Anywhere that requires I pay union dues.

Anonymous wrote:Thomson Reuters. It has nothing to do with what they produce but with how they treat employees. It's a male centric organization, has tons of turnover among execs, and does not value employees from what I saw. Just an unpleasant place to work.

Wow. I love being a TR employee (middle management/female). I have a huge amount of freedom, great benefits, annual raises and bonus increases.

MSFT. They're better than they were 5 years ago but for too long their innovative side was Basically the Zune.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's very patronizing of you to presume that you can decide for others what corporations create value and what don't. Unlike you, I don't believe that every other person in the world should adopt my values and beliefs; therefore, a company creates value when they produce a product or service that others are willing to buy, and that doesn't always have to include me. If that company offers terms of employment that I find favorable, then I will be happy to have the opportunity to work for them.

The elitism from some of you is truly mind-boggling.

What about being a well-compensated techocrat in a company whose largest or only customer is the U.S. Goverment? Inventing better weapons to murder Third World peasants so the Goldman Sucks of the world can continue raking in the billions. There'z a never ending supply of stolen tax money from which to pay those companies.

What about a prestigious (you're a medical professional) lucrative position sucking the brains out of developing human beings for Planned Parenthood? Ninety-eight percent of the trendies in the DC area would see nothing wrong with doing that.

It may not be evident in an area awash with government largesse, but there's a recession for the regular Joe majority of the nation. Amazing human beings with strong credentials, and morals, taking any honest work they can find even if all it does for them is put a roof over their heads and feed their families.

Most people don't have the luxery of always having multiple attractive offers from which to choose.

The three Detroit car companies

Anonymous wrote:Re Amazon... I was told that plenty of young graduates stick it out with them just so they can get Amazon on their resume before moving on to better things.

This is true for Goldman too. If you stick it out thru their 2 yr investment banking analyst program at age 22 or their 3-4 yr IB associate path post-MBA, you get a LOT more opportunities down the road in finance. Those opportunities may not even come from the GS network -- since they aren't all that kind -- but just having GS on your resume provides instant credibility as it's hard to get those jobs AND to grind it out for any length of time.

It's important to me. I don't want to work for an organization I think is bad for society nor do I wish to work for or with lots of assholes, even if some benefits are great.

Re Amazon... I was told that plenty of young graduates stick it out with them just so they can get Amazon on their resume before moving on to better things.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's very patronizing of you to presume that you can decide for others what corporations create value and what don't. Unlike you, I don't believe that every other person in the world should adopt my values and beliefs; therefore, a company creates value when they produce a product or service that others are willing to buy, and that doesn't always have to include me. If that company offers terms of employment that I find favorable, then I will be happy to have the opportunity to work for them.

The elitism from some of you is truly mind-boggling.

Having some morality is not elitist. A sense of morals is not something you are more likely to find in the elite.

Cigarette companies produce things that prople are willing to pay for. If you work for one, you job will be to downplay the risks and encourage others to ingest more of a product which is likely to result in their slow, unpleasant death.

To think you need have no morality separate from that of the corporations is fascism.

Thomson Reuters. It has nothing to do with what they produce but with how they treat employees. It's a male centric organization, has tons of turnover among execs, and does not value employees from what I saw. Just an unpleasant place to work.

I think it's very patronizing of you to presume that you can decide for others what corporations create value and what don't. Unlike you, I don't believe that every other person in the world should adopt my values and beliefs; therefore, a company creates value when they produce a product or service that others are willing to buy, and that doesn't always have to include me. If that company offers terms of employment that I find favorable, then I will be happy to have the opportunity to work for them.

The elitism from some of you is truly mind-boggling.

It's a consideration but pretty far down my list of priorities. Two of my friends have great, stable jobs that pay them handsomely and are highly flexible. One employer makes soda pop and the other makes cigarettes. I envy them.

Anonymous wrote:Don't care about that stuff really, but wouldn't want to work someplace that has a reputation for employing a lot of assholes. For some reason right now - Amazon and Goldman are coming to mind. But it's not about what they sell, it's about employee treatment.

I worked for Goldman. Never again.

Don't care about that stuff really, but wouldn't want to work someplace that has a reputation for employing a lot of assholes. For some reason right now - Amazon and Goldman are coming to mind. But it's not about what they sell, it's about employee treatment.

Do you need to know that you create value for society? Would you not exchange your expertise for a good paycheck if said company sells crap for instance that you would not buy yourself or would not want your children to have.