Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Remember, "Free Trade is Good for Americans"

EDS is whacking its U.S. workforce again...

Though, I wonder if EDS management ever stops axing its American workforce? (Answer: "Don't think so")

Look at the numbers below. Another 12,000 American middle class jobs are set to be permanently eliminated by EDS alone this year. This is on top of 5,000 American jobs cut in '03 and 20,000 cut in '04! Working with just these figures alone, that's 37,000 middle and upper middle income jobs permanently GONE in America

I wonder if all the people who thought free trade would be a "win-win" feel "punked"?
(Of course, I mean those people not in upper corporate management, working on Wall Street, insulated in political jobs or enjoying the fat rewards of high corporate dividends 'cuz the the company ditched it's "expensive" American workers and moved ops offshore...)

Remember, how our "leaders" told us back in the '90s that it's ok if the "dirty" factory jobs go to places like China and Mexico?? Americans, said the assorted business and political "leaders, will have cool "information age" jobs? That's what Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich said around the time they rammed NAFTA through the Congress back in the early '90s...

Well, it sure worked out "different" didn't it? (Isn't it ironic that Hillary Clinton and ex-prez Bill are still claiming that free trade is "good" and we just need to better "compete" to keep jobs?? Well, that is called the "Race to the Bottom".

If we're gonna go that route -- cutting our incomes to keep the jobs from going to places like India -- I want Hillary Clinton to take a 25% per year cut in salary -- you know, so she is like competing with Indian politicians to keep her job. Seems fair to me. After all, Hillary wouldn't ask American workers to make any sacrifices she herself isn't willing to make, right
Maybe it's time for all of us to start thinking "different" and voting "different" -- you know vote for people "different" from the ones who support "free trade" and letting corporations "offshore outsource" all the middle class American jobs they want.

EDS Offers 11% of Work Force Early Retirement
[Note: That 11% figure refers only to the EDS American workers]

The outsourcing giant has been cutting jobs in the U.S. while hiring workers in lower-cost countries.

At an estimated cost of between $70 million to $130 million, outsourcing giant EDS said in a Sept. 12 Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it will offer early retirement packages to about 12,000 U.S. employees in the fourth quarter, or more than 11 percent of its 136,000 worldwide work force.

After receiving board authorization Sept. 6, the company announced the offer to its staff on Sept. 11. Employees have until Oct. 30 to accept or reject the offer.

Workers who opt for the early retirement will receive an additional $10,000 from the retirement plan, as well as extra credits to their retirement account, according to the filing.

This benefit is equal to five times the allotted annual funds made to their company retirement plan.

Officials were unable to nail down the exact price it would run them until they knew how many employees would accept the offer.

Second in revenue to only IBM among United States technology services companies, EDS, based in Plano, Texas, has cut costs over the last several years. The cuts have included the elimination of 5,000 jobs in 2003 and 20,000 in 2004.

Its current CEO, Ronald Rittenmeyer, took over on Sept. 1 and is said to be hiring workers in India to revive profit by replacing more-expensive U.S. employees. Rittenmeyer said he would be bringing its work force in low-cost countries, including India, Brazil and the Czech Republic, from 38,000 to 45,000 by the end of 2008.

EDS also offered 9,200 workers early retirement in 2004, an offer accepted by 1,500.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Blogger hugo said...


It seems that I have found one person who may like an idea that I have had for a long time.

As you pointed out, Hillary Clinton is out of touch with reality because she is not risking losing 25% of her income a year.

Ignoring her wealth, her salary as a Senator is completely out of touch with the reality of the average American.

Our medium income is about 40K a year. Her income is over 150K a year. Here is the problem: by giving our Senators and Representatives such a high income, we are divorcing them from the reality of the average American that they are supposed to represent.

Even if she lost 25% of her income as a senator, it wouldn't mean that much to her. However, if one is earning 40K, 25% cut is punishing.

Here is my suggestion: propose legislation that will tie their salaries to whatever the medium income is the previous year.

This won't hurt our many millionaire politicians, but it should be at least a reminder to how hard it is to make a living in this country when all good paying jobs are being sent overseas.

Oh, and it will also save us some money in these budget cutting times. :)

So what do you think? I know that our congress won't pass this, but it would be nice seeing Representatives explain why they are against it.

Thu Sep 20, 09:37:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Info_Tech_Guy said...

I think that the principle you suggest is excellent, Hugo.

Connecting the median income of Americans to the salaries of politicians would give politicians an incentive to ensure that "all the rest of us" are not facing income stagnation or worse -- falling wages.

Let's focus on Sen. Clinton since we've both mentioned her support for offshore outsourcing and her salary. To make your suggest really work we need to ensure that all of Sen. Clinton's total annual compensation is affected -- not just "salary"and benefits paid for the job of U.S. Senator.

As has been reported in the press, Sen. Clinton has received gifts and income from outside sources -- monied business elites have been enriching her directly and less directly.

Specifically, Sen. Clinton's husband has been paid immense sums of money by corporations. He has received many valuable gifts and he controls large amounts of money and assets from his non-profit org. and foundation(s).

When we average people consider how much wealth the Clintons have amassed over the years directly in their name and in the foundations they control, we must be amazed. This wealth is surely well beyond what the Clintons received in salaries as well-paid career politicians, attorneys and law professors.

This spectacle of politicians making themselves rich from serving the interests of corporations and the elites which control corporations is obscene and shames the very principles of democratic government. How can the interests of average people be served in such an arrangement?

Jet-setting off to Bangalore or Davos to meet with monied elites and expand the present corporate controlled trading system comes easily to people whose wealth and power are largely derived from serving the best interests of monied elites.

That's why, if we value democracy, we must not just criticize the greed and abusive policies evident in corporations but recognize that these practices are possible because politicians have chosen not to interfere -- indeed politicians have expanded the power and privileges of corporations through deliberate inaction or legislation. The motivation for politicians to behave in this manner comes from the present system by which they may directly profit from serving the corporations above the good of the people.

The conduct of Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton exemplifies the utter corruption and hypocrisy in the present system... They are not true democrats.

The Clintons are members of the monied elites and who gained their membership in this "club" by placing the wishes of corporations and the wealthy ahead of the needs and concerns of average people.

Sen. Webb, a true democrat whom I admire greatly, has pointed out America is becoming more like other nations around the world in which the middle class is significantly smaller while a large group of people live in poverty and a wealthy elite controls most of the nation's wealth. Sen. Clinton facilitates this process every day she sits in the U.S. Senate.

Fri Sep 21, 06:42:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home

This site is best viewed using the Mozilla Firefox web browser available at
Firefox 2
This site is neither tested with, nor optimized for, any version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser. As Paul Thurrott commented quite some time ago, "IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators." (See, for example, "Internet Explorer Unsafe for 284 Days in 2006" at "Security Fix" on

Boycott IE