[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


  >On Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:57:34 -0500 (EST), Scott K. McGrath wrote:
  >>Norm; Microsoft just -lost- a battle in State Labor court, for want of a
  >>better, more knowledgeable term, about how it compensates the contractors
  >>who work there.  I forgot the exact details... but I recall they were
  >>forced to pay a -lot- of money to a -lot- of contractors in the
  >>This appears to be merely an instance of "Lose the case, legalize the
  >     Yep, and if you've got enough government officials in your pocket
  >you just might be able to get away with it.
  >     But I have a feeling they're going to have trouble pulling this
  >off too.  The way it's aimed specifically at the computer professional
  >shows it for what it is, a blantant attempt to get around the same
  >overtime laws that almost every other employer has to abide by.  I'm
  >just glad it's being reported, because this kind of thing can't stand
  >the light of day for very long.
  > ...Thanks for the info,
  > ...Norm
  >From what I understand, Microsoft generally pays its skilled people less
  than they could be making in Silicon Valley or elsewhere. The reason it can
  attract and retain them is because it is unusually generous with stock
  options for a mature company. This is why they've made so many millionaires
  and is frankly the only aspect of the company I find admirable.
  Nonetheless, I think it is a vunerability. Microsoft is like a shark that
  has to keep moving forward just to breath; as soon as that stock stops
  going up, they're likely to be facing employee discontect, which could lead
  to insider selling, driving the stock further down in a vicious cycle.
  Ole' Bill reminds me more of ole' Adolph everyday, and the weakness of
  blitzkrieg is that one setback can make it implode (also, like Adolph, Bill
  is getting everyone mad at him at once).