Breaking News
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
LarryM99
User Rank
Author
Cue the Backlash
LarryM99   4/23/2014 3:51:57 PM
NO RATINGS
I read this article and then went to lunch. While I was out I heard someone on CNBC defending CEO salaries based on the scarcity of talent at that rarified level and the tremendous impact that a CEO makes on a company. They also said that CEO's should be well taken care of because of the number of jobs that they create. The counterpoint that company profits have been propped up by layoffs was dismissed as 'old news' that was no longer relevant. I almost lost my appetite completely.

Companies are trying to replace line workers with technology, but that technology depends on a strong engineering base to develop and maintain it. Agreements like this are an attempt to control the bargaining power of those engineers. My biggest objection to it is the sheer arrogance involved. This practice is pure restraint of trade and should be illegal.

The next few years are going to see the pendulum swing the other direction. Companies are already having problems hiring specialists at current salary levels. The inevitable upward pressure on salaries is starting to happen as a result. The real question is how far down the increases will reach. Engineers and other professionals will see the benefits, but less-skilled line workers may very well not. That could fuel the backlash.

Tamza2
User Rank
Author
No settlement
Tamza2   4/24/2014 11:24:25 AM
NO RATINGS
In a case of such restraint to trade/ labor the govt would step forward and take the lead --,no settlement but creation of stronger rules Since corporations are people too, the punishment should be similar to what an individual would get for such a 'violation' >> this is a case of 'theft of wages'. Larceny comes to mind as the appropriate term.

Sanjib.A
User Rank
Author
Re: Cue the Backlash
Sanjib.A   4/24/2014 11:40:00 AM
NO RATINGS
Reading through the article I felt that irrespective of whatever happens in the court room, these lawsuits might already have created some impact in the minds of the employees about the reputations of these companies. Are all of these lawsuits filed in US only or are there other countries also in the list where the lawsuits are filed?

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed