PASCAL HAS BETRAYED THE SHAREHOLDERS!

[Anonymous]

Message above is 'right' on. Brits are playing it up that they want to preserve jobs, blah, blah, blah! It's just a show! Smarten up folks--Brits will love having Pfizer's presence there. This is all a show for the little people... Pfizer will prevail & PS & board members, etc. shareholders will be laughing all the way to the bank!!!! I suggest u All get your finances in order cause this ride is over. Don't count on much coming your way via severance, etc., cause AZ doesn't give a rats ass about u. Take care of #1--YOU, cause that's what PS is doing for himself!

We know his history. This is what he does and has done many times before.

 

[Anonymous]

PASCAL!!! PASCAL!! CAN YOU HEAR THE SHAREHOLDERS SCREAMING FOR YOU TO SEAL THE DEAL WITH PFIZER! Good God man! DO IT!

If the Board and Pascal turns down the next offer, then he and the Board should be replaced! The deal is good for BOTH companies, especially AZ shareholders! Can he really be this greedy??????????????????????

 

[Anonymous]

This deal will allow us to help more patients.

 

[Anonymous]

The best thing many can do is to relocate and move to china. Plenty of work there. Anyone interested?

 

[Anonymous]

If the Board and Pascal turns down the next offer, then he and the Board should be replaced! The deal is good for BOTH companies, especially AZ shareholders! Can he really be this greedy??????????????????????

Seems you're the greedy one. You want a buyout so it changes your situation. That's selfish and greedy of you.

 

[Anonymous]

Lol I love when financially illiterate peeps use terms like fiscal. Lol.
L. Related, if you were looking for another job lest say, 6 months ago. Did u ever tell your manager or send letter to HR that you were considering leaving for better "fiscàl" oppirtunity?
L. Why not? Oh you think the employer is required to act in YOUR self interest , but you have no reciprocal duty? That makes YOU selfish and greedy. See how that works. Your just a favor of production, like a desk or a laptop in an office. All are expendable. Remember, people are NOT assets. Look at a financial statement. You won't see how many people. Your labor is rented . YOU sell your labor to highest bidder, or whatever is comfy for you. Period. When your labor is not nneeded, then it's time to move on. You're not owed anything.

You seem to be confused. Here is the problem. People work FOR companies. Companies do NOT WORK for People. Companies PAY People to WORK for them. Problems arise when a few very wealthy at the top were made Godlike and decided that the Company was all about THEM and not also about all the other people that work for the Company. In a world where capitalism "works," Companies work for people - the majority of people not an elite minority. Companies should do what is best for MOST people rather than a FEW people. Companies should honor their employees while allowing some governance by an independent group of stockholder or board member. But there is a problem with that, the MORE stock one owns, the more they are going to think how to grow just THEIR PERCENTAGE rather than what is best for MOST employees. Companies are NOT a person. What is wrong with you people? My labor is NOT rented - (MORON!) I have signed a contract that I will perform a certain service for X amount of dollars and abide by certain conditions for those dollars. This is not a rental agreement (which always has an end date and is one sided) but more like a partnership that can end at any time. Again, there is a problem when the bulk of people who signed this type of "partnership" have NO say in what a FEW at the top decide to do with the company. I realize we are not Union but on a number of levels, worthless M&As that have predetermined, with insider trading and a whole hose of other smelly, nasty actions, ought to be illegal and ARE. If it costs X amount of jobs and the executives are making X amount of millions, they should have to pay X percentage to either the government as a fine or to the employees as part of their contract up and beyond severance and NOT be allowed to keep that money.

 

[Anonymous]

You seem to be confused. Here is the problem. People work FOR companies. Companies do NOT WORK for People. Companies PAY People to WORK for them. Problems arise when a few very wealthy at the top were made Godlike and decided that the Company was all about THEM and not also about all the other people that work for the Company. In a world where capitalism "works," Companies work for people - the majority of people not an elite minority. Companies should do what is best for MOST people rather than a FEW people. Companies should honor their employees while allowing some governance by an independent group of stockholder or board member. But there is a problem with that, the MORE stock one owns, the more they are going to think how to grow just THEIR PERCENTAGE rather than what is best for MOST employees. Companies are NOT a person. What is wrong with you people? My labor is NOT rented - (MORON!) I have signed a contract that I will perform a certain service for X amount of dollars and abide by certain conditions for those dollars. This is not a rental agreement (which always has an end date and is one sided) but more like a partnership that can end at any time. Again, there is a problem when the bulk of people who signed this type of "partnership" have NO say in what a FEW at the top decide to do with the company. I realize we are not Union but on a number of levels, worthless M&As that have predetermined, with insider trading and a whole hose of other smelly, nasty actions, ought to be illegal and ARE. If it costs X amount of jobs and the executives are making X amount of millions, they should have to pay X percentage to either the government as a fine or to the employees as part of their contract up and beyond severance and NOT be allowed to keep that money.

Wrong. You are an at-will employee, and you've agreed to sell your labor at a mutually agreed price, with both parties well aware up front that either one can walk away without reason. Or maybe you signed a special social compact that you haven't disclosed. Problem is that people feel they should be coddled. If a better job came along, you'd have said "hate this place, I am OUT of here!" And you owe zero good will to employer. But, in a tough job environment (thanks obama), you have some misplaced expectation that your employer owes you more than just a paycheck, that they should Also be your social safety net? You sell your labor. They buy your labor. They add perks and bennies along the way to retain their investment in you. You're only an employee, a cost of doing business. You're not an asset, but employers do like to use that figure of speech to make them seem warm and fuzzy. As a rational person, you sell your labor to the highest bidder. You lower your personal costs where you can, you don't intentionally overpay for things, or buy stuff you don't want it need. So, in your world, employers aren't allowed to do same? You think they're obligated to keep paying unnecessary expenses because....? Oh so you can keep your premium cable channels? Mm k. Got it.

Try this: go start a small biz, and hire more people than you need because your own new company owes it to the extra employees that "work for the company". Your words not mine. See how long your biz lasts.

You sell your labor. And nobody is forcing you to continue selling your labor to AZ today or tomorrow. Choice is yours.

 

[Anonymous]

Pascal and the Board should have already sealed this deal! Now, the politicians are coming out of their sewers to get their names and pictures in the press, trying to impress their voters by interfering with 2 companies conducting business! Only the UK would try and stop what would be the #1 pharmaceutical company from locating within it's borders! Hard to believe!

Pascal, take this deal today!

 

[Anonymous]

Wrong. You are an at-will employee, and you've agreed to sell your labor at a mutually agreed price, with both parties well aware up front that either one can walk away without reason. Or maybe you signed a special social compact that you haven't disclosed. Problem is that people feel they should be coddled. If a better job came along, you'd have said "hate this place, I am OUT of here!" And you owe zero good will to employer. But, in a tough job environment (thanks obama), you have some misplaced expectation that your employer owes you more than just a paycheck, that they should Also be your social safety net? You sell your labor. They buy your labor. They add perks and bennies along the way to retain their investment in you. You're only an employee, a cost of doing business. You're not an asset, but employers do like to use that figure of speech to make them seem warm and fuzzy. As a rational person, you sell your labor to the highest bidder. You lower your personal costs where you can, you don't intentionally overpay for things, or buy stuff you don't want it need. So, in your world, employers aren't allowed to do same? You think they're obligated to keep paying unnecessary expenses because....? Oh so you can keep your premium cable channels? Mm k. Got it.

Try this: go start a small biz, and hire more people than you need because your own new company owes it to the extra employees that "work for the company". Your words not mine. See how long your biz lasts.

You sell your labor. And nobody is forcing you to continue selling your labor to AZ today or tomorrow. Choice is yours.

Lets see.
They add perks and bennies along the way to retain their investment in you.
An investment is an asset.
Problem is that people feel they should be coddled.
No, when a company claims to be socially conscious there is an expectation that they will uphold that statement. We care about patients, the environment, health and wellness and of course ethics and integrity. If this were a deal to further the publicly stated objectives of the companies, it would be understandable. Instead it is about tax evasion and allows one company who eats others just to continue to stay afloat instead of fixing what is fundamentally wrong with it. Is it ok to grab and drown another person cause you cant swim?
So, in your world, employers aren't allowed to do same? You think they're obligated to keep paying unnecessary expenses because....? Oh so you can keep your premium cable channels?
So its ok to cut an investment, an asset, so those at the top can continue to keep their premium cable channels? There is absolutely enough fat across every part of this company that could offset what they save in cutting heads. Where is Paul Hudson and hundreds of his highly paid leaders? In NYC at a rah rah session that no one believes in. What does that cost? There are several others along, at quite an unnecessary cost, who are supposed to be putting together the new IT org after it has been ravaged. Unnecessary costs? Who are you fooling? How often are leads flying off to God knows where to have a working meeting? Please, keep your BS to yourself.

 

[Anonymous]

Wrong. You are an at-will employee, and you've agreed to sell your labor at a mutually agreed price, with both parties well aware up front that either one can walk away without reason. Or maybe you signed a special social compact that you haven't disclosed. Problem is that people feel they should be coddled. If a better job came along, you'd have said "hate this place, I am OUT of here!" And you owe zero good will to employer. But, in a tough job environment (thanks obama), you have some misplaced expectation that your employer owes you more than just a paycheck, that they should Also be your social safety net? You sell your labor. They buy your labor. They add perks and bennies along the way to retain their investment in you. You're only an employee, a cost of doing business. You're not an asset, but employers do like to use that figure of speech to make them seem warm and fuzzy. As a rational person, you sell your labor to the highest bidder. You lower your personal costs where you can, you don't intentionally overpay for things, or buy stuff you don't want it need. So, in your world, employers aren't allowed to do same? You think they're obligated to keep paying unnecessary expenses because....? Oh so you can keep your premium cable channels? Mm k. Got it.

Try this: go start a small biz, and hire more people than you need because your own new company owes it to the extra employees that "work for the company". Your words not mine. See how long your biz lasts.

You sell your labor. And nobody is forcing you to continue selling your labor to AZ today or tomorrow. Choice is yours.

This has just won most accurate post of the 2nd Quarter. The competition is now over, so administrator, let's close the thread.

Even though I will probably lose my job in this "merger", I fully understand and appreciate why it's being done. I can not fathom the notion that my peers believe that AZ or Pfizer owes us a freakin thing in this deal. Its as if no one here ever took business admin., Economics, or Finance classes. Maybe your post can serve as a tutorial, because I have gone over and over this with at least 10 people, and they still come back with the same self-serving mess.

 

[Anonymous]

Deal will happen...Read the news...AZ needs this deal to happen more than Pfizer does. All of this back and forth is typical posturing guys...smarten up. This will be one of Pfizer's easiest takeovers!

 

[Anonymous]

Lets see.
They add perks and bennies along the way to retain their investment in you.
An investment is an asset.
Problem is that people feel they should be coddled.
No, when a company claims to be socially conscious there is an expectation that they will uphold that statement. We care about patients, the environment, health and wellness and of course ethics and integrity. If this were a deal to further the publicly stated objectives of the companies, it would be understandable. Instead it is about tax evasion and allows one company who eats others just to continue to stay afloat instead of fixing what is fundamentally wrong with it. Is it ok to grab and drown another person cause you cant swim?
So, in your world, employers aren't allowed to do same? You think they're obligated to keep paying unnecessary expenses because....? Oh so you can keep your premium cable channels?
So its ok to cut an investment, an asset, so those at the top can continue to keep their premium cable channels? There is absolutely enough fat across every part of this company that could offset what they save in cutting heads. Where is Paul Hudson and hundreds of his highly paid leaders? In NYC at a rah rah session that no one believes in. What does that cost? There are several others along, at quite an unnecessary cost, who are supposed to be putting together the new IT org after it has been ravaged. Unnecessary costs? Who are you fooling? How often are leads flying off to God knows where to have a working meeting? Please, keep your BS to yourself.

Okay, let's take your points to heart and mind. I will totally accept your premise okay? Deal? Okay. Deal.

1 question for you: let's say tomorrow that amgen calls you, just you,and offers you and only you a 60 percent pay raise to do same job, same product,in same territory (or office locations). The only change for you would the company name on your new paycheck. Would you accept the job, or would you say no, with the reason being that there is done kind of social compact , or non-financial in-this-together goodwill, between you and AZ?

Follow up question: with huge pay raise offer in hand, that is , a better payoff for you, would you have made the same exact post above?

Why ask? Assessing your objectivity or is there a bias?

 

[Anonymous]

Lets see.
They add perks and bennies along the way to retain their investment in you.
An investment is an asset.
Problem is that people feel they should be coddled.
No, when a company claims to be socially conscious there is an expectation that they will uphold that statement. We care about patients, the environment, health and wellness and of course ethics and integrity. If this were a deal to further the publicly stated objectives of the companies, it would be understandable. Instead it is about tax evasion and allows one company who eats others just to continue to stay afloat instead of fixing what is fundamentally wrong with it. Is it ok to grab and drown another person cause you cant swim?
So, in your world, employers aren't allowed to do same? You think they're obligated to keep paying unnecessary expenses because....? Oh so you can keep your premium cable channels?
So its ok to cut an investment, an asset, so those at the top can continue to keep their premium cable channels? There is absolutely enough fat across every part of this company that could offset what they save in cutting heads. Where is Paul Hudson and hundreds of his highly paid leaders? In NYC at a rah rah session that no one believes in. What does that cost? There are several others along, at quite an unnecessary cost, who are supposed to be putting together the new IT org after it has been ravaged. Unnecessary costs? Who are you fooling? How often are leads flying off to God knows where to have a working meeting? Please, keep your BS to yourself.

Nope, not gonna let you say tax evasion. Evasion is a crime. Pfizer wants tax AVOIDANCE as does any taxpayer. No one wants to pay more taxes than the law requires. No one. Lol, you care only about you, we get that. You're panicking and being irrational because you've just realized that you had gotten to comfy, and your have no say or control over an outcome that will maybe impact you personally. Try Valium.

 

[Anonymous]

Okay, let's take your points to heart and mind. I will totally accept your premise okay? Deal? Okay. Deal.

1 question for you: let's say tomorrow that amgen calls you, just you,and offers you and only you a 60 percent pay raise to do same job, same product,in same territory (or office locations). The only change for you would the company name on your new paycheck. Would you accept the job, or would you say no, with the reason being that there is done kind of social compact , or non-financial in-this-together goodwill, between you and AZ?

Follow up question: with huge pay raise offer in hand, that is , a better payoff for you, would you have made the same exact post above?

Why ask? Assessing your objectivity or is there a bias?

Thats not apples to apples. People like me come a dime a dozen or cheaper these days thanks to Obama. AZ would have no problem finding a replacement for me. On the other hand corporations actually that pay you enough to live on and treat their employees decently who are actually hiring are very hard to come by for job seekers. Not everyone is looking to climb the ladder. I just want enough to take care of my family so no I might not take that offer (and your assumptions of same location are highly unlikely). There are other things that matter like having a decent boss, the culture, flexibility. Have you ever had a job where you dont get vacation until after a year and then its one week? No sick pay? I have and I never forget it or how blessed I am to have what I have now. There arent good jobs out there. I like what I do.

I never said AZ owes me anything. And its not all about me. There are thousand of AZ employees in the same boat. There are several people in this company who make more than they will ever spend. Same with a few shareholders. There are several who will make out nicely. But for the most part the majority of people will lose. The gains from the sale will not offset the loss of a steady income. No one owes me anything. But I do things for others because its the right thing to do. I dont make decisions that have far reaching consequences by how much I gain financially. I choose to do the right thing even if it isnt to my best benefit.

For the guys who keep saying that I can choose to sell my labor elsewhere, tell me just where that is. And the ones who say I work because im driven by financial benefit, greed. No, everyone has to work to liv, to get by. We work because we have to. If I could be self sufficient I would. The other choices are to be employed or welfare (no thank you). Theres a difference in making money to get by and making money to get rich. Thers als a difference in making money by contributing to society and making money by hurting it.

 

[Anonymous]

Hates Obama...



Yet whines when others don't give him what he wants. What a Republitard.

Fine. Ok. The rest of us will just go homeless so you can make your millions. Sounds fair. People who worship the dollar are whats wrong with this world.

 

[Anonymous]

I have an in, a HUGE IN. Word on the street is that Joe Biden is getting involved, Wilmington, DE, HELLO! He's their former Senator. They are working on big tax breaks to move Pfizer's headquarters to Wilmington. Once that deal is done, so are most of you. Unless you work at headquarters in a really important role.

 

[Anonymous]

I have an in, a HUGE IN. Word on the street is that Joe Biden is getting involved, Wilmington, DE, HELLO! He's their former Senator. They are working on big tax breaks to move Pfizer's headquarters to Wilmington. Once that deal is done, so are most of you. Unless you work at headquarters in a really important role.

Please!! Just what we need-Biden to start running his mouth! Please, thanks but no thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

Thats not apples to apples. People like me come a dime a dozen or cheaper these days thanks to Obama. AZ would have no problem finding a replacement for me. On the other hand corporations actually that pay you enough to live on and treat their employees decently who are actually hiring are very hard to come by for job seekers. Not everyone is looking to climb the ladder. I just want enough to take care of my family so no I might not take that offer (and your assumptions of same location are highly unlikely). There are other things that matter like having a decent boss, the culture, flexibility. Have you ever had a job where you dont get vacation until after a year and then its one week? No sick pay? I have and I never forget it or how blessed I am to have what I have now. There arent good jobs out there. I like what I do.

I never said AZ owes me anything. And its not all about me. There are thousand of AZ employees in the same boat. There are several people in this company who make more than they will ever spend. Same with a few shareholders. There are several who will make out nicely. But for the most part the majority of people will lose. The gains from the sale will not offset the loss of a steady income. No one owes me anything. But I do things for others because its the right thing to do. I dont make decisions that have far reaching consequences by how much I gain financially. I choose to do the right thing even if it isnt to my best benefit.

For the guys who keep saying that I can choose to sell my labor elsewhere, tell me just where that is. And the ones who say I work because im driven by financial benefit, greed. No, everyone has to work to liv, to get by. We work because we have to. If I could be self sufficient I would. The other choices are to be employed or welfare (no thank you). Theres a difference in making money to get by and making money to get rich. Thers als a difference in making money by contributing to society and making money by hurting it.

.

Look, just because you personally don't have other attractive alternatives, that's not a license to start projecting social net respinsibilities on private sector employers. If there were other jobs easily available to you, would you say to yourself that you can't take a better paying job elsewhere because you feel a moral and / or ethical responsibility to AZ? You would leave Ina moment , and never look back. Unfortunately, the obama era has everyone feeling comfortable in invoking social issues and any other reason to blame someone else for the lack of options available to you in the economy that obama has created. And barry and his peeps want you doing just that, feeling like an exploited victim, and blaming others for failing in some kind if social duty you think is owed to you. Au contraire: the prezy has the social duty to create environment for jibs to grow organically, and employers to want to hire. Blame freaking Barry for miserably failing on HIS social duties to create a dynamic economy. He diesnt know how to..never did, but you'd rather blame employers who are only responding to situation that Barry himself created. Blame Barry for your lack of opportunities. not the employers

 

[Anonymous]

Thats not apples to apples. People like me come a dime a dozen or cheaper these days thanks to Obama. AZ would have no problem finding a replacement for me. On the other hand corporations actually that pay you enough to live on and treat their employees decently who are actually hiring are very hard to come by for job seekers. Not everyone is looking to climb the ladder. I just want enough to take care of my family so no I might not take that offer (and your assumptions of same location are highly unlikely). There are other things that matter like having a decent boss, the culture, flexibility. Have you ever had a job where you dont get vacation until after a year and then its one week? No sick pay? I have and I never forget it or how blessed I am to have what I have now. There arent good jobs out there. I like what I do.

I never said AZ owes me anything. And its not all about me. There are thousand of AZ employees in the same boat. There are several people in this company who make more than they will ever spend. Same with a few shareholders. There are several who will make out nicely. But for the most part the majority of people will lose. The gains from the sale will not offset the loss of a steady income. No one owes me anything. But I do things for others because its the right thing to do. I dont make decisions that have far reaching consequences by how much I gain financially. I choose to do the right thing even if it isnt to my best benefit.

For the guys who keep saying that I can choose to sell my labor elsewhere, tell me just where that is. And the ones who say I work because im driven by financial benefit, greed. No, everyone has to work to liv, to get by. We work because we have to. If I could be self sufficient I would. The other choices are to be employed or welfare (no thank you). Theres a difference in making money to get by and making money to get rich. Thers als a difference in making money by contributing to society and making money by hurting it.

What if AZ paid you more than you think you are worth, and it was also more than you need at any given time. Would you give it back and say "no I only need x?". Or would you accept the higher ? Take only what you need? Or take the more $ they give you? Or ask for paycut?? Your answer will betray the sentiments you posted above.

FYI , the word greed is really the word "want". Wanting more $, wanting better life, is normal. If you win a million dollar lottery and didn't give it all away because you didn't need it, does that make you greedy for wanting to keep $ you don't really need? Barry has created a culture to demonize success and a culture of victimhood. By the way, who or where is this "society" that you keep referring to? That's just another vague victim term , just like the planet us a victim of our selfish behaviors. Creating groups of victims is Barry's forte from community irganizing...creating groups if victims that need sympathy, and govt intervention to "protect " them. Don't fall for it, you're better than that. Society is not a victim When people are pursuing mutual interests . Society benefits from it.

 

[Anonymous]

What if AZ paid you more than you think you are worth, and it was also more than you need at any given time. Would you give it back and say "no I only need x?". Or would you accept the higher ? Take only what you need? Or take the more $ they give you? Or ask for paycut?? Your answer will betray the sentiments you posted above.

FYI , the word greed is really the word "want". Wanting more $, wanting better life, is normal. If you win a million dollar lottery and didn't give it all away because you didn't need it, does that make you greedy for wanting to keep $ you don't really need? Barry has created a culture to demonize success and a culture of victimhood. By the way, who or where is this "society" that you keep referring to? That's just another vague victim term , just like the planet us a victim of our selfish behaviors. Creating groups of victims is Barry's forte from community irganizing...creating groups if victims that need sympathy, and govt intervention to "protect " them. Don't fall for it, you're better than that. Society is not a victim When people are pursuing mutual interests . Society benefits from it.

Is it mutual???