Symantec cuts $200 million in costs, starts layoffs

[giza]

Layoffs Begin As Symantec Cuts $200 Million In Costs

An unspecified number of people were let go Thursday as part of cost-cutting measures first announced in January.

By Sharon Gaudin
InformationWeek

March 15, 2007 06:45 PM

Symantec on Thursday began a series of layoffs that had first been announced in January.

The company announced two months ago that it would reduce its cost structure by $200 million. At the time, the company said it would be making cuts in "a number of areas," including a 5% cut in money paid out in salaries.

A company spokesman said he could not say how many people will be let go but did confirm that the layoffs began on Thursday.

When Symantec made the layoff announcement in January, shares climbed by 4% in early trading the next day. At the time, it was announced that the cost-cutting package was planned to include reductions in new hires, contractor spending and travel, along with facility consolidation and unspecified cuts out of the current workforce.

Wanna know what's really scary? I mentioned this to former co-workers of mine. They were unaware of this. My mind boggles.

Oh yeah, Symantec is closing their office in Newport News.

Comments

[simbab.livejournal.com]

When Symantec made the layoff announcement in January, shares climbed by 4% in early trading the next day

Don't ya just looove the free market? *eyeroll*

[zorinlynx.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you'd think laying people off would be a sign the company isn't doing well, which would make people want to *dump* stock, not buy more...

Weird.

[greenreaper.livejournal.com]

Mr. Market does not always follow the same logic as us.

On the other hand, one could argue that this is sign that the company will do better in the future (better, at least, than it would have done if it had not made the cuts). AS a company's price is an estimation of its future value, an increase in this value means an increase in the price.

Random usability note!

[greenreaper.livejournal.com]

If you're going force a specific background colour, could you ensure that the foreground colour is specified as well? It's hard to read white on pink. ;-)

Re: Random usability note!

[giza.livejournal.com]

Done.

I hate custom styles.

Re: Random usability note!

[greenreaper.livejournal.com]

Hey, if you come on our friends pages . . . *grins*

I get this problem a lot with applications as well - even Windows itself (Windows Vista is unfortunately not exempt). Usually they're doing something like using the menu background colour with the window or button text colour, which works most of the time but breaks badly in some situations.

Re: Random usability note!

[rebelsheart]

Should he forget in the future, might I suggest style=mine?

As in http://giza.livejournal.com/410697.html?style=mine or http://giza.livejournal.com/410697.html?nc=7&style=mine :)

Re: Random usability note!

[rebelsheart]

*headdesk* nevermind, that's not going to do a damn thing about a pink box.

[normanrafferty.livejournal.com]

If only the Russians would write more viruses to take advantage of Microsoft's security holes!

[redrob.livejournal.com]

I knew it was going to happen, but was assured that it wouldn't affect any of us. I wasn't aware of the timing until today.

Unfortunately, I understood "us" to mean the San Francisco office when in fact it meant the development and support personnel in the SF office. A good friend (and long-time coworker) in Sales was one of the ones cut.

Alex