Theoretical question (getting off topic but, of general conce rn)

[Guy Werry]

I agree with Scott that this is a foolish and, to me, tragic way of doing
things.  If you're not willing to invest in your people then you start
sending dangerous messages.  My own story is not a 'Canadian' situation.
It's perhaps more of a mining story - we are in a remote location - 4 hours
drive over a very lonely road to the nearest city of any size (40 000
people) and we have historically had problems recruiting new people.
Consultants are not an attractive way to do business due to the high cost of
transportation (you can fly Winnipeg to Florida much more cheaply that
Winnipeg to here - Flin Flon).

For me it just makes sense to drag as many people into new technology and
situations as what you can ... it produces more flexible and valuable
employees in the long run.  Unfortunately, we don't always get the
opportunity.

G.L. (Guy) Werry 
Senior Systems Analyst
Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting
Ph:  204-687-2374
Fax: 204-687-2771
guy.werry@hbms.ca

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Gates, Scott [mailto:SGates@olbh.com] 
Sent:	November 8, 2002 8:40 AM
To:	'Powerh-L (E-mail)
Cc:	'Guy Werry'
Subject:	RE: Theoretical question (getting off topic but, of general
conce rn) 

The problem is not "WILLINGNESS" to diversify.  It is being PERMITTED to
diversify.  I'm not sure how things run in Canada, but south of the Canadian
border, companies generally set the people on the curb with the old
hardware.   We're seeing that now with a new materials management project.
Millions of dollars have been allocated for hardware and software upgrades
and replacements, $0 (Zero, Nil, Nada) for training of people to maintain
it.   And so, one or more of our employees will be replaced with someone
else (probably at a higher salary) rather than spend the $10000 and two
weeks to train the guy who already works for the company.   
 
Employees are expected to be already trained on any hardware/software
systems the company purchases in the future, including technologies that
didn't exist when the employee was hired. Companies have become EXTREMELY
pennywise and pound foolish when it comes to qualifications.  Nobody gets
trained anymore, they just get replaced with consultants.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Werry [mailto:guy.werry@hbms.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:23 AM
To: powerh-l@lists.swau.edu
Subject: RE: Theoretical question


As a dinosoar myself, going all the way back to the PUNCH CARD DAYS (albeit
only briefly), is part of the problem looking for a strictly HP3000/ph site?
I've been fortunate in a way, I've been forced to migrate machines / OSs
several times (while being with the same corporation) ... unless a person is
willing to diversify, life can get difficult.
 
Guy Werry

-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Heatherington [mailto:kent.heatherington@sympatico.ca]
Sent: November 8, 2002 8:17 AM
To: powerh-l@lists.swau.edu
Subject: Theoretical question


Interesting discussion, but I want to add something to the mix.  I don't
think the issue of whether or not life would go on with support/unsupported
PowerHouse and HP3000 is possible.
 
We will never get to find out, because any firm with shareholders etc.. is
not going to want to give any consideration to having their systems run on
unsupported hardware and software.  Who on earth would want to bet their
career and providing systems in such an environment. What business would
want their systems which support their ability to make money,  operating
under such
a premise.
 
I would bet within 3 years you'll be hard pressed to find an hp3000/ph site
anywhere.  In this ENRON environment,
company brass are going to be very anxious to have everything in the
business, including their accounting 
practices right and proper !
 
 Its already difficult to find any sort of job/contract in the PowerHouse
area.  I live in Cognos's home town, and their is 0 PowerHouse work
available period ! 
 
My 2 cents into the discussion...
 
Kent Heatherington
Unemployed Dinosaur PowerHouse Programmer