|
|
|
Employment News
In an Associated
Press story it was stated that job cuts announced by U.S. employers last
month jumped 12 percent over a year ago to cap the busiest summer of downsizing
in six years. The monthly job reductions slowed somewhat from July but still
exceeded the year-ago figure for a seventh time in 2008. Employers announced plans to reduce their work forces by 88,736
jobs in August — 14 percent fewer than the 103,312 job cuts announced in July
but 12 percent more than the 79,459 recorded in August 2007. This in agrees with the data
that Janco has collected.
When you hear that your company may be outsourcing, laying people off, or
you feel you may be losing your job there are some things that you can do to get
ready before that happens and others that you can do once it happens to ease
your pain.
The actual
percentages were 71.63% - Laid off; 8,65% - Quit within 90 days of the
outsourcing; and 19.72% - Remained with the company at least 90 days after
outsourcing.
(cNet) -
The California Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a state law ruling that
employers cannot restrict employees from working for a competitor or soliciting
former clients when they leave the company. That may be good news for California-based tech employees who want to
take their skills to another company, or head a start-up that may directly
compete with their former employer. "Noncompete" contracts, in place largely to
protect an employer's intellectual property, began being used by companies
during the dot-com boom to prevent losing valuable workers in a competitive
technology labor market. The California law has been in existence since 1872, forbidding
"noncompete clauses" that restrict management employees' options in their next
job or business. But the law has been interpreted differently throughout the
state, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled in
favor of allowing a company to limit their employees' future job choices, as
long as it doesn't prevent them from working in the same field. Thursday's ruling was a response to the Edwards vs. Arthur Andersen case,
stating clearly that Edwards, a tax manager, signed an invalid noncompete
clause. The court said in its final disposition (see PDF) that "Non-competition agreements are invalid...in
California even if narrowly drawn."
There is no
documentation on the application (code) - When a program fails at a critical
point in time and the error is investigated you find there is no documentation
of what the code does, how it impacts other applications, and the programmer who
wrote the code cannot be identified or is no longer with your
enterprise. No application
relationship diagram is available – When it is time to upgrade or change
and you find that there is no application interface definition nor is there any
documentation which tells you how the application interfaces with all of the
other applications within the enterprise. Key employee is actively
seeking a new job or looking to retire – Out of 100 IT employees 22
change jobs within each 12 months.
Add to that the fact that between 20 to 30% of "legacy" system experts
are going to retire within the next 5 years and you have another issue the CIO
needs to address. Users and the CIO want
an application and you cannot document the ROI – Pressure is placed on
you to build the business case for a new application or an enhancement to an
existing one and you cannot prove that it meets the enterpriseÂ’s ROI
threshold. You do not know what the
CIO’s vision is – You are in a meeting with users and the CIO and say
something that shows that you are not on the same page as the
CIO.
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
