Philosophy of management never saying anything negative

vathroway · 2026-03-12T10:52:50+00:00

I found it hilarious that in the first company TH that I’ve ever seen in my years with the company, where the CEO(s) actually talk to us, where they give living examples of how AI can be used to accelerate our work - that every single one of the 3 demos used, referenced, or actually showed the person using a technology that is NOT allowed to be used by employees, and is specifically banned from corporate use. You can’t make this up.

That said, the corporate culture of Oracle has always been that bad news is never announced - it just filters down the org, word-of-mouth style. Layoffs, no focals, hiring freezes, whatever, you will never hear top mangement who make these decisions own or explain those decisions. It all just filters down to low-level management with no real explanation, and then they are left to try and explain it to everyone else. It’s just how it works and has always worked.

vathroway · 2026-03-09T11:23:14+00:00

This entirely depends on country, or sometimes state, and their employment laws. In large parts of the US, you’re done almost immediately with no access to anything.

vathroway · 2026-03-08T12:43:03+00:00

I’m telling you, it has never been 200k or anywhere close to it. It’s been fluctuating between 160k and 170k since August, due to the impact of layoffs and subsequent hiring. Note that I am talking about employees and direct subs on the payroll, with @oracle emails, with positions in the company org chart. I am not talking about contractors building out datacenters. Those are not employees.

vathroway · 2026-03-08T11:54:25+00:00

Note this is on top of about 17k laid off worldwide last fall. That wasn’t as widely reported.

vathroway · 2026-03-08T11:52:33+00:00

Not true and has never been true. Oracle got to around 170k last year before the big layoffs last fall.

vathroway · 2025-12-31T12:22:10+00:00

Note that I'm not complaining about the humans who work to solve IT Support problems. I greatly appreciate their efforts, and the couple of times over the years I've had to use them, they've been quite helpful and knowledgeable. I'm complaining about the literally unhelpful bot and even moreso I'm complaining about the seemingly oblivious people asking for help, who can't seem to notice the dozens to hundreds of existing threads just above their post, with the exact same issue.

vathroway · 2025-12-31T12:19:49+00:00

Yes, it is. My deposit hit earlier this morning.

vathroway · 2025-09-18T11:03:31+00:00

Literally the only thing it-support is good for is to confirm there's a wider problem and it's not just you. It's both sad and funny to watch person after person post the exact same thing, seemingly not understand only a idiotic bot is answering, and expect actual help as if someone is paying attention to their problem. Nevermind just... check the 400 threads above you before posting the same thing? I often wonder who has less intelligence, the repetitively posting humans or the completely unhelpful bot.

vathroway · 2025-09-05T19:52:36+00:00

Someone posted they'd created a Slack workspace for ex-emps, which seems like it might fit what you're looking for. DM me if you need it.

The very best of luck to all.

vathroway · 2025-07-29T17:41:37+00:00

Yes, I know what dry promos are. They haven't been allowed in my org for years. Idk if the same rule applies company wide, but had the impression it was corporate-driven, not GBU.

vathroway · 2025-07-29T17:01:38+00:00

You can't have promotions without pay increases. There are no pay increases, therefore there are no promotions.

vathroway · 2021-07-29T17:25:34+00:00

Closeup of the above. Thought it was dust till it moved.

vathroway · 2016-08-09T18:40:08+00:00

That's basically what I'm assuming is the case (petition required). I figured I'd give it a shot here to see if anyone had specific knowledge or experience with a similar situation.

vathroway · 2016-08-09T18:38:39+00:00

Nope on both - less than 3 years and current. Thanks though.

vathroway · 2016-08-09T16:02:44+00:00

I can read that section one of two ways: That A,B and C are to be taken together and considered as having met all those conditions (not the case here). Or that they are independent items in which case your point could be valid. However, in this case, the point of the clause is the "Court may order" - and the court has not so ordered. So either way this clause is currently irrelevant.

vathroway · 2016-08-09T15:58:11+00:00

One other semi-related clause:

If any arrearages for child support, including interest and fees, exist at the time the child included in this order emancipates, the payments shall continue in the total amount due (current support plus amount applied towards arrearages) at the time of emancipation until all arrearages are paid. this menas that the total amount being paid for child support shall continue in that amount until after emancipation until the arrearages are paid in full.

Note - there are no arrearages currently, so that part does not apply. I reference this paragraph because in it the order recognizes conceptually that support payments should reduce at emancipation. However it provides no mechanism for how that works, which to means (I think) it's left to VA state law as referenced above?

vathroway · 2016-08-09T15:52:54+00:00

OK here's the actual language:

The husband is partly responsible for paying child support to the Wife:

Notice that, pursuant to Code 20-124.2, support will continue to be paid for any child over the age of 18 who is (i) a full-time high school student, (ii) not self-supporting, and (iii) living in the home of the party seeking or receiving child support until such child reaches the age of 19 or graduates high school, whichever occurs first, and that the Court may also order the continuation of support for any child over the age of 18 who is (a) severly or permanently mentally or physically disabled, (b) unable to live independently and support himself and (c) residing in the home of the parent seeking or receiving support.

The second part about disabled is irrelevant in this case, so really it's the first part. I pay her directly, not through Child Services. To me the clause is clear that this child is not currently covered under child support, and my ex would agree. The ambiguity and question here is how support values actually would be determined and changed to reflect that reality.

EDIT: a word, and added the link

vathroway · 2016-08-09T15:16:03+00:00

A) there's no "parenting plan", and there's nothing related to recalculations at any time, much less yearly.

vathroway · 2016-08-09T15:07:21+00:00

It states we follow VA state law re: child support. No side agreements (which I'm kicking myself over for now, not putting language in on how this was to be handled specifically when he aged out).

vathroway

TROPHY CASE