| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3280.1 | Semi-facetious theory... | SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA | Blondes have more Brains! | Fri Jul 29 1994 18:55 | 19 |
| Kam, no one knows who comes up with these hair-brained ideas (see
note 3262, "frozen paper"...) anymore. Personally, I think the logic
goes something like this:
1. If good people have the right tools to do their jobs, they will be
successful, therefore -
2. If we take away the tools (paper, transparencies, pens, printer
kits, folders, labels, etc., etc.,), then people will not be able to do
their jobs well and will become unsuccessful, therefore -
3. Since they do not significantly contribute to our profitability, we
should TFSO the lot of them!
It's a huge conspiracy to justify more layoffs!! !!
Only half kidding...but still -:) anyway,
M.
|
| 3280.2 | cutting the REAL expense... | CSC32::C_DUNNING | | Fri Jul 29 1994 20:02 | 4 |
| Re. -1, A layoff I would welcome...but from what I can gather it seems
like the company is trying to frustrate people to the point of simply
quitting.
|
| 3280.3 | | TENNIS::KAM | Kam USDS (714)261-4133 (DTN 535) IVO | Fri Jul 29 1994 22:38 | 14 |
| Once a quarter we cut 2000 transparencies.
2000 transparencies / 50 transparencies per box x $22.00 per box = $880
2000 transparencies / 50 transparencies per box x $ 4.40 per box = $176
difference/per quarter $704
Note: $22 is DECdirect pricing. We got them outside at $28 per box.
We pay an additional $2,816.00 per year. This is one group, one site
that is doing this. However, the Company thinks cost center XYZ at
site IVO spent $0.00 on supplies because there was NO facilities
cross-charges for supplies. Looks good but we actually lost money.
|
| 3280.4 | | VANGA::KERRELL | Hakuna matata! | Mon Aug 01 1994 06:24 | 11 |
| I've seen a lot of this over the last few years. A central function, set up
to take advantage of economies of scale, is put under pressure to cut
costs. So they stop providing a service. We still need the service, so not
only do our costs increase because of loss of discounting but many
employees are now engaged in the purchasing activity with varying degrees
of success and frustration. There seems to be some kind of belief amongst
managers that we are all wasting resources and that if individuals have to
make the purchasing decision we'll spend less. Maybe we will but at what
damage to the business?
Dave.
|
| 3280.5 | | NPSS::BRANAM | Steve, Network Product Support | Mon Aug 01 1994 12:58 | 9 |
| You guys just aren't thinking laterally! If you go give training, you
expect the audience to pay for training costs. If you give a speech,
you expect the audience to pay admission and speaking fees (at least
if you are Ronald Reagan...). So put the two together. You want to
give a presentation to (choose your favorite audience, current or
potential customers, your upper management, your industry peers, etc.),
charge 'em for the honor! You don't need to get fancy, just drink a
Coke and set the empty can by the door. I wouldn't accept less than
a quarter from each attendee.
|
| 3280.6 | damned if you do, and | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO3-3/L16) | Mon Aug 01 1994 14:43 | 16 |
| re Note 3280.4 by VANGA::KERRELL:
> There seems to be some kind of belief amongst
> managers that we are all wasting resources and that if individuals have to
> make the purchasing decision we'll spend less.
Paradoxically, in situations where individual managers
already made purchasing decisions, e.g., travel and 3rd-party
software, there was a belief that we were all wasting
resources and that by requiring more centralized VP approval
we would spend less.
The operational principle seemed to be "whatever we were
doing, try something else".
Bob
|