Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Databases Programming Software The Almighty Buck

Oracle Dumps PeopleSoft Employees 258

Posted by CowboyNeal from the cleaning-house dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Dumps PeopleSoft Employees More

Oracle Dumps PeopleSoft Employees

Comments Filter:

  • money where your mouth is (Score:3, Funny)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @11:44AM (#11373116) Homepage Journal
    Now we know PeopleSoft, CashHard. Thanks for the info, Larry!

  • Starting back in 2002... this was inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by martinbogo ( 468553 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @11:47AM (#11373130) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by Flamefly ( 816285 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @12:12PM (#11373250)
      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?

      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)

        by waveclaw ( 43274 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:56PM (#11373914) Homepage Journal
        The fact is, that the two companies merged. With any successful merger the outcome is that overall costs are cut...

        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)

        by jafac ( 1449 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @02:09PM (#11374035) Homepage
        he fact is, that the two companies merged. With any successful merger the outcome is that overall costs are cut, otherwise what is the point?

        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.
        • A third possibility, and perhaps the most common, is that company A wants to purchase a large portion of company B, but thinks some of it is useless. So they buy company B, keep the parts they like, and get rid of the rest. There can be any number of reasons for this: One of the more common is that company B's strategists had been making speculative entries into businesses outside their core business, and company A's strategists think these were a bad idea and so cancel them.

          Is it that hard to believe th

      • 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.

      • 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

    • We're running 17 modules of PS v8.8 on Linux.
    • First, the initial hostile takeover announcement was made in June 2003, not 2002.

      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)

    by sanctimonius hypocrt ( 235536 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @11:49AM (#11373137) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @11:54AM (#11373160)

      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.

      • Keep thinking that as Oracle slowly steamrolls the world with their borglike tactics. These guys are oozing money, c'mon, Ellison sponsors a friggin racing yacht, or whatever the hell you call those things.

        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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by uradu ( 10768 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @12:19PM (#11373280)
      I'm just having a hard time seeing how exactly this is going to increase their market share. Existing PeopleSoft customers would have followed the whole Oracle/PeopleSoft ballet with great interest and many would probably have developed the same attitude towards Oracle as witnessed here. So when it comes time to switch--since we pretty much know that Oracle will kill PeopleSoft's products--why not simply move to the market leader? What exactly would be the incentive for picking Oracle over SAP? Incentive pricing can't be it, because this is not a terribly price-driven industry anyway. In the end it would come down to product strength and public image. I don't see Oracle shining in either area.

      • Re:Step Three (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GreyPoopon ( 411036 )
        since we pretty much know that Oracle will kill PeopleSoft's products

        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)

        by andy1307 ( 656570 )
        Most people who make the purchasing decisions are management types who buy the software from the guy they get good stuff from(NFL tickets) or play golf with. Do you remember the last time a programmer was involved in making any such decision?
        • > Do you remember the last time a programmer was involved in making any such decision?

          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)

        by aralin ( 107264 )
        --since we pretty much know that Oracle will kill PeopleSoft's products-- Who moderated this one insightful? Its a bag of bollocks. More than 11 years ago Oracle bought RDB. There are still new versions produced for this product and existing customers serviced. Its not actively marketed, but Oracle didn't force anyone to switch. And thats at the core business, databases.

        You have obviously no idea what you talk about. Oracle wants PeopleSoft products, wants the lucrative support contracts and will not end

        • Almost none of the laid off people were engineers working on the products, its sales, marketing, HR and middle management that gets hit the most.
          Also known as Lion food [jargon.net].
        • > If anything, the products will become better and a central focus,
          > 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)

        by mvfranz ( 258949 )
        Oracle wins either way. Since most SAP installations run oracle databases, choosing SAP over Oracle still puts money Oracle's pockets.
  • 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. But could I expect any less from him...not really. That's why I don't use Oracle for anything.

    • Re:Larry may be good at business but... (Score:5, Funny)

      by QuasEye ( 98125 ) <prussbw@@@yahoo...com> on Saturday January 15, 2005 @12:02PM (#11373195) Homepage
      That reminds me of an old joke - "What's the difference between God and Larry Ellison?" "God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison."

    • 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:

      • fiefdoms are now corporations
      • multi-nationals are nation-states
      • battles are
    • I have to agree with this statement. In general, when I look at solutions, I look at the technical merits and try to find the right fit. But Larry Ellison is one of the most arrogant, ruthless SOBs on the planet and I just can't bring myself to support the company.
    • Another good reason for not using Oracle is because it sucks. We've found recent releases of their software to be buggy and a headache to install and configure.
      • Another good reason for not using Oracle is because it sucks. We've found recent releases of their software to be buggy and a headache to install and configure.

        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.

    • be he sure isn't very ethical.

      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.

      • Heh, kinda hard to do that when they got a hammerlock on easy-to-use operating systems.
      • "He is border line illegal and totally unethical in just about all things"

        +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.

        • 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

      • 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)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Saturday January 15, 2005 @11:52AM (#11373157)
    I remember hearing a news broadcast about People Soft when it was a new company. Just as the bubble started. Well PeopleSoft at the time was recognized for how well they treat their employees. There was a saying "If you don't like working for PeopleSoft then go to work for Oracle and really hate your job". I don't know how well PeopleSoft has been treating their employees since that report. But if they kept consistent switching to Oracle would probably make life miserable for a lot of people.

    • Re:Back in the 90's (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arodland ( 127775 )
      I don't know anything about any of this, but I do know that PeopleSoft made a crappy, awful product, which my school insists on using. Seeing as how their software couldn't possibly get any worse, from a UI perspective, tearing apart the company can't help but result in something better, making my life easier.

  • From the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @11:54AM (#11373159) Homepage Journal
    On the news, Oracle shares rose 15 cents - 1.1% - on Nasdaq

    Maybe there is a justification for eliminating some of these jobs, but Wall St's myopic viewpoint (job cuts => profit!!!) has always bugged me.

    • That's because the majority of stockowners don't ever actually talk to the company. That removes potential people who might care more to own stock in a good company than to buy some then drop it. Why don't people talk to the company? Overly optimistic, overly cynical (don't need to talk, or won't make any difference).

      This leaves the sharks who do it out of habit, because that's how sharks make money, talking to their prey.

      • This is a personal pet peeve in wall street. Stock holders should have an interest in a company. Not just the bottom line, but the people, and products.

        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.
        • How about if you vote no on a bad idea you pay 1% split by number of members, yes vote 66% / # members, and didn't vote pay the rest / # didn't vote.

          That should increase participation.

    • RE: Wall Street (Score:3, Informative)

      by King_TJ ( 85913 )
      I used to be irritated by this too, but it's probably not realistic to expect anything different.

      "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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "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 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
        • True... that's a point I hadn't really considered. But I think my initial statement would still tend to hold true for the "intermediates". If you're in charge of buying/selling stocks as part of a portfolio for peoples' retirement plans and you're bound by a rule that anything you buy can't be resold for 1-2 years, that's going to change the way you think about your purchasing decisions.

      • 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)

    by Cylix ( 55374 ) * on Saturday January 15, 2005 @11:54AM (#11373162) Homepage Journal
    Step 1. Buy Competing Technology
    Step 2. Destroy Said Technology
    Step 3. Slowly Move Those Customers To Core Product
    Step 4. Profit!

  • Welcome to Corporate America (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 15, 2005 @12:05PM (#11373211)
    1. Corporations are not a democracy.
    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. /waits for the revolution
    • 1. Corporations are not a democracy.

      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

    • 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.

    • >> 3. The majority shareholders are mostly a small group of already wealthy people.

      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)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @12:12PM (#11373248) Homepage
    "The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him, to ride their horses and take away their possessions, to see the faces of those dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms"

  • Oracle takes a dump on people (Score:4, Funny)

    by GtKincaid ( 820642 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @12:17PM (#11373270)
    I realy should read headlines more carefully . This time though ,it looks like i wasnt too far off.

  • To clear up some misperceptions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by afabbro ( 33948 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @12:19PM (#11373279) Homepage
    There seem to be a few misperceptions here about what's happening.

    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.

    • ...would be some goddamn ethics in business. This merger was forced upon 99% of the people at PeopleSoft and as per usual, only the .05% are going to come out ahead.

      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.

  • Other employees said they would rather be sacked than work for Oracle.

    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

    • I chuckled at this Peoplesoft employee's comment, related to the bit about some employees preferring no job to a job with Oracle:

      "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?
      • You've got a good point there. :) That being said, I could understand it if someone said "I quit because the atmosphere is aggressive and edgy and I don't want to work in an environment like that". But saying "I quit because it's Oracle now"? That's silly. :)
      • If Peoplesoft's "atmosphere" was so conducive, why aren't they taking over Oracle?

        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. ;)

    • Buying a competitor only to lay off the employees and discontinue the product is unethical. If my company did that, I would start looking for another job.
      In fact, I wouldn't even accept a company like that as a customer.
      • I doubt being able to lay off employees was the only reason why Oracle bought PeopleSoft. They may be ruthless unethical greedy bastards, but that would be nonsensical.
        • They bought the customers and sales channels and removed a competitor. Oracle has no real interest in the products or the employees.

          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)

      by timeOday ( 582209 )

      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?

      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

  • Last year, they stated that once purchased, they would dump the product and all but the top development people.

    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.
    • Peoplesoft 9 is going to be relased.
      Peoplesoft's product line will be supported through 2010.
      • PS 9 is already in the works. Wont be any new products. To me that is a 'dump'.

        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..
  • Couple of things I read recently:

    * Pink slips were sent via FedEx, apparantly. Nice & cold.
    * Local restaurants are already suffering - PeopleSoft put a *lot* of money into the local economy.
    • In every situation, whether it's GM moving plants to Mexico, or Oracle's land grab, there is going to be major fallout with related stakeholders. Most will never be reported on because it's harder to see the corelation in a 10 second sound bite.

      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)

    by OneFootIn ( 696599 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @01:38PM (#11373782)

    ...life HARD.

  • It wasn't unexpected (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chiph ( 523845 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @02:05PM (#11373998)
    It wasn't unexpected -- Larry made an Oopsie and announced his plans for merging the two companies waaay before it was a done-deal. I expect the top talent bailed out almost immediately.

    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.
  • He just followed rules:

    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"

  • I can only hope that these newly unemployed start their own competition to Oracle.
  • As someone who has to contend regularly with it, Peoplesoft is a horrible product. It makes all the worst mistakes of a freshman database project. No Ad hoc queries, data and design joined in horrible union, and perpetually behind delivery of working interfaces so that trainings are months removed from practice. The best thing Oracle could do is scrap the entire workforce and recode the monster from scratch (based on one of them newfangled relational databases) to meet the requirements of the various contr

  • Fortunately... (Score:4, Informative)

    by rscrawford ( 311046 ) <rscrawford&undavis,edu> on Saturday January 15, 2005 @03:57PM (#11374770) Homepage Journal
    My father-in-law, who was very worried about losing his job, will be able to stay. He's part of Oracle's new CRM division, which was part of the PeopleSoft deal.

    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)

    by jmb-d ( 322230 ) on Saturday January 15, 2005 @04:10PM (#11374818) Homepage Journal
    ... fire hot.

    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?
  • when PeopleSoft did the same thing after buying JDEdwards? Don't make them seem like a poor victim when they are only drinking the same medicine they dished out and were still in the process of dishing out.
  • My wife and I went to Mistral last night -- a restaurant literally around the corner from the Oracle campus in Redwood Shores. As we waited for our table near the bar, a man walks up and asks, "Do you two work for Oracle?" We told him no, we didn't. He went on to explain that he was a reporter who had been asked to stop by and see if he could get any reaction from any Oracle employees he could find. He had asked someone on the restaurant staff how many of the customers were usually from Oracle on a Frida


  • "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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.

Close