50 ms·

oracle forces you to arbitration for sinister reasons, and the effect is usually for the company's benefit and the employee's harm since oracle lost this time,

oracle forces you to arbitration for sinister reasons, and the effect is usually for the company's benefit and the employee's harm since oracle lost this time, it is very obviously angry that it has to pay money (cost cutting is king above all) so it will use every available method to exhaust the employee suing it's pitiful and totally par for the course for all of us

pm90 10y ago
It sounds more like an ego thing from the article. I don't think its hard to justify paying someone who directly got in so much business.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  maybe there is some ego contributing to the situation, either from Hurd and his executive team, Safra and her finance metric counters, or a board member... but I don't they do these things on an exclusively personal and egotistical level, e.g "How dare someone sue MY company!" I think the CEOs have a CRYSTAL clear mandate that profit margins must be above 30% /at all times/, and they might have bonus compensation metrics regarding specific costs, like cost of sales instead of cost of litigation (which oracle does cheaply by forcing us [illegally] to arbitration instead of open trial) I think this company's revenue is shrinking so profoundly and costs are so stubborn and unpredictable that as a matter of policy, they must unwaveringly and meticulously screw anyone that dares to make money here. i know this sounds like a subjective statement but I can provide ample data from myself and my colleagues that prove how systematic and arbitrary and draconian the cost cutting is it seems oracle knows there will always be a pool of talent willing to work for 50k a year instead of several hundred k... and these people are willing to press buttons that 9 times out of 10 result in a sale that isn't very different from the type of sale a VIP top rep could close

pm90 10y ago

It sounds more like an ego thing from the article. I don't think its hard to justify paying someone who directly got in so much business.

salesguy222 10y ago
maybe there is some ego contributing to the situation, either from Hurd and his executive team, Safra and her finance metric counters, or a board member... but I don't they do these things on an exclusively personal and egotistical level, e.g "How dare someone sue MY company!" I think the CEOs have a CRYSTAL clear mandate that profit margins must be above 30% /at all times/, and they might have bonus compensation metrics regarding specific costs, like cost of sales instead of cost of litigation (which oracle does cheaply by forcing us [illegally] to arbitration instead of open trial) I think this company's revenue is shrinking so profoundly and costs are so stubborn and unpredictable that as a matter of policy, they must unwaveringly and meticulously screw anyone that dares to make money here. i know this sounds like a subjective statement but I can provide ample data from myself and my colleagues that prove how systematic and arbitrary and draconian the cost cutting is it seems oracle knows there will always be a pool of talent willing to work for 50k a year instead of several hundred k... and these people are willing to press buttons that 9 times out of 10 result in a sale that isn't very different from the type of sale a VIP top rep could close