Friday, September 21, 2007

Mail from Everywhere Regarding The Company Formerly Known as Fresenius

I apologize for not posting this update to the Trident Blog much earlier, but even at this late date, Trident is still wading through and responding to numerous faxes and emails received from our blog discussion post about the new company's policy to hold salaries in arrears.
.
The responses we have received have paralleled the sentiment behind Trident’s inital impression. Thank you to those of you who have agreed to share the contents of your correspondence reflecting your feelings of dismay, discouragement and in some cases, even anger. To many we’ve heard from, it’s not even the money that’s being held as a point of contention (although that certainly is a factor), it's the fact that a major decision regarding salaries seemingly took place without regard, care or consideration to the many long-time employees who have endured much over these constant mergers and buy-outs.
.
Whether a new payroll system of payment is initiated based on cash flow considerations or State-regulated legalities, or simply as the means to assuage a department’s workload, the reason of company “convenience” to change an important payroll policy (although legal in many states) speaks volumes about a corporate philosophy. What is evident from the correspondence we received, the communication to the field was poorly handled and was deja vu all over again (as Yogi Berra so eloquently once stated).
.i
The perception of cold and impersonal management is not new and was the hallmark of past owners perpetuated by these kinds of management decisions that disregard the needs of the front line. Clearly that’s what happened, or else why did the new venture group retreat and offer to postpone the payroll adjustment until March 2008, even offering an improved repayment program to employees of need (for their own paycheck), if not to acquiesce to the pressures of "exempt associates"? The overwhelming response that we have received seems to indicate that many of the rank and file continue to question management decisions.
.
A management team which sways from a firm decision under pressure exposes the soft-underbelly of weakness...of having acted hastily, needing to then back-peddle to make a correction in a flawed decision. It happens in some organizations and history shows us, such handiwork can destroy credibility instantly.
.
We are touched by the stories of those who’ve contacted us. With permission, a few of the quotes that we have received follow:
  • "We are very confused about what we have heard and do not know what to make of it, since we have no details."
  • "The funny thing is the people in charge are all new...they never worked for Fresenius or Edwards or Baxter....all new benefit people, as well. So no one can blame it on Fresenius this time. It's all the fault of the new management. I am not a happy employee and I am personally tired of all the mergers and changes in policies every few years....I am tired of the lack of competitive pay. I was optimistic that the new management might make the necessary changes, but I'm not impressed with what I have seen so far, and they haven't been in charge that long. And now...this."
  • "Many of the old upper management people were laid off, so in many ways we have a new company...I have been through three mergers and having been with this company for over 12 years, I am not impressed. This acquisition has been nothing short of disorganized and virtually no information has been forthcoming. We got a letter telling us who our 401k, health, and dental will be with, but no details or info on costs. We just got info on the 401k package last week, but nothing else. .... It is a disaster, if you ask me."
  • "It was sold in May, although our benefits are still covered through Fresenius until the beginning of October. Now, I can say that this organization has not been very organized in getting out information to us in a timely fashion. Our benefits are due to switch over on October 7th and we still have not received our benefits package. Hello??? And they have no phone number designated for us to call in and ask questions, including benefits questions, so a few of us are very irritated and unhappy with the way things are going in that regard."

Upon review of these comments above, it's clear that communication is the essential factor to good employer/employee relations and it seems from the comments we received that it was somewhat lacking in the new venture company's payroll policy change. The responses that we received were more about a lack of communication than anything else and that this problem seems to have been persistent throughout the three mergers, etc. It was Trident's intention in blogging about this to bring forward shared information for the good of all, however, some comments to us expressed concern that maybe we were too heavy-handed in our message.

For example, several individuals expressed the following:

  • "It was inappropriate to prematurely post that information before you were certain that all Fresenius/HCSG employees were notified."
  • "...not exactly a professional thing to do, especially if it involves speculation." (Trident's Response: Note: which it did not)
  • "You never know when information you post will be disproved and make it appear that you are just spreading propoganda. Like I said, I don't believe this was your intention...just be careful."

We thank all of you who responded to our blog post of 9-10-07 . I appreciate all of your comments and your points of view. Please keep writing and we will attempt to be as responsible as we know how to post factual information that benefits the entire Perfusion Community. Trident views our niche industry like family and wants to keep communication open and positive, addressing any concerns as they arise.

..
Perfusionists have historically aspired to the highest standards regarding the Profession and the care of the patient. Shouldn't they also hold their management to the same standards that they aspire for themselves? Because if they can't find it in the environment that they're in, they will eventually seek alternatives with other companies which aspire to that same excellence.

.
As always, we welcome your comments and if given permission, will post on this blog.

Never settle!

Sincerely,

Ralph E. Jordan
President and CEO

Trident Health Resources, Inc.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hello to all of my friends in the perfusion world.

It is with great sadness that I watch the most recent chapter in the ever changing history of Baxter/Edwards/Fresenius perfusion. I was the CFO during three ownerships until 2003 when I came to the realization that the business model could not be fully successful under the ownership of a large public company.

The core business model is strong and the employees are excellent at providing clinical services and maintaining excellent relationships with their client hospitals. The problem is that the basic model cannot fund enough profit and cash flow to meet or exceed investor expectations. This business model would be so much more successful in an employee owned and operated model where the focus could be on clinical excellence - funding payroll - working together as one integrated team and then sharing any profits that remained at the end of each operating year.

I wish all of my friends in the industry the very best as everyone works through these most recent changes.

Cliff W. Gardner

Trident Health Resources, Inc. said...

In response to the post above and as a message to readers, all comments are welcome at the Trident Health Resources Blog, including those from anonymous identities. However, with regards to Mr. Gardner's statements, I am concerned about the authenticity of his identity as a CFO of any of the past merged companies mentioned in this "comment". It is my recollection that other individuals served during the FMCEA years < Eric Maske > and Baxter/Edwards Life Sciences < Lynne Reily > years... I invite "anonymous " to contact me directly to verify identity and I welcome a public discussion with him as well. I must admit that I find it a bit of a stretch to hail his many friends in the Perfusion Community...there isn't a CFO associated with any of the past three owners who could count 10 perfusionists as friends. < just being cynical , relax >

Meanwhile, I'd like to respond to "his comments". It seems there is a presumption that a perfusion company could be profitable from the service side, which is, in fact, true... but which has never been the case in the history of these past mergers. The only significant profit generated over the last three mergers was in the lease and rental of capital equipment and in the monitoring of IABP's and some lab fees.. This is because services carried the brunt of the enormous overhead of the general and administrative costs and the several layers of field and sales management. Further, in the case of the company formerly known as Fresenius and before them, many of the clinicians who were appointed middle managers didn't have a clue as to what managers do...they were inadequately trained for their positions (if they were trained at all), and the costs associated with another layer of management...the employment of field sales managers... choked hope of any reasonable profit stream. This has been the consensus of the many who have shared their stories with us.

It is a fallacy and delusional that because a company is perfusion-owned that it would automatically be profitable. This comment in the response to the blog by "anonymous" is strange at best... no experienced CFO would ever make a claim to that effect... this statement seems to be more of a case of wishful thinking by a disheartened perfusionist than of pragmatic business acumen of a seasoned CFO from a multi national corporation. Hard business decisions always need to be made for sound fiscal management. Although some perfusion-owned companies are very successful , it is this observer's opinion that there are very few with the expertise, knowledge and experience to stop the bleeding adequately of this new entity in order for it to survive without a lot of blood letting . I hope I am wrong but to think otherwise, is to have a Pollyanna viewpoint.

Thanks "anonymous" for sharing your wistful dream...

Ralph E. Jordan
President & CEO
Trident Health Resources, Inc.

Anonymous said...

Hello Ralph

I have to admit that I am somewhat perplexed by your response to my intial comments. The only reason it defaulted to Anonymous was that I do not have a Google blogger identity. In fact, that was the first time that I had ever sent anything into a blog in my entire life. I clearly did not have any agenda at all with my initial comments other than to share my empathy towards those that are affected by another ownership change.

Now that you have challenged my identity - finanical acuity and ability to have friends that are perfusionists - I have no choice but to respond.

My personal email is cliffwgardner@yahoo.com. Please send me an email with your direct phone number and I will be happy to give you a personal call to validate my authenticity.

Please allow me to respond directly to your comments about my relationship with perfusionists as well as my financial acuity. I am not sure that you have a full appreciation for what it is like to be in the CFO chair. On one side you have a team of clinicians that think "you do not care about the patients at all... all you care about is the money" and on the other side you have senior management that requires that you hit certain financial targets. Well, I have a wife, daughter, son, friends etc and I care tremendously about the patients and it is not about the money. What I always said to the clinicians is that it is "our" challenge is to faciliate a model that provides very high quality health care within the financial boundaries of the fee schedule for that clinical conduct. That is where the paradox comes in - searching for that invisible line where those two concepts successfully meet.

Hence, back to my initial comments. I do not think those lines will ever meet in a corporate setting with differing objectives. That is why I stated that to me the optimal model is an employee owned model where the employees have dual responsibility - clinical excellence and financial performance. That model keeps everybody fully engaged and responsible for all outcomes - clinical and financial.

There are a lot of great people in the perfusion industry (and some of them might even consider me to be their friend) and I think they deserve a model that benefits them and their patients.

I will look forward to receiving your email with your phone number if you conclude that I am not authentic or that my above stated position is invalid.

Cliff W. Gardner CFO
Baxter - Edwards FMCEA 2000 - 2003.