Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SHARK" data-source="post: 377534" data-attributes="member: 1131">Greetings!Hey there Piratecat!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Um, no, I don't mind!<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> As for the title, well, maybe it's the region I come from, or just a colloqualism, I'm not sure, but the term "Fired" is used whenever a person loses a job. Unless a person quits, they are "fired". The reasons can be no fault of their own, or something else entirely. Just a general kind of expression for losing a job, as well as expressing emotion for when a company "fires" you, as it were, for whatever reason.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In any event, no, no offense or misrepresentation was intended in any way. My apologies.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I must say that this whole business is just sad. Really sad. As for the overall business practice of "outsourcing"--yeah, I've read about it. It's been a long time coming, gradually making its way through the American economy. Just like hiring "temp" workers. Yeah, there can be some legitimate need for "temp" workers, but far more often, it seems that companies merely attempt to find ways to get rid of all the long-standing permanent employees who actually get paid good salaries and have benefits, as well as worker's protections and rights, in favor of a pool of half-to-semi-trained "temps" that do work at half the quality, for half the pay, with fewer benefits and few to non-existent rights. The employer can much easier get rid of temps, at a moment's notice, and not have to actually concern themselves with grievances Human Resource Departments, unlawful firing, and many other rights and protections, because "temps" have no rights. A boss can get rid of them with one simple phone-call, merely saying that the person in question "just isn't working out"--that afternoon, the temp returns to the "temp" pool, and the next morning, a whole new temp arrives. Yeah, that, and many other trends that are just so popular with American business. Strange how "maximizing profits" and the almighty "bottom line" always seems to mean that the executives keep getting bigger and bigger paydays, while working folks get screwed. These trends, like similar trends being embraced by WOTC, while potentially increasing short-term, short sighted greed for more damn profits, the long-term growth and long term flexibility and professional skills of the company will be degraded.Strong, well-organized, profitable companies don't get rid of top-notch designers, artists, and other specialists, because keeping them under one roof contains and exponentially maximizes their talents for the company in question, without such talents and energies being diffused to the marketplace of the competition. Getting rid of such invaluable resources just isn't a good way of keeping a business strong. Hell, though it's a different kind of field, take food-production companies, like Quaker Oats, or General Mills. They have entire staffs of artists on hand always drawing and creating stuff for them. They have whole stables of marketing and creative people who are paid high wages to "think" for the company. They are paid to think about new advertising, new slick cereal box logos, new flavours, song-jingles, new food recipes, new cereal toys, and so on. All manner of creative activities. They have them stabled, paid for, and contracted. They don't get rid of them so that they can drift off, or work for the competition. They keep them well-fed in the corporate headquarters, all huddled together in big, high-tech think-tank rooms, so that they can combine their talents and energies on a constant, progressive, daily basis, to keep the company constantly cranking out productive ideas and products. This process in turn, increases their overall profitability over the long-term, which results in well-paid investors, which in turn results in happy companies with very stable business lives, and who maintain strong competitive presences throughout various sectors of the market over long periods of time.WOTC obviously isn't following that particular business model, instead assuming that getting rid of nearly everyone will provide them with the profitability that they desire--and well, they can just hire freelance in the future after all.That sounds fine for a small start-up company struggling to get on its feet, but the flagship company that does D&D? Somehow, it makes sense to get rid of the key designers that *designed* the 3rd Edition D&D to begin with? It makes sense to get rid of your best creative talent, thinkers, writers, and artists, like Todd Lockwood?I guess somewhere in Business School Boot Camp they make all of this make sense, but I just don't see it happening, you know? I just don't.Just some thoughts.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Semper Fidelis,SHARK</blockquote>

Verification