Gates: "Where are the computer science students" 4148

Patty Calcaterra

In many companies, the technical staff are an expense to be whittled down as much as possible.

I once worked for a company that went through a series of financial upheavals. During one of them, some of the major investors met with each and everyone in the firm to see what could be done to improve things. During my meeting, I heard of their frustration about the fact that products took so long to develop and the development times exceeded the predicted deadlines.

I said that developing new technology is not like bringing cattle to a feedlot to be fattened up before being shipped to a packing plant. I guess I must have said something they didn't want to hear as, following those meetings, I was put on a work-sharing program and, three months later, laid off.

No, the only real talent one needs is to be real chummy with the boss. I've been in companies where completely blithering idiots kept their jobs while talented geniuses were sacked. Guess how come the former were untouched.

Or they don't recognize real talent. Most of the questions I've been asked in interviews were concerned about my sociability and how warm and fuzzy I was. Few people, if any, ever wondered whether I had the capability of actually doing the tasks required for the job. Now that's scary!

Au contraire. If one is qualified, companies are afraid one might ask for what they regard as too much money. With my education and experience, I have every right to expect a fair and proper return on the investment I made in acquiring what I've learned and am capable of doing.

How? By chucking them out the door whenever something changes? Do any bean counters or HR types ever think that the people they have on their payroll can actually figure out anything new that's introduced? On the other hand, how about those who can see what's being introduced-imposedinflicted won't work?

And in many of

Or have a lot of money in the company. Remember the Golden Rule: who has the gold makes the rules.

One doesn't have to go that far. How about simply ignoring the concerns of minor shareholders? If one owns a large chunk of the company stock, they're more likely to have the ear of the big cheeses than somebody who has, say, five shares.

So much for each shareholder's vote having equal merit....