Well, first, let me qualify that phrase. Slash and burn is in the eye of the beholder. If you are the one person who gets slashed, it is slash and burn. We approached the downsizing issue somewhat differently. Slash and burn does require money.
People miss that point.
It requires fairly large write-offs, in fact, and large costs in termination payments, plant closures, write downs of assets and the like. So we were probably less altruistic than practical up front. We said that if there is a way to avoid taking those very large charges, why don t we try to be smart and find a way of doing it without creating so much havoc for our employees, their families, and the communities involved. That led us to a little different strategy to find a way of building value through performance in these businesses, value that we can eventually recapture either through selling them or through merging them and, in the process, preserve the majority of the jobs or the function of the business. Initially at Case, it was clear that we were going to have to reduce jobs by possibly as many as 10,000 on a base of 40,000.