Slashdot Mirror
Displaced IT Workers Being Silenced
dcblogs writes A major problem with the H-1B debate is the absence of displaced IT workers in news media accounts. Much of the reporting is one-sided — and there's a reason for this. An IT worker who is fired because he or she has been replaced by a foreign, visa-holding employee of an offshore outsourcing firm will sign a severance agreement. This severance agreement will likely include a non-disparagement clause that will make the fired worker extremely cautious about what they say on Facebook, let alone to the media. On-the-record interviews with displaced workers are difficult to get. While a restrictive severance package may be one handcuff, some are simply fearful of jeopardizing future job prospects by talking to reporters. Now silenced, displaced IT workers become invisible and easy to ignore. This situation has a major impact on how the news media covers the H-1B issue and offshore outsourcing issues generally.
Corporations and billionaires want to drive down the wages of white collar tech workers by importing cheaper H1-B employees. H1-B employees are also much easier to control as well since they can simply get deported if they stir up too much trouble for their employer. This is all done under the supposed auspices of saying there aren't enough "qualified" workers in the US. "Qualified" usually meaning "won't work peanuts like we want". At the same time, these CEOs have net worths that are 100s to 10000s of times the yearly wages of even these "greedy" and "overpaid" US workers.
"I knew slashdot was right wing these days"
LOL really?! The leftist propaganda keeps me away from this site most of the time.
From some of the stories we've had in Canada, its probably less tech companies and more banks etc. replacing their IT groups with a third-party contractor that only hires imported workers.
Yep. The obvious "fix" that nobody seems to be taking very seriously yet is making it much more difficult to get permission to hire an H1-B worker.
Corporations are ALWAYS going to push for a plentiful supply of these as a cost savings measure, but it's ultimately the government who issues them. It's about time they start putting pressure on companies to PROVE they're unable to hire from the talent pool of American citizens before qualifying to go the H1-B route.
Not exactly; it is MEANT to be a means by which an employer can find someone from outside the country if they can't find the person inside; say... if you need a java developer who can speak both japanese, chinese, and english. A niche case that's hard to fill. Instead, however, big names like HP and MS will drop thousands of developers, then run begging to the government to increase H1bs so they can bring in folk at half the price or less ... who, themselves, are in a position of insecurity and disposability, ensuring they won't stand up for better wages and rights. H1bs were not designed to undermine american skilled laborers... it's just that unscrupulous major brands are exploiting it.
If the requirement were that the person brought it had to be paid at least as well as everyone else in that market (moreso, probably, considering the point is to find someone with a hard-to-find combination of talents) or otherwise way in taxes the entire difference in wages... I'm sure these guys would find there's plenty of people with the skills already here who'd be happy to do the work.
I'd get rid of the proof and just use a tax. Require a tax of 50% of the prevailing USA citizen wage for similar technology workers on top of what gets paid to the H1B. Then allow unlimited H1Bs. That makes sure the incentive isn't economic.
The author of TFA is exaggerating and assuming that the clause in the agreement is purposely for those who are replaced by H1B people. Either he or his friends/family members were affected by this. To me, the clause to not disclose any information about being let go is very common. If you are being "fired," there are many reasons. Also, the company will NEVER want you to say anything regardless how you are being replaced. These people will find something to blame on others regardless (and in this case is the H1B people who replaced them). I am not saying that all are legitimated laid off/fired, but I doubt that the "signing" the document is REALLY for the case only.
Then the author pulls in politic which, of couse, a more effective on those who do not like H1B already. TFA has some of the fact and reasons, but over all TFA contains bias against H1B people by using the word "being fired or replaced" to make TFA more dramatic.
Just curious. Are experienced IT workers with up to date skills really not able to find jobs? What about programmers specifically ("IT Worker" can mean a lot of things)?
I'm assuming that age discrimination is impacting some of these people, but what about relatively young software developers? How many of you are young and talented software developers with at least of few years of experience and are having trouble finding work?
I left before it happened but my former company outsourced all of IT to Wipro.
This was on a system with 60,000 users.
Everyone but management was replaced with H1B- workers from India.
Outgoing staff was asked to stay and train their replacements with no severance packages.
Very few stayed and turnover documents were not made (hmm I wonder why) so the incoming Wipro workers had to discover and document the systems themselves.
I hear it was a real nightmare with lots of $$ spent on contractors to help figure things out.
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
if you need a java developer who can speak both japanese, chinese, and english.
And who probably knows what "both" means...;-)
I have been displaced on more than one occasion. Atos laid me off so they could hire a cheaper H1B worker. (Not a loss as they are a sweat shop)
Atos has several NO-Outsource government contracts and before my layoff they were discussing outsourcing them and putting one American to answer the phone so the government did not know it was outsourced.
There was a company that was backed by the airlines where the CIO was Indian and the whole IT group was H1B's. I was the only white guy there and I was laid off from them officially for "Not meeting there expectations" and was replaced by an H1B worker.
HP had several H1B workers working 80+ hour weeks and only reporting 40 hours. On the promise that they would "Make it up to them." They replaced me because I was saying it was illegal to do, yep they brought in another H1B to replace me.
Between H1B's and outsourcing work to India, IT has been a crappy field but I still make money at it.
What, "Japanese, Chinese" isn't a single language? Next you'll be telling me "Overseas" isn't a single country!
We all want to have a monopoly on what we do for a living. We want limited competitor and supply s and be able to charge high prices. As consumers we want unlimited choices, lots of supply, and low prices. A free market will provide the latter and a command economy is required for the former. What we have now is the worst of both. Those with political power use it to restrict start up and small competitors while trying to have unlimited supply of cheap labor.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
This is typical. They will offer you a choice, something like: 2 weeks of severance pay and you don't have to sign anything, or 4 weeks + 2 weeks per year of employment and you sign the agreement. The agreements often say you will stay quiet about the company and you give up your right to sue over the termination.
Thats not the way corporations use it though. Here in the Bay, an Indian corporation was illegally importing Indian workers to do his IT work, Microsoft lays off employees here in the Bay and Seattle and them goes before congress asking for more HB-1 Visas, etc. It's a scam to get cheap foreign labor. And if the labor isn't up to par, they have one US employee training them all knowing he is going to get laid off once he is done.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
And, well, fuck the non-disparagement agreement. It's not disparagement to post factual information.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Most (not all) of the H1-B's I ran across as an independent s/w contractor for 20 year in Silicon Valley did not work as employees for what would appear to most people as their "employer" (Facebook, HP, Adobe, Oracle, etc.) Instead, they were actual employees of job shops who were renting them out to the corporations at a mark up. So if the corporation terminated any of them, they were still legally employed by their job shop and, likely, soon sitting in another cheap seat in another corporation in a few weeks. As long as they work for dirt cheap, they get a seat. Meanwhile, those of us who have families to support and live here full time have to charge enough to pay the bills, unlike 20 somethings who dorm themselves up with 3-5 other H1-B's (all arranged by their job shop, I might add), sharing rent, a single car, etc. The whole thing is an insideous insult, IMHO, to American citizens. Those screaming loudest for "moar" H1-B's are corporate overseers who just want cheap labor so they can stuff their pockets with the results. Just my 2 cents. You try doing what I did for 20 years and see what you think. This shit is not theoretical...
Actually, depending on the terms of the dismissal (particularly how much notice is given), severance pay is not a benefit in the US, but required by law - http://www.doleta.gov/programs... In many of these cases, however, they're basically offering you that 3months+ of pay to be quiet (among other things). Even "I worked for a tech company that I'll not name, and was laid off when they hired foreign workers" may be in violation of the terms, especially when you start to ponder the strength of their legal team vs. yours.
Depending on the language in the contract, posting factual information could very well violate these agreements. I believe you're thinking about libel or slander (i.e. false statements). Disparagement, however, doesn't have to be false. It merely has to cast the benefited party in a negative light. This can be a huge grey area and given the insane cost of defending a lawsuit, I understand why people subject to these provisions might be very reluctant to speak.
how often do you hear of companies shit-canning your resume if you are found out (public record) that you sued an employer OVER ANYTHING, even valid complaints?
right, you don't hear of it.
the real shit in this world is never reported. but its been like that forever; its how mankind works (or, fails to work, in this regard).
the one law of the jungle: if you can get away with it, you can get away with it; especially if you are big and can lay down a serious smackdown to challengers.
there is no other justice than this, in the world. those with power, get away with shit and you and I have essentially no say. we take whatever crumbs come our way.
sad, but if you think about it honestly, its what we have in this world.
reporters? since when does the news report real news? since when does the news challenge those in authority? not since the past 20 yrs, since 'news' is now part of the entertainment and profit-centers of tv (newspapers are nearly dead, btw).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
> This is all done under the supposed auspices of saying there aren't enough "qualified" workers in the US. "Qualified" usually meaning "won't work peanuts like we want".
Yes. If you've worked in a company that gradually fired locals to replace them with H1-B employees, you'll see how capable the replacements actually are -- no communication skills, no diagnostic skills, just a frightened willingness to work long hours. And oddly enough, when bad things happen, the company will just accept it if it can be shown that the employee was following a process.
Ostensibly, one of the qualifications that US workers supposedly don't have is following process. The expectation is raised that the job be fully documented -- that everything that happens in the job have a procedure to carry the employee through, and then the employees need only follow the procedure for a given issue. If you've worked in IT, you know how little of the job falls in that category. And so, much of the process becomes "raise a ticket with the vendor", and then when they find out that the vendor is only responsible for what the vendor sells, not how it's used, things get really interesting.
It's the worst of false economics. The company can show an immediate reduction in direct labor costs, but start to lose agility, robustness and reliability almost immediately.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I recently became friends with an Iranian woman and her family that are trying very hard to emigrate to the United States. She is currently in the process of trying to get hired and sponsored by one of these job shops because she has practically no other choice for employment here. Everyone in her family is very intelligent and hard working and my friend herself has masters degrees in computer science and business administration. She's an atheist, however, and she can't go back to Iran without a risk of being "outed" and imprisoned or executed.
Previously when I thought of "H1-B" I thought of exactly what you described. Young people with nothing to lose dorming up and working for peanuts because it's the easy way out, driving down wages in what should be a very competitive highly skilled job sector. I'm glad I met someone who showed me the other side of the coin. I consider myself a liberal and a humanist and I'm ashamed at myself for having held such a xenophobic view and expressing frustration with the people who are coming here seeking H1-B and similar visa work. Truly the only entities that deserve any derision for the wage depression and unfair labor practices are the sponsoring companies who pay such paltry wages and the tech companies that create demand for cheap foreign labor.
I can see this occurring in the past, but not the present. Everyone complains about everything online. If you really dig into someone's background, eventually you're going to find something objectionable. There would be hordes of people displaced if this was truly going on in significant numbers. A company can go after a worker, but it's going to be Streisand Effect. When they need to hire new talent, their candidates are also going to do a search. Who is going to want to work for a company that's notorious for silencing its workers?
At best, the employer might be able to reverse-direct-deposit the severance if the complainer wasn't smart enough to move the money. The courts aren't going to take a person's house or retirement savings, and that's probably as much "wealth" that the average American worker has at this point. Want to rat a company out? Grab a disposable phone and tweet away.
This. Every time I hear "we can't find enough employees" I substitute "... at the lowball pricepoints we're willing to give out". It strikes me as odd that the laws of supply and demand somehow are allowed to disappear when it comes to people/employees. If demand is so high, wages should be pushed up. They're not. Over a course of years, the tools for people to fight a more fair fight have been peeled away. As a kid I still remember the PATCO strike. Government intervention against workers collective bargaining, and then all the way to Wisconsin and governmor Walker. Suppliers can't be squeezed. Profits should never be squeezed. Lets squeeze the employees.
That and the fact that employee wages are inputs to the system. Even Henry Ford, hard right capitalist, realized you can't squeeze wages so much that people can't afford things.
Posting as anonymous for obvious reasons.
I managed a team of developers at a shrink wrap software shop for ~3 years. It was actually a really solid place to work from a cultural and technical point of view. Unfortunately, the CEO was a bit of a hot-head and injected mass drama every time he came out of his office.
I had a quarterly check in with him, and give him an accurate description of my active projects and my thoughts on the direction he wanted to move in. I expressed my concern about the quality of some of the 10+ year old code that was at the core of the features he wanted to expand on. Turns out that negative feedback was not what he was looking for.
Next thing I know the CIO is stopping by asking me what it is that I actually do day to day. Then my lead architect mentioned that the CEO stopped by and talked about taking a "more active role" in the team.
Not long after that, I was given marching orders and a severance package. The severance was predicated by the signature of a pair of contracts covering confidentiality and behaviors.
About a month and a half into my severance, I get an irate call from the HR director claiming I've violated my severance agreement and that they will be seeking recomp.
I hired a lawyer, talked it out with him. Either we ignore them and hope they don't come after me, we call their bluff and threaten a counter suit, or we pay them off and nullify the contract. At this point I was tempted, ooh so tempted, to just say, "OK". Because with no contract, there is no confidentiality agreement, no non-disparagement agreement, no non-compete agreement.
As soon as my lawyer pointed out that if the employer broke the contract that they wouldn't have standing to come after me for the other aspects of the contract, they backed off and paid out the rest of my severance.
It's nice to get the money that was owed to me, but the annoyance of the contracts sucks, and I will definitely avoid any such contracts in the future.
In the end though, I will never put a review of that company on Glassdoor. I do not talk about my separation with my friends from the company. And the details of my severance package will never be shared. Because fsk are lawyers expensive.