Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Many Highly Profitable Companies Cut Jobs"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 04:44 PM
Original message
"Many Highly Profitable Companies Cut Jobs"
Edited on Mon Dec-28-09 04:46 PM by amborin

Many highly profitable companies cut jobs in 2009

Andrea Orr December 23, 2009

Early in 2009, Microsoft Corp. announced its first mass layoff ever, cutting 1,250 jobs as part of a plan to eliminate 5,000 positions over the next 18 months. Like just about every company doing business during the recession, Microsoft was facing a challenging business climate and an uncertain outlook. But Microsoft was at the time—and remains today—highly profitable. It earned a net profit of $14.6 billion in fiscal 2009 and was ranked one of the 10 most profitable companies in the United States.

Microsoft was one of many profitable companies that cut a large number of jobs in 2009. While companies typically defend such moves as necessary to prepare for more challenging business conditions in the future, the layoffs they carry out often serve to grow profits for shareholders.

Today, the economy is showing signs of growing again but layoffs continue to mount.....

snip

Some examples:

--Wal-Mart. The retail giant, another one of the country’s most profitable companies, did not have massive layoffs in 2009, but it did trim its staff on multiple occasions, including 650 workers from an Ohio facility that it shut, and 800 at its corporate headquarters. In its fiscal year 2009, which ended last January, the company earned a $13.4 billion profit and grew its revenues a healthy 7% to $405.6 billion.

--IBM. The software maker cut close to 10,000 jobs this year, despite being one of the standout high-tech companies that managed to grow its business during the recession. Its profits last year grew 18% to $12.3 billion, and although the company’s sales slumped in 2009, its profits continued to grow, thanks in part to the cost-cutting. IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano earned a total of $22.2 million last year, including base salary, bonus, and stock options, and shareholders have also profited from the company’s aggressive cost-cutting. IBM’s stock price is up almost 50% from the start of the year

--Aetna. The health insurance provider recently cut 1,240 positions in anticipation of falling enrollment. It earned a $1.38 billion profit last year and its revenues have steadily risen in recent years.

--Danaher Corp. The medical device maker laid off 3,300 workers as it moved to integrate two other companies it acquired. Its profits last year totaled more than $1.3 billion. The company’s stock is up about 30% for the year.

--Verizon Communications. The telecommunications giant slashed 8,000 jobs deemed “redundant” after its purchase of rival carrier Alltel. The company’s net profits jumped 14% to $6.4 billion in 2008, and it continued to expand its business through the most challenging times of 2009. Its most recent financial report in October shows quarterly earnings growing by 25%. “Even through the worst of the recession, we have continued to raise our dividend and add new customers, expand markets, and grow revenues,” the company’s CEO recently told shareholders.

--Monsanto. The maker of agricultural products more than doubled its net profit in two short years, to more than $2.1 billion in fiscal 2009. In response to a slowdown in business toward the end of this year, however, it announced a corporate restructuring and cut 900 jobs. In addition to a $2.46 million base pay, CEO Hugh Grant earned bonuses and options bringing his total compensation to $17.4 million.


snip

http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/many_highly_profitable_companies_cut_jobs_in_2009/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+epi+Economic+Policy+Institute#When:16:57:48Z
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. Microsoft had to lay off people. They couldn't afford to offshore any more jobs. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Cutting overhead is always good, putting fear into the hearts of employees is better...
This is always the m.o. of management except in the rarest of companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. but but but they all got tax cuts by the Bush* Administration..
They are supposed to use those tax cuts to hire people... Republicans said it so it must be true..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. These are companies doing well. What about that inevitable "growth" they are supposed to have?
They don't need workers to keep profitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Exactly!!! Lay americans are such slow learners about this... many expect
corporate profitably and good stock performance to lead to more jobs. It is a flawed concept for the 21st century. The administration knows this, but if they tried to be more proactive then the drums of socialism would start up. The US is going to stagnate if we don't get moving on changing our paradigm for economic success. It is exactly as you said, "They don't need workers to keep profitable."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Aetna also raised its premiums (as much as 80%) to decrease the number of people it insures.
I'm sure there's some logic in that, but I haven't figured it out yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goldstein1984 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. "Capitalism: A Love Story" that ends
Edited on Mon Dec-28-09 05:14 PM by Goldstein1984
in an abusive relationship.

There are two economies: The working class is in the one that isn't recovering anytime soon, and which could easily get worse.

On edit: fixed typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Quite true! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. M&M/Mars Snackfood is very profitable even though private. They
are cutting people - especially the pensioners who kept the pension plan when they had to choose 6 years ago.

Don't ask me how I know...I just know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. Fundamental cultural question - what is the purpose of companies?
Short, easy answer is to make as much money as possible. But the consequences of this are devastating:

1) Forcing millions into poverty

2) Insecurity in the workforce

3) Concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands leading to injustice after injustice

All this perpetuated by the constant striving for "efficiency" at the bottom while feeding the excessive greed of the few people in the ranks of executive management and owners. If they were interested in efficiency for the sake of making the business stronger, they would consider cutting their own exorbitant salaries and benefits. These executives and owners are making far more money than the contribution they provide warrants. They've become major drains not only on their individual businesses but on the economy as a whole. Many even mistake Wall Street for the economy. There's hardly any investment of money anymore. It's turned into gambling.

Everybody wants something for nothing. Problem is, that something is somebody else's means of sustenance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. One'd think Congreff could offer tax incentives to companies that retain U.S. workers.
After all, they are the People's servants, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. The bribe would probably be better spent on direct hiring or just cutting checks
Tax incentives to big corporations and wealthy individuals is just pissing down your own leg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I'd prefer severe tax penalties to corporations that move jobs overseas. n/t
:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
13. When sales are up and business is expanding more people get hired.
The reverse is also true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-28-09 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. What most of these companies want is for employees to do the work
of two people. They know with the job market they have people will work their a** off to keep from losing the job they have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC