Did my sit-down with the CSC hiring group.....amateurs all. Not a straight answer to any billing questions, OT hours, customer service level agreements, statements of work,etc. Old systems, nothing new.etc. An absolute waste of my time......bunch of 3rd string players, half were indians, the other half were kids with no clue.
Just thought you'd be interested.....:) Told 'em to not bother me again.....I could do better as a welder....:) They were shocked I terminated the discussion and headed for the door.
Thanks, JMM - Hope all goes well with you too.
I think you're right that it's a good deal both ways. The agreed-upon price (45.53 for each share of CSC stock DST is selling) is somewhat above the $43.78 current price, so I'm not sure who'll benefit most from the 'at a premium' price. Your reasoning makes sense for the factors you mentioned, but even if CSC stock recovers to $44.53 a share by closing date, won't that mean DST is coming out an extra $7M bucks ahead just on pricing?
Anyway - it'll still be good for everyone in the long run.
Have a good one!
Hey thanks man, I hope it's a better fit as well. I believe we were sort of a square peg that CSC tried and tried to pound into a round hole. And yes after changing hands for the fourth time now, I am hoping for a match that does work out. I am optimistic because this is a first-time venture for DST so it's not like they were trying to absorb their competition. Maybe with the right backing we can really go somewhere. You are right that we at HPS were happy at being sold to DST. I believe I made the analogy to the Germans taking sledgehammers to the Berlin Wall.
Hey Scotty -
Yep, I pretty much agree with all you wrote - but I think Nichols had around 2,500 employees, plus there were both TXEN & CS(ervices)C folks in Nichols/TXEN.
It's pretty obvious that posters on this board (like CSC in general) aren't very interested in the outcome of the HPS divestiture, however, other than to say "Good riddance!".
Works both ways, I'm offa this one & will check DST from time to time. MUCH less active, very little whining & antagonism - I figure it goes with the company.
Ahhhhhhh......MAN we're lucky!
Outstanding points Jena and I agree with you on the purpose of corporations. You do leave out the human aspect of running a successful organization and I believe that is because you are a writer (a very good one I am sure).
All great leaders understand how to motivate their people to accomplish great things. Alexander the Great (just one example) had a very diverse army (and typically smaller then his opponents) yet conquered much larger armies (often composed primarily of mercenaries) due, to a large part, on how he motivated his soldiers. He knew what to say to each contingent of his soldiers (he would mention plunder to the Illyrians, the glory of Macedonia to the Macedonians, the plunder of Greece by the Persians to the troops from the Greek states, etc.).
History would not have repeated ups and downs (the Rising and Fallinig of Great Powers) if everything worked as good in reality as it did in a book (looking at things in such a literal way is why you waffled on the "have a point of view" reply). Your opinion of there not being any corporations but people collaborating on special projects is the kind of suggestion I would expect a writer to make because it is basically how a writer is living their life already.
People need a good deal of experience to be truly effective, training does not provide everything (although it is a critical component). I am sure you would agree your initial writings were not as eloquent as your work of later years. Organizations can show initial profit by discounting the human element but in the long-term, everyone will feel effects (ID Theft, etc).
That is not to say that you can stop it, the capital will flow to where it can get the greatest return (reference the current account balance). Even Venice starting buying their ships from other countries in the later years. This helped lead to their decline even more but it was unavoidable due to the price benefits.
I agree that people need to make an adjustment in their lives to other occupations (we can always use more teachers) or accept that fact that the IT field is only going to get thinner and thinner (Just look at CSCs employee numbers from 3 years ago to today, that is only one company). If we are brave enough we could try to be writers.:) Like the other poster said, "I could do better as a welder".
My CSC experience has been as follows. I'm sure frontorcenter will back me up since I think theirs follows in line with mine.
The best analogy I have is that I was with a small company of around 100 employees which was sold to a larger company of around 700 employees. This larger company was bought out by CSC primarily because they wanted what the larger company (Nichols Research) did and we were sort of a "step child" that came along with the marriage (merger). So we were a minnow swallowed by a bass who was in turn swallowed by a whale to give the best analogy.
At first we were the Healthcare Group which, in all fairness, wasn't that bad. I'll admit a lot of us from the small-time days had the biggest problems adjusting to the new mentality. However we were a compelete entity. Then CSC did some realignment and Healthcare Group was no longer in existence and we became Health Plan Services. We were a part of Financial Services Group so that is when the "fun" started.
To be honest I don't think CSC had any idea of how to make our unit work for them, therefore they finally sold us out. We weren't generating enough revenue on a consistent basis. Therefore we seemed to get the short end of the stick on a lot of things. Before you say it Jena, I know that is business and how it works.
I think we have two schools of thought here in this debate. I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone and as long as it doesn't stoop to name calling I have no problem with it.
My CSC experience has not been a great one. I'm sure there are some here who have had similar experiences just as I'm sure there are some who have had great ones. It all depends on where you are in the organization.
I have been with one company for 10 years, however it has been under 3 different names and is going on the fourth one now. Such is the way of life in the business world today I've found out. I'm sure frontorcenter is like me in remembering the days when we were valued individuals and not just an employee number. When we were all a big happy family who had picnics, went rafting, played softball, had Christmas parties. When the ones in charge wanted to keep the employees and actually cared about them rather than looking at the revenue numbers. Once again I understand the side of business and it's much harder to see individuals in a company of 75,000 employees vs one with just 100 or even 700. Even in the 700-employee company (Nichols) we were still a separate entity and most of the individuality still remained. The unpleasant experiences started for us when we became part of Financial Services and we pretty much felt that CSC didn't care. After several years of either no raise or a meager one, RIF's (layoffs), and loss of clients you can see how the morale within our division did decline. Who's fault is this? I don't know of any one in particular who is to blame. A lot has to do with economic factors that influenced the nature of the business. However, a lot of us still hold to the notion that if we had had the right leadership along with being made to feel as if someone really gave a damn about us then things might have been different.
Soon we will be under the banner of another corporation with different leadership. What lies on the horizon? Only time will tell. Frontorcenter, myself, and many others are facing this with the best optimism possible and looking to build something, with the backing of DST, that will someday make the powers-that-be at CSC scratch their heads and kick themselves for giving up on us.
I've said my peace and vented my frustrations this week at CSC. Now is time to move forward. Best of luck to all.
Wow! Someone took the time to bother with a response to one of the goast posts? With a rather interesting profile I might add. Why in the world would you waste your time with the likes of us when you could be out breaking harts all over the place? Anyway, I had one of those funny marks �?� after my post, like jeopardy you know where I don�t actual show any certainty of knowledge. So I deny any poor logic on my part and use the defense. I was simple ask your opinion, of which I suspect you have plenty of jenarogers. Oh BTW don�t kill yourself with a witty response, on a good day I communicate at about a fifth grade level and present no real challenge for you.
My simple contemplation for the day, �Be true to thy self, for that�s all the purpose one needs�. I could not find anyone else who claims this quote so I do until proven untrue.:-)
Enjoy yourself you appear to be on your way.
<<Then, in the same post, you acribe human-like characteristics and actions to these same pieces of paper: "Companies will adapt when their competition or consumers force them to...">>
Adaptation is not a "human-like action." It is changing in response to changes in environmental conditions.
Competition, regulation, and consumers are conditions to which businesses adapt.
<<It looks to me like a contradiction. If it's irrational to have loyalty to pieces of paper, isn't it equally irrational to say those pieces of paper 'adapt' or 'have a point of view'?>>
A point of view is one's observation concerning the world around them, and one's rationale about what should or could be done in response.
<<Well, it's not if you are really talking about the human agents of the company, as I believe the poster was.>>
I don't see being loyal to people because of their relationship to a company. I see being loyal to people as individuals because they have earned respect and trust. The fact that these people are engaged with a company isn't relevant to whether they are worthy of respect and trust.
I'm seeing it again... You say: "But loyalty to pieces of paper filed in government offices makes no sense."
Then, in the same post, you acribe human-like characteristics and actions to these same pieces of paper: "Companies will adapt when their competition or consumers force them to..."
It looks to me like a contradiction. If it's irrational to have loyalty to pieces of paper, isn't it equally irrational to say those pieces of paper 'adapt' or 'have a point of view'? Well, it's not if you are really talking about the human agents of the company, as I believe the poster was. In that sense, your observation that loyalty to a piece of paper makes no sense sidesteps the point of the post.
By the way, I agree with your points about the realities of the business world.
<<In the good old days (maybe not so good and maybe not so old), employees felt that they were PART of a company because of their being treated decently, fairly, and received a reasonable compensation for their efforts.>>
How employees felt and the reality of the situation are two different things. I have no problem with being loyal to people. But loyalty to pieces of paper filed in government offices makes no sense.
<<These days employees are in effect contractors subject to the will of the employer who cares little about the employee themselves.>>
When resources are abundant, this is the outcome to be expected. When resources are scarce, resources will be horded.
<<This is a reality and companies WILL suffer from this due to a brain drain.>>
Companies will adapt when their competition or consumers force them to, as has always happened. Or they will die.
<<I'll give "Jenarogers" and the other pumpers ANOTHER clue about why CSC'ers and other American workers are ticked off.>>
Interesting that you would characterize somebody who thinks people should take responsibility for managing their own careers as a "pumper."
Could it be that their view of themselves as "employees" in a subservient role as opposed to seeing it as basic contract law - an offer of employment was made and accepted. In this agreement, the employee is equal to the employer.
<<Sure, years back, we KNEW that corporate executives and stockholders were making a killing. You knew you weren't going to make what GM's CEO made. >>
So then you agree it's irrelevant and you wasted a lot of time on an irrelevant subject.
<<BUT, you ALSO knew that GM provided not just EMPLOYMENT to hundreds of thousands of Americans at good wages and benefits, but built a CAR you wanted at a price any working person could afford.>>
If American workers built that car today, who could afford to buy it? GM is responding to market conditions. They're responding to the consumer. They have to in order to survive.
GM does not exist to provide employment. It only does so in order to accomplish it's goals.
<<Now, they're shipping the jobs to Mexico,>>
Good technology people are supposed to have superior analytical skills. They thrive on change. They adapt. Heck, without change, they're borderline useless.
You can whine and complain about change. Or you can see it for the challenge and opportunity that it is. If you have a brain and know how to use it, then use it.
CSC did not create the market conditions that drive it's business. It is trying to adapt to those conditions.
To blame CSC for whatever misery you're experiencing is a cowardly cop-out. You own your life. You own your career. Those are you're responsibility. If your experience with CSC has been disappointing, so be it.