Sure you want to write for the XBox???
by David Dougher · in General Discussion · 08/26/2004 (6:29 am) · 55 replies
My personal take based on what I'm seeing. Feel free to disagree.
Microsoft, after hiring over 1200 people for games development, is now starting to lay them off as it shifts its focus to buying titles from outside. They basically bought top talent to get people to write for Xbox and now that they have customers and a high price tag established to get their SDK kits, they are throwing the programmers back on the street at a time when it will drive salaries and benefits to game developers lower as a result.
The move below lays off another 75 game developers who were working in their sports franchises. Followup titles from those franschises will also be lost in spite of MS hinting that they would do follow-up titles.
Other recent moves saw MS kill off its MMO games in production and drop the groups they were funding to build them. Mythica is the best known of those titles.
Microsoft Closes XSN Studio [08.20.04]
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=4195
Microsoft, after hiring over 1200 people for games development, is now starting to lay them off as it shifts its focus to buying titles from outside. They basically bought top talent to get people to write for Xbox and now that they have customers and a high price tag established to get their SDK kits, they are throwing the programmers back on the street at a time when it will drive salaries and benefits to game developers lower as a result.
The move below lays off another 75 game developers who were working in their sports franchises. Followup titles from those franschises will also be lost in spite of MS hinting that they would do follow-up titles.
Other recent moves saw MS kill off its MMO games in production and drop the groups they were funding to build them. Mythica is the best known of those titles.
Microsoft Closes XSN Studio [08.20.04]
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=4195
About the author
Owner - Pariah Games, Adjunct Professor - Bristol Community College, Mentor - Game Design - Met School Newport, Mentor - Game Design - Met School Providence
#42
Point 3. I think people here believe I am Microsoft bashing. Nope. I am pointing out that developers might want to carefully consider whether they want to work closely with Microsoft on an XBox title when they have such a mixed record of treating their business partners and employees. I pointed to their sports division as a place where this is in evidence and the topic slewed into a discussion of business ethics. I am also pointing to a current business practice which is spreading throughout the world and suggesting that it is not in the best interests of our society to let it continue.
08/29/2004 (4:26 am)
Point 2. A good point. Microsoft does not release numbers on its individual teams and divisions - even to its general stockholders to the best of my knowledge. However, its games division is not reported as losing money, nor was there anything in the press to indicate that their game sports division was producing sub-standard games - which MS is obligated to report to their stockholders and would have made press. There was nothing in the press's estimated XBox sales figures to indicate that MS sports games sales were in a slump. There was no indication that Microsoft had made any major effort to accommodate those programmers they were laying off. It is my understanding that Microsoft has a kind of "team bid" process going where people bid to be on a team. They compete to get into the product they want to work on. If a game or market is failing those programmers - except for the top line designers, lead programmers, and producers usually cannot get to other teams, unless they are short handed. Microsoft's business projections include the number of personnel in a project and increasing that number requires redoing the numbers and a review to keep the project going - something most mid-line managers avoid like the plague. Somehow, I doubt that Microsoft managed to gather the 75 worst software performers in its entire company into the sports game division and then laid them off. I think it is reasonable to assume that they took the easy way out and just axed a group that they felt wasn't making enough money for them. Feel free to disagree with my assessment of their actions.Point 3. I think people here believe I am Microsoft bashing. Nope. I am pointing out that developers might want to carefully consider whether they want to work closely with Microsoft on an XBox title when they have such a mixed record of treating their business partners and employees. I pointed to their sports division as a place where this is in evidence and the topic slewed into a discussion of business ethics. I am also pointing to a current business practice which is spreading throughout the world and suggesting that it is not in the best interests of our society to let it continue.
#43
I don't know how anyone could blame microsoft for this decision, to me it made good business sense. Although after hearing about all the cool features that Mythica would have had, I have to say I was a little dissapointed it wasn't released as well :(
I think people give the impression that microsoft are a monster company who don't care for their employees. Despite been laid off of the Mythica project, he was transfered to another project (now in crunch time)
Microsoft may do as a company many things that I dispise them for (I won't start listing em now :P) but cancelling projects and laying off staff isn't one of them. That's just business. It would have been a whole lot worse if Mythica had gone live, failed misserably, lost millions on cluster costs, advertising, final development etc and then resulted in a succession of otherwise potentially successful projects been closed down to make up the short fall.
08/29/2004 (4:31 am)
I know one of the people who worked on Mythica (although not as a programmer), he was sad to see the project cancelled but understood the reasons. From what I could gather it was down to the fact that world of warcraft, Lineage2 and several other MMORPG's were on the horizon with Mythica still way off in development.I don't know how anyone could blame microsoft for this decision, to me it made good business sense. Although after hearing about all the cool features that Mythica would have had, I have to say I was a little dissapointed it wasn't released as well :(
I think people give the impression that microsoft are a monster company who don't care for their employees. Despite been laid off of the Mythica project, he was transfered to another project (now in crunch time)
Microsoft may do as a company many things that I dispise them for (I won't start listing em now :P) but cancelling projects and laying off staff isn't one of them. That's just business. It would have been a whole lot worse if Mythica had gone live, failed misserably, lost millions on cluster costs, advertising, final development etc and then resulted in a succession of otherwise potentially successful projects been closed down to make up the short fall.
#44
I never said you have to make inferior products.
I have a big problem with - we have this division, it is profitable, but its not profitable enough. So lets up our profits and appear to be more open to outside game development by killing the division and laying off the employees. I would also have a problem if it didn't move all its employees and not just the ones it wanted to keep.
08/29/2004 (4:44 am)
Actually that is exactly what I am saying should happen. Microsoft made a solid business decision - that a product it had going to market was not going to be profitable. It canceled the development and it moved employees to other projects. I have no arguments with either decision.I never said you have to make inferior products.
I have a big problem with - we have this division, it is profitable, but its not profitable enough. So lets up our profits and appear to be more open to outside game development by killing the division and laying off the employees. I would also have a problem if it didn't move all its employees and not just the ones it wanted to keep.
#46
garagefarms.com ?
-- buy a pregnant cow for $100?
-- cross platform, runs on grass, hay or alphalpha ?
-- why just eat cows, when you can make your own ?
08/30/2004 (3:11 am)
Quote:I know damned well the peril of working for a big studio... frankly, I would probably start farming before I took a job at one.Hmm... farming.
-Josh
garagefarms.com ?
-- buy a pregnant cow for $100?
-- cross platform, runs on grass, hay or alphalpha ?
-- why just eat cows, when you can make your own ?
#47
08/30/2004 (8:34 am)
I can testify to how heartless business has become. My boss is as big a jerk as they come, always holding the proverbial axe over my head reminding me I can be replaced in a heartbeat - and I'm self employed.
#48
Are we to avoid development on the X-Box because Microsoft fires some developers?
If these guys could have made a better product than their competitors, they most likely would still have a job. Why would someone support an inferior product that doesn't sell enough units to cover the expense of development?
08/30/2004 (6:44 pm)
I'm still missing the point of this thread... Are we to avoid development on the X-Box because Microsoft fires some developers?
If these guys could have made a better product than their competitors, they most likely would still have a job. Why would someone support an inferior product that doesn't sell enough units to cover the expense of development?
#49
@Bruce The point of the the thread actually split into two threads. You actually asked about both of them.
1. Your quote -- Are we to avoid development on the X-Box because Microsoft fires some developers?
Ans. My Quote from above - I am pointing out that developers might want to carefully consider whether they want to work closely with Microsoft on an XBox title when they have such a mixed record of treating their business partners and employees. I pointed to their sports division as a place where this is in evidence... This was the original topic.
2. Your quote -- If these guys could have made a better product than their competitors, they most likely would still have a job. Why would someone support an inferior product that doesn't sell enough units to cover the expense of development?
Ans. This is the second part of the discussion and you have hit exactly on the new "business attitude" that I was pointing to and arguing that it is something we should fight against.
There are two parts to your argument/question.
A. If these guys could have made a better product than their competitors, they most likely would still have a job.
B. Why would someone support an inferior product that doesn't sell enough units to cover the expense of development?
There is no proof for B. The division did not appear to be selling an inferior product. Check a couple questions above on that one. There are no hard numbers being bandied about - because MS declines to publish numbers - but the indications are that the division was not losing money. It was profitable. They were simply not making enough profit for MS.
I also do not say you must support an inferior product - I answered that issue a couple of lines above you as well in the statements about Mythica.
Statement A. This is the conclusion that many people draw in these cases and it goes to the heart of why I feel that we need to fight this attitude. There is no real connection between A and B. The implication of your statement is, "These guys can't make a better product. They are losers. They don't deserve a job, because they can't compete. MS was justified in gettng rid of them."
There is no proof of any of those conclusions and even some indication that they are, in fact untrue. (See Statement A. above about profitability)
Even so, Microsoft hired those people to make products - MS was presented with a concept which its upper management approved. MS management assigned personnel and directed the development of that product. But, when MS management decided that the product would not make the profits that they desired, it shifted the consequences away from itself and fired the employees. In this case the division appears to be profitable, but even if it wasn't what is the justification for firing the employees? Shouldn't you fire the Managers? Who was responsible for approving the product? Who was responsible for making sure that it lived up to MS coding standards? Who was responsible for approving the market research that said it would be profitable in the first place? Who was responsible for approving the manpower estimates, the timetable for development, the resources needed to do the job?
08/31/2004 (3:44 am)
@Trent LOL, You have one tough boss. Reminds me of mine. My old boss was exactly like yours, but just wasn't tough enough though... So I married a tougher one. ;)@Bruce The point of the the thread actually split into two threads. You actually asked about both of them.
1. Your quote -- Are we to avoid development on the X-Box because Microsoft fires some developers?
Ans. My Quote from above - I am pointing out that developers might want to carefully consider whether they want to work closely with Microsoft on an XBox title when they have such a mixed record of treating their business partners and employees. I pointed to their sports division as a place where this is in evidence... This was the original topic.
2. Your quote -- If these guys could have made a better product than their competitors, they most likely would still have a job. Why would someone support an inferior product that doesn't sell enough units to cover the expense of development?
Ans. This is the second part of the discussion and you have hit exactly on the new "business attitude" that I was pointing to and arguing that it is something we should fight against.
There are two parts to your argument/question.
A. If these guys could have made a better product than their competitors, they most likely would still have a job.
B. Why would someone support an inferior product that doesn't sell enough units to cover the expense of development?
There is no proof for B. The division did not appear to be selling an inferior product. Check a couple questions above on that one. There are no hard numbers being bandied about - because MS declines to publish numbers - but the indications are that the division was not losing money. It was profitable. They were simply not making enough profit for MS.
I also do not say you must support an inferior product - I answered that issue a couple of lines above you as well in the statements about Mythica.
Statement A. This is the conclusion that many people draw in these cases and it goes to the heart of why I feel that we need to fight this attitude. There is no real connection between A and B. The implication of your statement is, "These guys can't make a better product. They are losers. They don't deserve a job, because they can't compete. MS was justified in gettng rid of them."
There is no proof of any of those conclusions and even some indication that they are, in fact untrue. (See Statement A. above about profitability)
Even so, Microsoft hired those people to make products - MS was presented with a concept which its upper management approved. MS management assigned personnel and directed the development of that product. But, when MS management decided that the product would not make the profits that they desired, it shifted the consequences away from itself and fired the employees. In this case the division appears to be profitable, but even if it wasn't what is the justification for firing the employees? Shouldn't you fire the Managers? Who was responsible for approving the product? Who was responsible for making sure that it lived up to MS coding standards? Who was responsible for approving the market research that said it would be profitable in the first place? Who was responsible for approving the manpower estimates, the timetable for development, the resources needed to do the job?
#50
Microsoft hired those people to make products - under their direction. They offered those people salaries, and benefits as an incentive to do that job. The employees did their part - they built the game to MS specifications on MS's timetable.
Whether or not the product is successful, I argue that MS has an obligation to keep those employees. White collar employees are NOT contractors.
If you wish to follow more of that part of the discussion go back and reread the thread again. I think I have pretty thoroughly explained it above.
A few people have made incidental humorous comments around these two main threads but for the most part that pretty much summarizes the two main discussions.
08/31/2004 (3:44 am)
The team may have presented all that information, but who approved it after looking at the current market? THAT person is the one who made the bad call. Not the people who built the product.Microsoft hired those people to make products - under their direction. They offered those people salaries, and benefits as an incentive to do that job. The employees did their part - they built the game to MS specifications on MS's timetable.
Whether or not the product is successful, I argue that MS has an obligation to keep those employees. White collar employees are NOT contractors.
If you wish to follow more of that part of the discussion go back and reread the thread again. I think I have pretty thoroughly explained it above.
A few people have made incidental humorous comments around these two main threads but for the most part that pretty much summarizes the two main discussions.
#51
Even if you're not losing money today, what if you see that you'll lose it later on the road? Wait for that moment when balance sheet becomes all-red?
Well, this thread isnt going anywhere anyway for the simple reason that we dont have any information on how those people were laid off, and whether MS sports titles made any money or lose it after all (there was a good point about major costs being not the development but licensing fees). Your comments imply that MS did get some pocket change profit after all. Well, maybe, maybe not. Whats the point of arguing without knowing it?
Also, do you know for sure that managers who made those business decisions stayed in their positions? I dont and I suspect you dont know too. So its pretty useless discussion.
But this thread has given a way to vent ourselves, so it cant be all bad :)
08/31/2004 (5:27 am)
I dont know. Markets change quite often. If plan that seemed stellar, turns out to be bad or worse later, your company would still employ people who are making essentially non-perspective titles. Dont think its a good business sense.Even if you're not losing money today, what if you see that you'll lose it later on the road? Wait for that moment when balance sheet becomes all-red?
Well, this thread isnt going anywhere anyway for the simple reason that we dont have any information on how those people were laid off, and whether MS sports titles made any money or lose it after all (there was a good point about major costs being not the development but licensing fees). Your comments imply that MS did get some pocket change profit after all. Well, maybe, maybe not. Whats the point of arguing without knowing it?
Also, do you know for sure that managers who made those business decisions stayed in their positions? I dont and I suspect you dont know too. So its pretty useless discussion.
But this thread has given a way to vent ourselves, so it cant be all bad :)
#52
08/31/2004 (5:43 am)
LOL. Amen to that.
#53
So you are saying that if a company is making a profit, and of course has hired people to do said profit, that the owners are not allowed to say "I dont wanna do this anymore" and they HAVE to stay in business?
1. I can understand you dont like developers being hired to do a single proram and then let go.
2. There are worse people to work for.
3. MS owns the company, they are allowed to do what they like. You dont like what they did morally. (I wont debate the financial since you said MS has not released numbers) Take a look around you in the real world. There are TONs of people who have decided to throw out their moral up bringing, yet you do not say "I will never work for them"
You want to bring a "moral obligation" into this.
Lets look at Disney company. I have morals. I do not like porn, nor do I think porn is a 1st amendment right. Disney company owns some major stock in several porn companies. Are you going to refuse to ever work for any disney company ever if offered the chance because you dont like that about them?
I say if you want to be wary working for MicroSoft, be that.. you should be, as you should be wary with ANY company. To sit there and say you should give up wanting to make a game for X-Box because they fired some developers, well then... you go ahead and dont. If it makes my game more money, more exposure, and a better playing experience for my customers, you can bet sure as hell that I am gonna jump at that chance.
That staement is wrong on so many levels. Your arrogance really shows through here. That statement alone makes me realize what you perceive yourself to be and I am ending my participation in this thread now.
08/31/2004 (5:46 am)
David,So you are saying that if a company is making a profit, and of course has hired people to do said profit, that the owners are not allowed to say "I dont wanna do this anymore" and they HAVE to stay in business?
1. I can understand you dont like developers being hired to do a single proram and then let go.
2. There are worse people to work for.
3. MS owns the company, they are allowed to do what they like. You dont like what they did morally. (I wont debate the financial since you said MS has not released numbers) Take a look around you in the real world. There are TONs of people who have decided to throw out their moral up bringing, yet you do not say "I will never work for them"
You want to bring a "moral obligation" into this.
Lets look at Disney company. I have morals. I do not like porn, nor do I think porn is a 1st amendment right. Disney company owns some major stock in several porn companies. Are you going to refuse to ever work for any disney company ever if offered the chance because you dont like that about them?
I say if you want to be wary working for MicroSoft, be that.. you should be, as you should be wary with ANY company. To sit there and say you should give up wanting to make a game for X-Box because they fired some developers, well then... you go ahead and dont. If it makes my game more money, more exposure, and a better playing experience for my customers, you can bet sure as hell that I am gonna jump at that chance.
Quote:White collar employees are NOT contractors.
That staement is wrong on so many levels. Your arrogance really shows through here. That statement alone makes me realize what you perceive yourself to be and I am ending my participation in this thread now.
#54
Quote - So you are saying that if a company is making a profit, and of course has hired people to do said profit, that the owners are not allowed to say "I dont wanna do this anymore" and they HAVE to stay in business?
Ans. No I did not say that. It's an interesting question if a person should be allowed to start a company and then simply fire all the workers if they lose interest in continuing. There are legal ramifications if the company is unionized in many cases, but this question was never a part of this discussion.
Quote - 1. I can understand you dont like developers being hired to do a single proram and then let go.
Ans. No, I never said that either. If you want to bring in people to work on a single program and let them go later you hire contractors to do the job. I have no problem with that at all.
Quote - 2. There are worse people to work for.
Ans. Yes there are.
Quote - 3. MS owns the company, they are allowed to do what they like. You dont like what they did morally. (I wont debate the financial since you said MS has not released numbers) Take a look around you in the real world. There are TONs of people who have decided to throw out their moral up bringing, yet you do not say "I will never work for them"
Ans. A. The "I own the company, I can do whatever I like." argument is clearly not true. You have legal responsibilities to the society, you cannot do whatever you like. Part of this discussion is what those responsibilities are.
B. I pointed out what I see as a flaw in MS business management. I said it was a systemic problem, not just for MS but for many companies in the US and overseas. I suggested that we should try and stop it.
C. Yes, at least one part of this thread is a business ethics debate. However, I did not argue a "moral obligation". I actually suggested it might be an unchallenged legal contract violation.
D. I never said anything about anyone "working for Microsoft". I opened a discussion on whether you, as a developer, might want to form an alliance with a company which has this track record.
Quote - You want to bring a "moral obligation" into this.
Lets look at Disney company. I have morals. I do not like porn, nor do I think porn is a 1st amendment right. Disney company owns some major stock in several porn companies. Are you going to refuse to ever work for any disney company ever if offered the chance because you dont like that about them?
Ans. The question is not if I should refuse to to work for any Disney Company - it is whether you should. My moral stance on this question has not been asked. You set up the scenario and you have volunteered your responses. And based on your statements I would think the answer might be yes. However, it has nothing to do with the current discussion. See the "straw dog" argument up above and apply it to this statement. There is a question in here but I believe I have already answered it as well.
Quote - I say if you want to be wary working for MicroSoft, be that.. you should be, as you should be wary with ANY company. To sit there and say you should give up wanting to make a game for X-Box because they fired some developers, well then... you go ahead and dont. If it makes my game more money, more exposure, and a better playing experience for my customers, you can bet sure as hell that I am gonna jump at that chance.
Ans. Mr. Brim is identifying his stance on the issue he just made up. He is not actually making an argument here.
08/31/2004 (6:42 am)
I'm just going to give short answers to this. If you want ot go back and read through the rest of the discussion you can see my longer responses. I don't see anything new here.Quote - So you are saying that if a company is making a profit, and of course has hired people to do said profit, that the owners are not allowed to say "I dont wanna do this anymore" and they HAVE to stay in business?
Ans. No I did not say that. It's an interesting question if a person should be allowed to start a company and then simply fire all the workers if they lose interest in continuing. There are legal ramifications if the company is unionized in many cases, but this question was never a part of this discussion.
Quote - 1. I can understand you dont like developers being hired to do a single proram and then let go.
Ans. No, I never said that either. If you want to bring in people to work on a single program and let them go later you hire contractors to do the job. I have no problem with that at all.
Quote - 2. There are worse people to work for.
Ans. Yes there are.
Quote - 3. MS owns the company, they are allowed to do what they like. You dont like what they did morally. (I wont debate the financial since you said MS has not released numbers) Take a look around you in the real world. There are TONs of people who have decided to throw out their moral up bringing, yet you do not say "I will never work for them"
Ans. A. The "I own the company, I can do whatever I like." argument is clearly not true. You have legal responsibilities to the society, you cannot do whatever you like. Part of this discussion is what those responsibilities are.
B. I pointed out what I see as a flaw in MS business management. I said it was a systemic problem, not just for MS but for many companies in the US and overseas. I suggested that we should try and stop it.
C. Yes, at least one part of this thread is a business ethics debate. However, I did not argue a "moral obligation". I actually suggested it might be an unchallenged legal contract violation.
D. I never said anything about anyone "working for Microsoft". I opened a discussion on whether you, as a developer, might want to form an alliance with a company which has this track record.
Quote - You want to bring a "moral obligation" into this.
Lets look at Disney company. I have morals. I do not like porn, nor do I think porn is a 1st amendment right. Disney company owns some major stock in several porn companies. Are you going to refuse to ever work for any disney company ever if offered the chance because you dont like that about them?
Ans. The question is not if I should refuse to to work for any Disney Company - it is whether you should. My moral stance on this question has not been asked. You set up the scenario and you have volunteered your responses. And based on your statements I would think the answer might be yes. However, it has nothing to do with the current discussion. See the "straw dog" argument up above and apply it to this statement. There is a question in here but I believe I have already answered it as well.
Quote - I say if you want to be wary working for MicroSoft, be that.. you should be, as you should be wary with ANY company. To sit there and say you should give up wanting to make a game for X-Box because they fired some developers, well then... you go ahead and dont. If it makes my game more money, more exposure, and a better playing experience for my customers, you can bet sure as hell that I am gonna jump at that chance.
Ans. Mr. Brim is identifying his stance on the issue he just made up. He is not actually making an argument here.
#55
Ans. A. I believe at least one thread of this discussion is specifically debating this issue. And I believe I have clearly articulated the differences.
B. The rest of the paragraph appears to be anger.
Quote - I am ending my participation in this thread now.
Ans. Other than a untrue accusation that I was a "pissed-off ex-employee" I can't see that you ever participated in this discussion before this point.
What I do see is that you have barged into a relatively civil discussion with a number of baseless slurs, ad hominem arguments, and incorrect summaries of my statements. You have adopted a belligerent attitude, accused me of being arrogant and then stormed off.
OK. Goodbye.
08/31/2004 (6:42 am)
Quote in response to my statement that "White collar employees are NOT contractors." - That staement is wrong on so many levels. Your arrogance really shows through here. That statement alone makes me realize what you perceive yourself to be... Ans. A. I believe at least one thread of this discussion is specifically debating this issue. And I believe I have clearly articulated the differences.
B. The rest of the paragraph appears to be anger.
Quote - I am ending my participation in this thread now.
Ans. Other than a untrue accusation that I was a "pissed-off ex-employee" I can't see that you ever participated in this discussion before this point.
What I do see is that you have barged into a relatively civil discussion with a number of baseless slurs, ad hominem arguments, and incorrect summaries of my statements. You have adopted a belligerent attitude, accused me of being arrogant and then stormed off.
OK. Goodbye.
Torque Owner David Dougher
Pariah Games
A. I did not say I was in favor of large powerful labor unions. I made a comment that many in our industry look down on blue collar workers, yet they have unions which do protect them from unreasonable job firings.
B. Are these the same German auto manufacturers who recently bought the third largest US auto company? They might be having some trouble swallowing a big US company which is not managed according to their high quality standards, but I don't see them as failing as a business.
C. Finally, I was very clear that you are not obligated to keep any division that is failing, nor are you obligated to keep workers who do not perform to your requirements. In my proposal you are not allowed to fire any worker who is performing to the requirements your company set as a condition of employment - as long as that division and the company is profitable. If the division is not profitable you must take steps to make it profitable (including offering workers in that division other jobs in profitable divisions and make all reasonable attempts to make the division profitable). Lets try and remember that businesses have cycles of ups and downs here and most of them have evolved practices for their blue collar workers to shift them around when parts of their industry are in a slump. Its called planning.
ps. The above argument for those of you who are following this sort of thing is called a "straw dog" argument.
A. You take the person's arguments and personalize them as in - "your perfect business world".
B. Next you create a generalized threat to raise the emotional level "would be a hostage to his own business."
C. You then take a non-related failure case (and in this case one which is also unproven) and lump it into the the original argument (German auto-manufacturers are suffering because of strong labor unions)
D. Finally, kill the artificial argument - The german businesses are failing because of strong labor unions.
The conclusion people are supposed to reach is that because you have killed the artificial argument the original argument is also defeated.
So, because Nauris thinks that German auto-manufacturers have unions that are too strong, my contention that employees should not be arbitrarily dismissed if they are working to company specifications in a profitable division in a profitable company is fallacious.
A faulty set of conclusions - but on the surface a pretty good looking argument.
pps. Not a personal attack on Nauris or his other arguments - this is a standard kind of thing that comes up all the time in discussions - people make connections and draw conclusions that don't fit. This just a fallacious argument.