Someone mentioned in another thread… any details?
65 replies (most recent on top)
There are many of us who would most likely take a buyout offer if it is like the previous ones. Thumbs up if you are one who would.
“Go offer to sacrifice yourself for one of the impacted”
I’m sure many would take advantage of voluntary buy out if that existed.
@dhsh+1shIswPA Yeah I’m sure everyone layed off feels so lucky…
And you guys say I lack empathy. If you don’t like it at SAS leave and potentially save someone who wants to be there.
Go offer to sacrifice yourself for one of the impacted…. You go could be lucky.
“IC” is Industry Consulting. Not sure it was the entire team but I heard there were many let go in Justice and HLS. There were probably others.
Group headed by a director KM. Not sure if she is still around.
Lucky if they got good severance packages. Did they?
How many people were affected?
@dheu+1shIswPA how does that make them lucky ducks?
If you hate it that much quit.
If true, lucky ducks…
Information Catalog?
Is that legit?
What is "IC team"?
Entire IC team let go.
@brqy+1shIswPA I haven’t said a single positive thing about SAS in this thread. Saying you speak gibberish somehow makes me a SAS shill speaking the party line….
Once again you lack meaning.
"Gibberish" - Typical SAS shill response.
@boyc+1shIswPA We’ve come full circle back to another wall of gibberish.
Oh, okay. Here, I'll play the game...
JHG is a genius. So much of a genius that he saw that he could save money by having an onsite medical center. He was so prescient that he saw this opportunity long, long before the other companies did. Those other companies copied that model because it was so genius and it saved them so much money. If only they would have done it sooner, they too would have saved so much money.
Since JHG is a super genius and as pure as the driven snow, there are no ulterior motives ascribed to him owning his own personal health clinic, and able to set his own private hours, long before the other companies did it. There was nothing that needed to be hidden, no secrets to control, nothing of any note. None of that. It was all for the good of you employees. All of it.
You be smarter.
@arix+1shIswPA Wall of gibberish, “gaslight”, “party line”
Be smarter
Oh I see. Go gaslight someone else.
@anxx+1shIswPA If you are talking about the text of your post there is nothing even remotely clear about it. Wall of gibberish.
I don’t know what party line you are talking about. Saying your post is nonsense does not somehow translate to some party line. It literally just means your post is nonsensical.
It's clear from the text. Look at other possibilities, not just the party line.
@ajtd+1shIswPA WTF are you even talking about?
If it saved money, those companies would have done it long ago. Adding onsite health care centers is a recent development for those companies. They may be experimenting with cost control under new health insurance structures, or there may be some internal demand based on employee feedback surveys.
Personally, my belief is that the onsite health center at SAS has more to do with protecting personal health records than anything else. Imagine this hypothetical waiting room conversation:
"Oh, hey Bob, great to see you! What's going on?"
"Oh, hi, Jane. Just having my he---s chancres looked at. They're flaring up again. My Valtrex isn't quite working on this outbreak..."
"That's too bad. How are things going on Project Poodles?"
"Oh, wonderful, thanks!"
"How are things going with those cartoon children and small dog drawings for that free Elementary school stuff?"
"It's awesome! The Matriarch and clown in the Big Bird costume really loves what we're coming up with!"
"That's great!"
Again, all hypothetical.
"Forget the gender argument. If a principle is true, it's true universally. "
Um......'on-site health care can save money' is not a 'principle'. It's a calculation dependent on many factors around community, employee demographics and health, average time away from work for each medical appointment, et, etc
How the he-l does anyone see that as a 'principle'?
Because Goodnight. Duh. Legacy always wins. See: people who have worked here for 40 years doing who knows what and producing no tangible work product.
Why is the "Art Department" sacred and safe?
“Obviously if it really bothered you, you would depart for an echo chamber more to your liking.”
And for what it’s worth I’m clearly not an echo chamber kind of person. Surprised your psyche eval didn’t pick up on that.
@7rng+1shIswPA “ you seem to take delight (or find solace?) in expressing your disapproval of the way other people express themselves, but pretend not to understand that the only person you have any control over is you. You're a poor troll.”
That is a pretty deep analysis of my psyche from a single post making fun of people saying “the art department is safe”.
A bit of a stretch perhaps…
"Nah. I think I’ll stick around."
Yes, the point I was making is obvious: you seem to take delight (or find solace?) in expressing your disapproval of the way other people express themselves, but pretend not to understand that the only person you have any control over is you. You're a poor troll. Obviously if it really bothered you, you would depart for an echo chamber more to your liking.
@7nkf+1shIswPA Nah. I think I’ll stick around. I don’t really take orders from anonymous internet boneheads
I get a laugh every time I write it or see others write it. Those depressing parrots must be ki-ling your mojo, man.
"This site is like living in a house full of depressing parrots."
Why suffer? Leave. Don't fall victim to the "sunk cost" fallacy. Don't come back.
@7wqq+1shIswPA Wasn’t funny the first 100 times. Oddly enough it still isn’t.
This site is like living in a house full of depressing parrots.
Not in the Art Department. The Art Department is safe.
So no immediate reorg planned?
6msc
No, "If women were paid less for the same work, then companies would only hire women" is the problem. Are there are any other reasons to hire people other than paying the least amount? "Choosing" to hire based on salary is obviously not the same as logical inference from supposition, i.e. a syllogism.
Making declarative statements about topics you know little about reminds me of my experience in the Analytics dept. You would have fit right in with the Doctors who are still looking for the "any" key.
Choosing to hire the worker who will do the work at the lowest wage is now considered illogical.
Fascinating.
Why settle for the truth when a false narrative is more entertaining?
"If women were paid less for the same work, then companies would hire only women. Last time I checked, that does not occur."
The foolishness and flawed logic of this argument is reflected in the number of downvotes.
If women were paid less for the same work, then companies would hire only women. Last time I checked, that does not occur.
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/amazon-launches-primary-care-centers-for-employees/581582/
The offshore IT people are godawful at their jobs and don't understand basic troubleshooting
@5pcd+1shIswPA “The claim is that the onsite medical clinic saves money. If this claim were true, other companies would have onsite medical clinics, too. Yet they do not.”
On what do you base the assertion that no one else offers onsite medical clinics?
20 seconds of googling shows otherwise…. But you be you.