This would mean that you never suffered a politically motivated coup at your job, or a stab in the back from a coworker that you never expected, or a layoff of a crew of great employees because management is concerned with how analysts will respond to week growth in the quarter.
These types of things happen, and none of them have anything to do with you as an individual. They are circumstances, things which are by definition not under your control.
MOD THIS UP! (Score:2)
Re:4,950 people ... fucked over. (Score:2)
You're right, so why bother planning for them or thinking about them? Try to go for option #1: get good at anything and if you lose your job, then find another.
Welcome to capitalism. People have tried other ways... and they haven't worked out so well.
Re:Mostly HR and Sales People (Score:2)
How much of a role do HR, et al have in the quality of a company's apps? I don't ask our accountants what they think of a new feature's UI...
Re:Mostly HR and Sales People (Score:2)
Re:oh the irony (Score:2)
PeopleSacked, PeopleShaft, PeopleLost...
Re:More jobs to come... (Score:2)