Slashdot Mirror
Disney IT Workers Prepare To Sue Over Foreign Replacements (computerworld.com)
JustAnotherOldGuy writes: At least 23 former Disney IT workers have filed complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over the loss of their jobs to foreign replacements. This federal filing is a first step to filing a lawsuit alleging discrimination. These employees are arguing that they are victims of national origin discrimination, a complaint increasingly raised by U.S. workers who have lost their jobs to foreign workers on H-1B and other temporary visas. Disney's layoff last January followed agreements with IT services contractors that use foreign labor, mostly from India. Some former Disney workers have begun to go public (video) over the displacement process
The current corporate belief is that they have no duty or obligation to their employees. None at all. Their constant party line is that they do this for their stockholders, but that seems like a very weak argument these days.
I think mostly this is about selfishness on the boardroom and the CEO levels. It's that simple.
Someone is going to go back to the stockholder argument here I am sure, but the main stockholders are actually people at the boardroom and CEO levels so even that, to some extent, is selfishness.
It's an excuse for greed. Greed is fashionable amongst the elite.
So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.
I can suggest some reasons why.
1) Disney's primary business is not IT related. We'll just say it's "other stuff". Sure, there is an IT component, but it's not the primary reason the company exists. I work for a Fortune 500 company who's entire business is IT. We're out of business or darn close to it without our IT component. My company actually treats its US based IT workers pretty well and while we do hire H1B people and do some outsourcing of work to India, neither is what I would call a primary chunk of our business. My experience as a career IT worker is that a lot of companies don't really value IT work at all and they always look at it as something anybody can do and it can be as well for cheap by using foreigners. So I think that Disney has never really valued their IT work very much and they look at it as costing too much because they have a bunch of benefit sucking Americans doing it.
2) The workers were all in Orlando if I remember correctly and I'll just simply say that Disney has always treated its Orlando employees as being superfluous. IT employees in California may at this time be under no danger at all, so there is some component of it being in Florida because they are far away from where the big shots are in California who made this decision.
3) Nobody at Disney wants to admit this, but ESPN's revenues are going down. To keep or get sports content, ESPN (which Disney owns) had to pay astronomical prices. In order to keep gouging the TV providers and charge them for carrying ESPN and its related channels, Disney had to agree to lower the number of customers who get their channels to keep the price they get per customer the same. This agreement shocked many industry watchers as they thought Disney would never agree to this. So the reality is that ESPN is going to be spending more and bringing home less. Shaving dollars off IT costs is one way to deal with that reality. Maybe it's a stupid way but again, many or most businesses don't value IT work, so to them it's an easy thing to cut. And note that ESPN recently had some fairly brutal job cuts related to this.
the false premise here is that any of the actions mentioned will make a difference.
By the way, I own stock, but it doesn't mean I am for every type of corporate abuse that makes the company a few extra bucks.
So as a shareholder what are you doing about it? Are you attending shareholder meetings? Are you putting forth proposals? Are you voting on the board of directors? Are you doing these things even if they are unlikely to make much difference?
Just so we're clear I agree with you, but if you are a shareholder and you say nothing then the blood is on your hands too. If you own stock then you are an owner of the company and you are tacitly condoning any actions you don't speak out against.
Not all shares are voting shares. What you suggest just isn't realistic for shares owned through mutual funds and the like.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)