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

Comments

Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[Joe_Dragon]

They are the ones who are abusing the H-1B system. Disney is just subbing the work out.

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[MickyTheIdiot]

It's a little bit of a moot argument when the federal government isn't really interested in enforcing the H1-B visa law no matter WHO you believe is actually breaking it.

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[NotDrWho]

The H1B visa shuffle has become an almost ritualistic dance at this point:

Congress: May we have this backdoor into your software, for 'merica security and shit?
Silicon Valley: Sure, may we have more H1B visas to drive down wages?
Congress: Sure!

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[Scutter]

You really think Disney is an innocent bystander? That they don't have full knowledge of what they're doing?

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[tompaulco]

It's a little bit of a moot argument when the federal government isn't really interested in enforcing the H1-B visa law no matter WHO you believe is actually breaking it.

It's too difficult to enforce and the 99% of abusers are making the other 1% look bad. So just shut it down. If you can't police it and you can't control it, then you can certainly shut it down. Then we will see the companies who REALLY can't find the talent they need in America and they will be willing to pay through the nose to get it. That is what is supposed to happen with a "shortage" of talent, prices go up. Not down.

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[WindBourne]

And that is exactly why these disney ppl need to sue not just disney, but immigration. They have a responsibility to ENFORCE the WORDING AND MEANING of the law. They have not been, and continue to not, do so.
As such, I believe that upon disney ppl winning this lawsuit, that if they go after the feds, it will open a huge pipeline of lawsuits against the old companies, immigration, and maybe even companies like tata. Of course, the Indian companies will simply declare bankruptcy, but it will be no different than companies that put in place asbestos, and other items now considered danagerous.

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[WindBourne]

These disney ppl are almost certain to win this. It will mean massive lawsuits on the old companies. CONgress would have to write it in, that protects not just these companies, but the older companies along with the offshored companies. For any that attempt to vote for that, how long do you think that they would last in their seat?

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[oh_my_080980980]

Exactly!

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[davester666]

Forever? Just like now.

Seriously, most people are stupid and just vote 'R' or 'D', they probably don't even know the actual individual they are voting for, just that the person belongs to the "correct" party.

I am more likely to be raptured than for a member of congress or the senate to lose their seat on this issue.

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[lsatenstein]

Republican or Democrat, which one, or is it both? Congress makes the laws, so you know it is not the latter.

Re:Sue / fine the IT services contractors

[srichard25]

There is a very simple solution to this problem: have the federal government charge companies $50k per year for each H1B visa. Companies will only use H1B visa when they REALLY need it (which was the original intent) and the federal government gets more funds. No more using H1Bs just to get cheap labor.

Why would Disney do this?

[DirkDaring]

THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY REPORTS FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL YEAR EARNINGS FOR FISCAL 2015
  Revenues for the year increased 7% to a record $52.5 billion.
  Net income for the year increased 12% to a record $8.4 billion.
  EPS for the year increased 15% to a record $4.90.

So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[sociocapitalist]

So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

Because the sole reason for corporations to exist is to maximize profits for the owners. There is no such thing as 'insignificant' when it comes to profit and greed.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an excuse for greed. Greed is fashionable amongst the elite.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[MickyTheIdiot]

This makes corporate-centric people on stashdot explode every time I say it, but the corporation is (at least supposed to be) a creature of the state. One of the reason that corporations act the way they do is because of case law. The legislature can change the law which will contradict that case law.

The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.

Having said that, the political will is not there because all intents and purposes the corporate class control the government.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[MickyTheIdiot]

Is it a desirable quality for the success of a society, however?

There isn't a requirement for a government to kowtow to every "need" a business puts forth. Multinationals aren't paying taxes and, as this story shows, they aren't really providing that many new American jobs either.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[MickyTheIdiot]

Which, of course, justifies all forms of abuse.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[MickyTheIdiot]

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.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[khallow]

This makes corporate-centric people on stashdot explode every time I say it, but the corporation is (at least supposed to be) a creature of the state.

Here's why. It's a stupid idea. Business-state separation can't be made as complete as that of religion-state (because the state will need goods and services from those businesses), but it is necessary to prevent a vast abuse of power. After all, aren't we already complaining about the degree of collusion between businesses and government? Why make the problem vastly worse?

The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.

The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.

Shouldn't you have to show that there's a problem first before demanding a change?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why there are still companies that haven't figured this out, I don't know. Even McDonald's tries to make the workplace at least slightly palatable.

Thats a lie, or the free employee lunch would be sent out for.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[NotDrWho]

And I guarantee you that they'll be standing in line right behind Zuckerberg and every other tech/media company before Congress complaining that they need more H1B visas because they can't find American workers.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

Just a guess, but corporations are made up of different departments. Some departments make money, like movies and theme parks, and some departments cost money, like IT.

So it doesn't matter if Disney makes money as a whole, if the head of the IT department wants to look good on his annual review, he has to save money somewhere. Outsourcing saves his department money and he gets a bonus for reducing his budget.

If later on, outsourcing causes problems, he just jumps ship and leaves the problems to the next guy. Who looks bad because he has to spend more money to fix the problems.

But that's just my guess.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Business schools in the last 20 years have really been a disaster. It's the progressive idea that things should always be improving. They teach the role of a businessman isn't to create value, it is to maximize value. A staid old company with the same employees for 30 years and a steady profit? Out the window! This maximizing progressive attitude goes towards everything, all the way down until they finally get around to skimping on toilet paper.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[khallow]

So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

It's not a decision made once or in vacuum. A large part of the reason they've making those record profits is because they make those "few bucks" decisions a few orders of magnitude more often.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The habits of the consumer is what justifies the abuse. Stop the consumption and the abuse will ebb.
 
But you'll be in line with the new Star Wars film, right?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[sociocapitalist]

Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...

That may be the case but it does not change or invalidate what I said.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[smooth wombat]

Because the sole reason for corporations to exist is to maximize profits for the owners.

False. Corporations exist to provide a product or service. Profits are a byproduct which allows the business to continue to provide the product or service.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[sociocapitalist]

Shouldn't you have to show that there's a problem first before demanding a change?

The problem has been stated. The problem is that the only reason that corporations exist is for shareholder profit.

The symptoms include but are not limited to doing anything possible to avoid paying taxes in the US even to the point of 'relocating' the company outside of the US and reduction of the American workforce in favor of foreign workers using a mechanism that exists only for the purpose of cutting labor costs.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[NeoMorphy]

I totally agree.

I have seen this pattern of "short term gain"/"long term loss" so many times I could cry. There must be a lot of cases where companies thought they were going to save money and then encountered a lot of problems and had to undo the outsourcing, which could take a lot of time and money.

For senior executives, they need to come up with a bonus/penalty system that is deferred at least a couple of years to encourage them to make better long term decisions. I thought this was the norm, but for the past 2o+ years it seems like a lot of companies are using short term incentives for senior executives.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[gurps_npc]

Someone in accounting wants a promotion. His job has nothing to do with the sales, all he does is control costs. The better a job he does, the better his bonus. So he tries to cut everything to the bone.

Which means the real problem is his boss. His boss has put saving money above getting the best employees and cares less about retention/hiring costs/PR then he does about his budget.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[sociocapitalist]

Because the sole reason for corporations to exist is to maximize profits for the owners.

False. Corporations exist to provide a product or service. Profits are a byproduct which allows the business to continue to provide the product or service.

Yeah, sorry wrong. If it were consumers creating the companies so that they could have products and services that statement might actually be logical.

I know that's what you've been fed in school, because it is what I was fed in school, but the reality is that the only reason they exist is to make the most profit possible by realizing 'economies of scale' and applying the knowledge resource to achieve the greatest reduction of costs such as taxes and human resources.

If corporations didn't make profit, they wouldn't have been created and they wouldn't continue to exist because no one would invest in them to start with.

Everything other than profit like products, services and jobs are byproducts or at the very least, a means to an end (the end being the profit).

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[cjjjer]

The current corporate belief is that they have no duty or obligation to their employees

Based on the recent hires in our company the same could be said for the employees about a company. Lets face it both sides of the fence are to blame for the mess that is the current IT industry.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Ol Olsoc]

Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...

What do you think of the long-term implications of this however?

The goal, such as it is is to continually maximize profit in all areas. This means a large portion of expenses are the labor costs.

So it only stands to reason that you want expenses as low as possible - American workers tend to be paid more than someone from a country with a much lower standard of living, therefore - American workers are an expense to be eliminated.

This makes perfect sense for a extremely short term outlook.

But from a long term outlook, it is deadly counter-productive to your interests.

How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?

Oh, that's right - he's not.

Then again, since the incidental end goal for Corporate America is to force most of it's citizens to be either unemployed, or to work for the wages that they can pay someone in a third world country - eventually, the Americans who used to go to DisneyWorld, or DisneyLand or Epcot, or stay at the multiple resorts or cruises, are not going to have the money.

And of all of the businesses that should know that their continued profitability comes from a healthy middle class, Disney should have that on the first sentence of their mission statement.

They rely on a lot of people, spending a fair amount of discretionary money to visit their venues. How much do you figure a third world America that saves the shareholders a lot of money on labor is going to spend on 100 percent discretionary things like a trip to Disneysomething, when we're all making the same wages as that guy in IndiaStan?

It's like saving money on skydiving by not spending money on that expensive parachute.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Slashdot Junky]

That often is my gripe. Too many companies and executives aren't satisfied with making a reasonable profit and keeping good people employed. Instead, they want to pursue unreasonable profit and goals with a shortsighted mindset and no concern for how such a business strategy is to affect their employees and society as a whole.

We all can't profit. One's gain is only made possible by another's loss.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Ol Olsoc]

Shouldn't you have to show that there's a problem first before demanding a change?

I look at it from a longer term perspective, not as some anti-corporate thing.

If maximization of profit is a good thing (and who would argue against that - I certainly have a lot of investments) then it's pretty obvious, a company can enjoy lower expenses by employing the people who will work for the least. Many would call that a no-brainer.

But outsourcing labor, and employing illegal labor has a longer term problem. The Overpaid American Worker meme, who at one point was was buying homes, cars, and taking vacations to places like Disneysomething, won't be doing that any more. They'll either be unemployed, or have their wages depressed to third world levels. Especially in the Disney case, they are getting most of their income not from the wealthiest, but from younger people, and lower middle class. They and many of the "American employee as the enemy" groups are sacrificing their future for this quarter's profits.

I'm not putting my investment money in a corporation that is actively destroying it's customer base.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[scamper_22]

It's an interesting question.
but we should remember these are multi-national corporations. They don't belong to America.

Everyone wants to be an exporter.
Everyone wants to keep local jobs.
It's part of our paradox.

I don't know how much money Disney makes overseas, but its probably a large amount. The people in those countries deserve a job working for Disney as much as an American.
They also deserve a share of Disney's taxes paid.

I know H1Bs are a bit of a scam, but its really just a small piece of the puzzle.

We've all taken great advantage of free trade or migrant labor whether we want to or not. Ideally, this would have been nipped in the bud long ago. But who knows, maybe it has benefited the world. Or maybe it hasn't.

I'll say this though, America made some better decisions with respect to trade with its own inter-state commerce clauses.

What did the US did when say New York put in a minimum wage, but Southern states did not? You don't need a PHD to figure jobs would leave New York and end up in Alabama.

The US got a federal minimum wage.
Theoretically, if you don't cross interstate commerce, I think you don't need to obey the federal minimum wage. But what constitutes interstate commerce has grown that its basically most workers.

Now the question I ask is where is this great wisdom when we signed free trade with countries? Should we not have a common minimum wage with countries we sign free trade deals with?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Sique]

It's exactly the other way around. Corporations exist to reap a profit. A legal way to achieve that to provide a product or service. That's why many companies actually do so. Holding companies often don't provide a product or service, their raison d'être is to manage the profits.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[spire3661]

"Rationally speaking, there is no reason to pay more for something than you have to. If I can get someone from (or in) India to do something about 80% as well for 50% of the cost of an American worker, then why wouldn't I do it? The only reason not to is a moral argument; there's no financial reason to do it unless doing it results in a boycott of my company and products (it never does). And when you're a financial institution, that's what you follow."

This amoral bullshit only works when you forget that companies are supposed to be SYMBIOTIC with their communities. ITs not rational to promote a 'profit only' mentality, in the end it destroys the nation. We need to get back to the idea that workers and the business are one, and live and die together. You are dressing up sociopathy as business and calling it good. Companies are superposed to have a DUTY to their workers and community and you dont understand this AT ALL.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[tehcyder]

Business schools in the last 20 years have really been a disaster. It's the progressive idea that things should always be improving. They teach the role of a businessman isn't to create value, it is to maximize value.

Is there no end to the evil caused by liberals?

If they're not trying to destroy the economy by introducing socialism, they're trying to destroy society by seeking the maximisation of profit!

Un-fucking-believable.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[swb]

You've never been to Disneyworld, have you?

The entire fucking place is one giant network, down to the RF wristbands ("magicbands") used by guests to do everything from unlocking their rooms, paying tabs everywhere throughout the entire resort, getting on rides, entering the parks, everything.

And let's not forget that pretty much every ride and attraction runs or is directly dependent on computers. It's like Steam, but connected to animatronics.

Disneyworld is the most IT-driven place I've ever been to.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[JackieBrown]

This.

Most people I know state that you should plan to work for a company for about 5 years before moving on to another one, using the skills you learned at your current job to leverage power when negotiating for the next job.

There is no loyalty from either the employee or the employer. It is a two sided situation. An employer is not going to show that much loyalty to a workforce that sees it's current job as a means to it's next one. And an employee will go to where the money is and not every corporation can compete on the pay scale as other corporations.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Atrox666]

The math behind a public company is that they need more. There is no such thing as balance, sustainability or being the right size to address a market there is only more and more and more. It is the same pattern as a junkie. There is never enough smack for a junkie and there is never enough for a money for a corporation. This junkie mentality is what the Ayn Rand crowd believe should go unchecked and run our society.

That is why corporations are a corrosive disease in our society.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[blue9steel]

Capitalism is basically the systematic harnessing of greed for social good. It has some flaws, but it's less bad than anything else we've tried.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[WindBourne]

Because executives are no longer paid wages. ALL of their compensation comes in the form of stock options that are then sold at HUGE profits with little to no taxes.
The lawyers that are representing these employees will almost certainly win. I am hopeful that they will continue on and sue the board and executives for paying the executives in this fashion. By paying them with publically traded options, and not money, or ESOP stock, they encourage the executives to destroy the companies for short-term gains, which is NOT in the interest of the stock-holders or employees.
The first suit is an easy win. The above suit will be harder, but possible. At the same time, it would have a much larger impact on businesses around the world.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[WindBourne]

Mcd does not give employees free lunch. They used to. But that was several decades ago.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[blue9steel]

It's probably too late to go back to mostly companies instead of corporations but we could still make some sensible changes that would alter behavior. A good start would be double liability.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[blue9steel]

False. Corporations exist to provide a product or service.

That may have been the original intent when a grant of corporate charter was unusual and limited, but nowadays I don't think that holds true.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[blue9steel]

Wait, when did that become a progressive issue?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Most? It is all workers as the feds concern themselves if it "has an effect on interstate commerce" so if I dug up my own iron ore, made my own hardwood charcoal quarried my own limestone and then produced my own steel from them (my state has all of those resources so nothing in this process is interstate) they could regulate me, even if I did it all by hand. All because my production of steel affects the interstate commerce market because if I didn't produce my own I would have to instead purchase it on the open interstate market.

Personally I like this example instead of the drug one as all of these things existed in the are that is my state before the US even existed.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[larryjoe]

So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

Because the sole reason for corporations to exist is to maximize profits for the owners. There is no such thing as 'insignificant' when it comes to profit and greed.

Because the decision makers only benefit from an increase in the profits. The bulk of the decision makers' compensation is dependent on a rise in the stock price, and the stock price depends on increased profits. Stable or slowly increasing profits are not sufficient.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Jhon]

"The current corporate belief is that they have no duty or obligation to their employees."

Rightly so. And employees have no duty or obligation to their employer. There is an exchange of labor for money -- period.

No, why not make a good argument as to why it's a bad idea for HB1s to drive down the cost of labor and displace native workers? THAT is an easy and good argument to make. But suggesting an employer has any obligation other than to exchange money for labor to any employee willing to exchange labor for money is just a bogus argument.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[erapert]

My empire of dirt for mod points! Someone mod this AC up.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[thinkwaitfast]

Maybe to build up the economy in wherever and open a park there.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[thinkwaitfast]

from a country with a much lower standard of living

Does this raise or lower the standard of living in those places?`

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[khallow]

The Overpaid American Worker meme, who at one point was was buying homes, cars, and taking vacations to places like Disneysomething, won't be doing that any more. They'll either be unemployed, or have their wages depressed to third world levels.

Fortunately the Chinese and Indian workers whose incomes are increasing are stepping up to replace the American worker. So all is well, right?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[barc0001]

> Too many companies and executives aren't satisfied with making a reasonable profit and keeping good people employed. Instead, they want to pursue unreasonable profit and goals

That's because the "companies" (boards) see others doing it and want their exciting slice of the pie so they hire executives to make it happen and give them bonuses for hitting target numbers. The execs will do whatever it takes to get their bonus because frankly they don't expect to be around in a couple of years anyway, so who cares if short term stretching for those targets ends up killing the company? And the analysts don't care because they're looking for stocks to perform quarter to quarter, not decade to decade.

As an aside, in the gaming space, these are the same clowns who are calling for Nintendo to give up on hardware and make software for other companies like Sega became. They don't understand or care that Nintendo has been in business for more than 100 years, sits on a decent pile of money and makes a killing on its other lines of product. No, no, see they had a couple of bad years, they're done, stick a fork in them. Maybe they can sell off their licenses for a quick cashflow boost to bump the stock! And then when they hit it out of the park like with the Wii, these same analysts "had complete faith in them"

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[khallow]

The problem has been stated. The problem is that the only reason that corporations exist is for shareholder profit.

So Greenpeace or the United Auto Workers labor union exists only for shareholder profit?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[thinkwaitfast]

I look at it from a longer term perspective than you. There are 3 billion people out there without electricity, clean water or sanitation.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Dragonslicer]

Has it occurred to such people that this story is exactly why employees have no loyalty to the company? Why should someone care about the company when they're going to be replaced by cheaper outsourced labor anyway?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Dragonslicer]

THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY REPORTS FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL YEAR EARNINGS FOR FISCAL 2015 Revenues for the year increased 7% to a record $52.5 billion. Net income for the year increased 12% to a record $8.4 billion. EPS for the year increased 15% to a record $4.90.

So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

Naturally, Disney will be passing these savings on to their customers, right?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[thinkwaitfast]

Most companies are corporations. It cost me $35 to start my own corporation a few years ago and have started a few since then. When you start a corporation, you fill out a couple pages of forms, pay the license fee, send it in and the state (corporations are all at state, not national level) sends you back a license that you have to have displayed at the place of business and a million shares. There are at least 2 officers, president, vp, treasurer and secretary. One officer may hold more than one position, eg, vp and treasurer). The people decide among themselves how to split the shares. One share is one millionth of the company. Secretary records who owns the shares. Filling for a tax id # is separate from the corporation.

Each state has different requirements on what you have to do, obligations of the corporation, yearly fees (if any) that you have to pay. You can do whatever you want with the shares and can be distributed to up to 50 people. Eg, you could hire someone and in addition to their salary, you could also 'pay' them 10 shares per hour of work. But those shares have to come out of the original pool. Say you were president and got 500k shares to start (the business was your idea after all and you invented the widget that's now making the company $100k/year), so you get the largest number of shares. So after a year you've paid Bob $50k in cash and 20k shares of the company. You are 50k richer, but down to 480k shares of the company.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[KingMotley]

Do you have an example, ruling, or law that says that, because that does not follow my understanding of how the federal government SHOULD work.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[thinkwaitfast]

One's gain is only made possible by another's loss.

If I buy a loaf of bread for $1, who gains and who loses? I lose $1 and gain a loaf of bread. The baker gains $1 and loses a load of bread.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[blue9steel]

Most companies are corporations.

Technically no, though the language around this has become blurry recently.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[KingMotley]

You may not be a "1%-er", but to the rest of the world, you are probably a "10%-er". Cry more about having to give up some of your stuff so they can raise their standard of living. It's only fair.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[scamper_22]

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage...

To whom does the minimum wage apply?
The minimum wage law (the FLSA) applies to employees of enterprises that have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000.

It also applies to employees of smaller firms if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, such as employees who work in transportation or communications or who regularly use the mails or telephones for interstate communications. Other persons, such as guards, janitors, and maintenance employees who perform duties which are closely related and directly essential to such interstate activities are also covered by the FLSA. It also applies to employees of federal, state or local government agencies, hospitals and schools, and it generally applies to domestic workers.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[macs4all]

Capitalism is basically the systematic harnessing of greed for social good. It has some flaws, but it's less bad than anything else we've tried.

And what else have we tried in the U.S.?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Slashdot Junky]

> If I buy a loaf of bread for $1, who gains and who loses? I lose $1 and gain a loaf of bread. The baker gains $1 and loses a load of bread.

You have failed to make reference to the key part in my two statements, profit. There is a "finite" amount of money in the economy at any given time. This is much like energy and its place within the universe. Energy and money can only move around. There is no way that everyone and every company can take profit since this would need for more money to exist than what actually exists.

As for your baker...
The baker has a true cost associated with getting that loaf to the market and through its sell that must be covered by his or her pricing. The true cost is more complex than materials and labor. He or she also likely has a desire to earn a profit. In an ideal market, the baker would sell the loaf at cost-plus-profit with the pricing in line with the customer's buying power. If his total overhead is $1, he makes no profit on a loaf sold at $1. If, on the other hand, his cost is $0.50, he's earned quite the profit.

Let's say his cost rises and/or the customer can no longer pay $1 for a loaf of bread. Let's also say he is too attached to the profit of 50 cents on the dollar he's had to-date. So, what does the baker do? He finds a way to cut his costs. Sometimes this achieved through improvements in efficiencies that that doesn't impact others. Now, I'd argue that all change has impact. He could skimp or otherwise change the recipe in such a way that lowers quality. Who loses to allow the baker to gain? The customer. Let's say he choses to cut bakery staff to reduce costs so that he can gain. Who loses? The workers and anyone dependent on the workers' income lose. The society also loses, because the workers have less or no money to spend. Society might also lose further by having to pay for social safety net services to be used by the workers until the income can be replaced. Let's say the baker raises the price of the loaf to protect his profit. Who loses here? The customer and quite possibly society again. Let's say the baker choses to not pay his suppliers, landlord, and/or for utilties to reduce his costs. Who loses? The company that has been shorted loses, and their employees might lose in time due to the company's drop in revenue.

Gains and losses aren't always measurable in currency. Lowering product and service quality to maintain or increase gain also has a corresponding loss. Examples of correlated gain and loss are available through out our economy at all levels and life in general. Some gains by one are so great that the burden of a corresponding loss is felt by many. I don't want to step on another to get ahead. A person or company that is gaining more than they are losing are stepping on someone to get ahead.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Slashdot Junky]

> Is there no end to the evil caused by liberals?

> If they're not trying to destroy the economy by introducing socialism, they're trying to destroy society by seeking the maximisation of profit!

Uh, you apparently have forgotten a few things. An ecomony is merely a system made possible by the ongoing exchange of something of value. This system tends to be made more flexible through monetary units. If anything, that Liberal you seem to dislike would rather minimize profit by the few to allow for more redistribution of wealth to the many.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[joking6119451]

The Friedman Doctrine is relatively recent in the grand scheme of things. The idea that a corporation has no responsibility other than to shareholders is not universally believed.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[fluffernutter]

So if I have a bag of turds and I'm tasting them, and one turd is 'less bad' then the first nine turds, I should eat it?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Scot Seese]

Week One, 100 level first year Business Intro class at every college and university in the United States. Gather round the campfire, sing along everyone -

".. a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder profits/shareholder value."

Public traded corporations, as people, are sociopathic. Failure to maximize profits is malfeasance. Employees exist as resources to be managed.

IT exists as a cost center within most corporations. It doesn't earn money - it's a money sink. It's viewed as a necessary evil by the bean counters to keep the the gears turning - To keep Outlook strangling your will to live with 100 unread emails as you unlock your $600 Dell workstation every morning, Powerpoint decks carefully crafted to optimally dispirit you in hourlong lunch meetings where the leveraged synergy tumbling out of the projector could have been reduced to 10 bullet points on a post-it note - or an email.

IT managers and middle don't have much to "win" with. Meeting project deadlines, otherwise the job is to simply maintain the status quo. Keep the machinery humming. When you do your job well, you're invisible. Invisible doesn't get promoted. The Sales & Marketing guys have numbers to brag over. Those numbers directly translate to dollars in the company's pocket.

Some mid to upper level Disney technology officer wanted something to brag about. They took a fleeting glance at Disney's operations and decided that their (presumably) top quality, experienced IT people could be replaced with H1B robots earning half the salary. H1B robots have a legal minimum salary that's frequently half that of their American counterparts. H1B robots legal status in the U.S. is directly tied to their visa; losing the visa puts them out of status and in violation of federal law. This creates a system where the corporation has enormous and undue influence over the H1B workers' job. Be model employees - or else. Work 60 hour weeks. Come in Saturdays. Do the shit work no one else wants to touch. Do it with a smile. Do it with a smile for less than half the salary your predecessor earned, or we can terminate you on a whim, throwing you out of status, forcing you to leave the country at penalty of US law.

What a dream for employers. Half the pay, and the crushing weight of the US Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Department of Homeland Security constantly on your mind as you're at the office at 7:15 yet another evening at your 8-5 job.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[blue9steel]

In the US we've tried laissez faire capitalism and mixed market capitalism. As a species we've tried a whole bunch of things, most of which were pretty horrible.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[blue9steel]

If you have a better idea we're all ears. I've looked and all the alternatives I've seen are fueled by hopium and unicorn horns.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The public schools that provide a educated workforce, the public infrastructure, the relatively non-corrupt legal system that provides rule of law... These are all paid for or provided by the employees through their income taxes. If the corporations and the idiot Libertarians really want their laissez faire system, my suggestion is to move to Nigeria. You would find out that you do not have to pay for anybody else's health care, schooling, welfare benefits, roads. etc.

Why don't the corporations move to Nigeria or some other laissez faire paradise?

The corporations that operate in this country have an obligation to the society that makes it possible for them to successfully conduct business.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Ol Olsoc]

from a country with a much lower standard of living

Does this raise or lower the standard of living in those places?`

What happens is that the standard of living tends upward in the power country, and lover in the country with a higher standard of living.

But all is not well. As SOL's creep up, people tend to want more. More pay, more time off. Stuff like that.

Since the company has to make more profit this quarter, they will try to source work to another, lower paid country.

The end result will be somewhat leveling of the playing field, but countries like America will be tending closer to the third world countries .

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Ol Olsoc]

The Overpaid American Worker meme, who at one point was was buying homes, cars, and taking vacations to places like Disneysomething, won't be doing that any more. They'll either be unemployed, or have their wages depressed to third world levels.

Fortunately the Chinese and Indian workers whose incomes are increasing are stepping up to replace the American worker. So all is well, right?

The Chinese are going to find out what happens when your wages get to a certain point. Soon we'll be hearning about the overpass Chinese workers costing too much. Pretty simple, a combination of human nature, monetary facts of life, and pathological pecuniary shakers and movers.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Ol Olsoc]

I look at it from a longer term perspective than you. There are 3 billion people out there without electricity, clean water or sanitation.

I look at it from a even longer term perspective. The earth is straining at it's bindings. Ther are too many people on earth. Because of this situation, our choice might be to have all of us without electricity, clean water or sanitation.

Because in a world where p;eople bloviate how Malthus was wrong, it does not follow that he will always be wrong, unless you ascribe to the idea that the earth's carrying capacity is infinite.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Ol Olsoc]

This is a known bug in certain economic systems and must be addressed using the correct error handling techniques.

Even nasty old Henry Ford knew that you could make money when your employees could buy your product. That idea, as you pointed out, seems to have been lost.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Ol Olsoc]

You may not be a "1%-er", but to the rest of the world, you are probably a "10%-er". Cry more about having to give up some of your stuff so they can raise their standard of living. It's only fair.

That's a false dichotomy, at least for what I'm pulling in. I'm doing well, mainly by living below my means for a long time - taking the gamble that I owuld live long enough to enjoy it.

But if I gave up most of my money, and it was distributed among all of the poor - it wouldn't make one bit of difference, other than making me very poor as well.

That's hardly any kind of goal. Even if I were to distribute my money between say 20 poo people everyone would be poor. I could give everything away, and add maybe one more person, but I'd be broke.

And that's the issue about the wealth gap. Many of the folks have income higher than many countries GDP. Talk ot them about giving up 10 percent of their income.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yes, Malthus will pretty much always be wrong.

Prosperity causes fewer children. Fewer children lower population growth rates.

To the point where in the most prosperous parts of the planet (US, the EU, China (for different reasons, but the prosperity part is coming along there)), population growth rates are negative absent immigration.

If the entire world were raised to EU standards of living, population would decline to rather lower than current populations, and stay there forever....

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Ol Olsoc]

If the entire world were raised to EU standards of living, population would decline to rather lower than current populations, and stay there forever....

And you think that is going to happen?

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[khallow]

The Chinese are going to find out what happens when your wages get to a certain point. Soon we'll be hearning about the overpass Chinese workers costing too much. Pretty simple, a combination of human nature, monetary facts of life, and pathological pecuniary shakers and movers.

The US had a similar situation in the decades leading up to the First World War. Human nature was the same. Monetary facts of life were the same. The greed was the same. Somehow the facts of life turned out differently than you suggest with the US experiencing a century of prosperity.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Ol Olsoc]

The US had a similar situation in the decades leading up to the First World War. Human nature was the same. Monetary facts of life were the same. The greed was the same. Somehow the facts of life turned out differently than you suggest with the US experiencing a century of prosperity.

It was a different time, we simply don't have teh horizons to enjoy a century of prosperity any more. You better have increased profits the next quarter. Back then, it took a long time to set up new worksites, and shipping was hardly what it is today.

The only impediment is training the new rock bottom workers. That's why the least skilled jobs are outsourced first. Today? IT workers are skilled. Bye bye. A CEO's job can be computerized just like daytrading software. We'll be filthy rich when none of us is working, I guess.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[thinkwaitfast]

Throughout history, the greatest thing that you can do to reduce reproduction rates is to increase the standard of living. It's the countries and people without water, sanitation an electricity where populations are increasing, not the high energy usage first world countries where populations are decreasing.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[thinkwaitfast]

With a high enough standard of living, I do. It's a belief backed up by almost every statistic on the matter and history.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[fluffernutter]

No point coming up with a new idea if a majority of people are so obviously dead-seat against trying it. I've seen enough people being called communist and accused of stealing from the rich to know that the average American is afraid of any kind of change.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[blue9steel]

Communism has been tried and it sucked. Unless you have some new flavor that doesn't involve total central planning, and also scales better than equal vote communes then there isn't much to discuss there.

If you have something new, by all means give us a rundown, I'm genuinely interested.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Jhon]

"The corporations that operate in this country have an obligation to the society that makes it possible for them to successfully conduct business."

I see this bogus argument a lot. It always ignores the benefits society has for the people.

The roads don't just exist so corporations can make money -- they bring food in so that people can eat.
Laws and enforcement agencies don't just exist to protect corporations money -- they protect the people trying to work and live.

How long would society last if the food is cut off? Or water? Or random bands of raiders attacking and stealing resources? People in general and not corporations see far more of a benefit from these things.

A corporation has absolutely no obligation to any society other than to follow it's laws. And when those laws become harmful to corporations, what do they do? They move away or go out of business. And then where does that leave the (former) employees? Repeat that enough and you'll have ghost towns falling apart as people move to towns that aren't scary to businesses.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[fluffernutter]

Ok I'll add your name to the list of people who don't understand what real communism is and think it has already been tried.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[nytes]

Wickard v. Filburn

An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. In 1941 Filburn grew more than the limits permitted and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $117.11. He claimed his wheat was not sold in interstate commerce and so the penalty could not apply to him.The Supreme Court stated "The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated..."and later "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was "production," "consumption," or "marketing" is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us [...] [b]ut even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
.
.
.
The Supreme Court has since relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law. The Supreme Court subsequently held that, as with the home-grown wheat at issue in the present case, home-grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce. As the Court explained in Gonzales v. Raich (2005):

"Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself 'commercial', in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[nytes]

That's because the IRS started forcing companies to track what their employees consumed and include the value of it in their W-2's (wage statements, for you non-USians). Most companies just decided it wasn't worth the trouble and made it the policy that the employees had to buy the food like everyone else.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[sociocapitalist]

The problem has been stated. The problem is that the only reason that corporations exist is for shareholder profit.

So Greenpeace or the United Auto Workers labor union exists only for shareholder profit?

UAW is not, as far as I can determine, a corporation.

Non profit entities such as Greenpeace certainly can exist for the general good but in many cases even non profit entities are used by the wealthy to shelter income from income, property and estate taxes. Ikea is my favorite example of this: http://www.economist.com/node/...

So yes, the occasional exception exists but it remains the exception, not the rule.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[sociocapitalist]

The Friedman Doctrine is relatively recent in the grand scheme of things. The idea that a corporation has no responsibility other than to shareholders is not universally believed.

'Not universally believed' is hardly strong opposition to my statements.

The reality is that the vast majority of corporations exist solely for profit, the exceptions being few and far between relative to the majority.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[bingoUV]

If you can write a practical handbook for "trying out" communism so that it doesn't turn out into the "not true communism", you can win a Nobel Prize.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[bingoUV]

This is an argument for price collusion, and never getting into price wars. But price war is the only benefit of capitalism for customers.

E.g. company X is selling certain widgets. Company Y can make the widgets cheaper than company X. But it shouldn't sell the widget cheaper because some day company Z might come and make the widget cheaper still and sell cheaper still than company Y. So for the long term outlook, company Y should sell the widget for the same price as company X even if Y can sell it cheaper.

The real reason it doesn't work is that even if Y sells for the same price as X, Z can still out-compete both of them. Price war is the only reason why customers benefit in a capitalist society.

In this case, if Disney pays higher price to its employees, a Fisney can open a Fisneyland with similar facilities and cheaper ticket prices pushing Disney out of the market. Even if Disney follows your advice, it is no defence against Fisney who might use cheaper labour.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well the most commonly cited one is Wickard v. Filburn where the government ruled that because crops grown on your own property for your own use are subject to their regulation because it has an effect on the interstate market for those crops. Additionally there is the case of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States case which is less cited but still an important one in how to interpret where the line is in what can be regulated under the guise of interstate commerce.

While there is the understanding of how things SHOULD work there is also the way things actually work. Although there does appear to be limits on the commerce clause in that it can't be used to force you to buy something but that ruling found that a tax is both a tax (so it was constitutional) and not a tax (ruled first so that there was standing) so take that a what it is.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[blue9steel]

If you can write a practical handbook for "trying out" communism so that it doesn't turn out into the "not true communism", you can win a Nobel Prize.

This.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[khallow]

UAW is not, as far as I can determine, a corporation.

You are correct in that labor unions are not called corporations by the US code of laws. The UAW may indeed not be officially incorporated (I too am unable to determine its exact legal status). But the UAW has a charter and means to insure its perpetuation, holds assets, can be sued, and its members are not financially responsible for the actions of the union. It is also treated identically to official corporations for purposes of "corporate personhood" (eg, the "Citizens United" ruling by the US Supreme Court).

So yes, the occasional exception exists but it remains the exception, not the rule.

There are a lot of exceptions to the rule. The point here is that corporation and related legal groupings like religious groups or labor unions are powerful legal tools for organizing a group of people when liabilities or assets of value are involved. The majority are for profit, because for profit businesses are both numerous and always involve liabilities and assets.

The original claim was that the "only purpose" for corporations to exist was profit. I gave two large categories of exceptions: non profit charities and labor unions. Another large category of non profit corporations in the US are homeowners associations.

But even in for profit corporations, it is clear that there are other goals than merely profit. Bylaws can list other goals that the corporation must meet. The business can arbitrary chose legally binding non profit goals (like advertising "10% of all our sales goes to a charity") or make charitable donations with the approval of the shareholders.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[khallow]

Which years specifically are you talking about?

I specified the decades leading up to the First World war. That is by itself starts at least by 1897 (20 years before the US's entry into the First World War.

Re: Why would Disney do this?

[KingMotley]

Thank you.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[khallow]

I was speaking of the century starting with 1897. And yes, I'm aware the Great Depression falls in that century as do many other recessions.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[radarskiy]

"We all can't profit. One's gain is only made possible by another's loss."

No, everybody profiting via productivity is the entire point of capitalism. If you believe in destroying productivity for short-term gain, then you don't believe in capitalism.

The people you are talking about are not vulnerable to touchy-feely social arguments. You must pound the point to that they are anti-capitalists.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[RyoShin]

I think a good, specific instance of CEO/boardroom dissonance is Square Enix's reaction to initial sales of their (Crystal Dynamics-developed) Tomb Raider reboot. In its first month, the game sold 3.4 million copies, which is a good number of sales by most reckonings. But not Squeenix: they anticipated double that, and even then they thought 5-6 million was a "conservative" number.

The company thought its Lara Croft reboot could sell at least 5-6 million units in four weeks - a huge figure, but a total still designed to be conservative, just "80-90 per cent" of what Square Enix thought was the game's real sales potential.

"We put a considerable amount of effort in polishing and perfecting the game content for these titles, receiving extremely high Metacritic scores," Square Enix said in a new financial statement. "However, we were very disappointed to see that the high scores did not translate to actual sales performance, which is where we see the substantial variance in operation profit/loss against the forecast."

That they expected a reboot of a franchise that had diminished tremendously in popularity could put out such numbers just shows how disconnected they are from reality.

Re:Why would Disney do this?

[Slashdot Junky]

Incorrect, we can all profit, just not at insane amounts. I like lemons but can't grow them in my climate but you can and I have something you want. We trade, we both profit. That is unless you got greedy and squeezed all the lemons before hand and just sold me the rind without telling. Then took the liquid and sold lemonade to other people.

That is not profiting and merely is trading two things of value. Let's say I paid $1000 dollars to plant, grow, pick, and package those lemons. Let's also say that you paid $800 to get that widget I need. If we trade, you have gained $200, and I have lost $200.

strum

[sociocapitalist]

You gotta fight
      for your right
          to wooooooork

Pull a Sony Pictures

[Dog-Cow]

The employees should publish every bit of data they have access to and them wipe every system on the network.

And then blame it on North Korea.

Re:Pull a Sony Pictures

[Joe_Dragon]

Only do that when they can't find a doctor who takes medcade or they have something that the ER does not cover.

M-I-C ... See you in Court

[theodp]

Mickey Mouse Alma Mater 2.0

Now it's time to say goodbye
to all our company.

M-I-C
Spoken:
see you in Court real soon
K-E-Y
Spoken:
why? because we're replacing. you
M-O-U-S-E.

Re: Um, no

[bill_mcgonigle]

heh - you're right. They need to change the complaint to 'jurisdiction of origin'. Talking to the Feds about why the American cost-of-living is so damn high is a fool's errand though; they cannot prevail against Disney's power and influence no matter how good their case is on the merits.

Re:Um, no

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the case then Disney should have offered US workers to keep their jobs by accepting a 75% salary reduction. Disney didn't bother to make that offer, so their criterion must be nationality and not pay.

What are you doing about the abuse?

[sjbe]

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.

Re:What are you doing about the abuse?

[Anonymous Coward]

the false premise here is that any of the actions mentioned will make a difference.

Re:What are you doing about the abuse?

[kilfarsnar]

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.

Its About Time

[wisnoskij]

Technically anytime a company hires an H1B1, and you believe you have the qualifications for that job, you can raise hell. Hell, maybe you could even sue for lost wages. Because that is not supposed to happen. Period. To actually get fired over a H1B1 is completely ridiculous, and in this case the company has no recourse to saying that they looked for qualified professionals in America, but could not find one. The case is cut and dry, the company brazenly lied to the government, and the government rubber stamped the H1B1, like always. Like how Google, et al, got a non-competitive business practice suit brought against them for agreeing to not snipe each others employees. Americans need to come together and launch a major lawsuit against H1B1 users and their government lackeys.

Re:Its About Time

[OzPeter]

If Americans cared and were appalled by Disney's disgusting treatment of American citizens, they have the ability to vote with their dollars

But the new Star Wars movie is coming out soon, and it has that new cute robot that my kids will want as a toy on Christmas day.

I'd bet that 99% of the population doesn't even think of Disney having an IT department, let alone understanding H1B1 visa abuse. And did these same American citizens vote with their dollars when Disney was trying to shut down low cost housing 7 years ago? Disney has a long history of not being a nice company, but people still but their products.

Re:Its About Time

[edtice1559]

Except that we really don't have this option because the behavior is so pervasive. There's not a single thing that you can buy or do without giving money to a business that acts in ways that are ethically questionable at best. Let's say you whip a group into a frenzy and they all decide to go to a different theme park. Tomorrow we'll find an issues with those places. I support voting with your wallet on the most egregious issues, but it can't be a universal solution. We need government that functions.

Re:Its About Time

[WindBourne]

we went to universal studies 2 months ago due to this. Would have done disney save for this issue.
And I differ with you on this. I think that this lawsuit will lead to a flood of lawsuits against companies AND THE IMMIGRATION dept. That will stop this rather quickly.
Ideally, these lawyers suing disney will consider the idea of suing the board and executives for their moving from wages for the executives to stock options. The stock options encourage behavior like this which results in short-term gains, but fast destruction of the company. It would be a hard battle, but upon winning it, it would pretty much stop other companies from doing this same foolish behavior.

Re:Its About Time

[Motherfucking Shit]

If H1N1 is the swine flu, does that make H1B1 the Indian plague?

Core Values

[FerociousFerret]

I just love how companies that do stuff like this always like to have a list of "Core Values" of the company and they always list something like "Our People Are Our Strength". Ha!

Same happened to me

[tompaulco]

I was replaced by a consulting company that was 100% made up of H1bs. They slept 6 people in a 2 bedroom apartment and shared a car. I had to train them to do my job and when I was done, I was let go.

Re:Same happened to me

[OzPeter]

and it took all 6 of them to do your job half as well but the cost for 6 was 3x what the company was paying you

And that is what makes the least sense out of it all.

While it may not make sense to you from a programming point of view, the outsourcing money will be a different line item in the companies budget than your salary. And that can improve the overall bottom line, and hence make it attractive from a financial point of view. As an analogy it can be better financially for companies to lease rather than own the buildings or equipment they use.

Re:Same happened to me

[tehcyder]

and it took all 6 of them to do your job half as well but the cost for 6 was 3x what the company was paying you

Yes, big corporations deliberately spend extra money on employees for the sake of it. That's exactly right, a really accurate description of how businesses behave.

Are you ten years old?

OCP owns the police

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it bother anyone else that these laid off employees gave an interview to Disney owned ABC? The news story really spun the story towards how STEM degrees are worthless rather than suggest any regulations on outsourcing jobs.

Re:Typical Liberal Thinking

[xdor]

You are mostly correct about what they want, but that's not why they want it. Let me recap what they want from your list:

1. They will not stop until we (in the underclasses) are all reduced to a "living wage".
2. They want people out of work.
3. They want to subsidize meager existences.

The reason they want all of these horrible things, is not because they hate us, it's because they don't care about us and instead want to make themselves extremely rich. How can this be?

By encouraging an environment where people are out of work or can earn very little, they are insuring that the general populace has no significant buying power. And when the general populace has no buying power — those in government are able to print more money without immediate or significant inflationary consequence.

As long as the people in power are able to stand under one of the spickets of the created currency (banking, government contracts, alternative energy, maybe even some educational grants) they themselves get showered with what would normally be inflationary monies — but because the general majority of people don't have a good job — there is little immediate impact on prices because the majority of the populace don't have money to spend.

It's critical then for as many people as possible to either be out of work, or be in situations where they have little to no disposable income.

What you buy is a choice

[sjbe]

Not all shares are voting shares. What you suggest just isn't realistic for shares owned through mutual funds and the like.

Holding shares in a mutual fund is a choice. Holding voting versus non voting shares is a choice. Nobody forced you to buy those shares. If you are fine with holding non-voting shares and letting someone else speak for you then that is fine but understand and own your actions.

Re:What you buy is a choice

[kilfarsnar]

Like I give a fuck? I'm not going to go through all of my investments, research what is happening at all of those companies, and then vote like I know what I'm doing. Especially since the number of shares I own is so small. Like I said, it's unrealistic.

Re:No union needed

[Sique]

That is akin to "the law already protects the innocent citizen, no need for a lawyer to dip his beak into the citizen's money bag."

A law is just some sheet of paper, you need people to actually enforce it.

Only doing nothing will accomplish nothing

[sjbe]

the false premise here is that any of the actions mentioned will make a difference.

The only thing guaranteed to not make a difference is to do nothing. Unlikely does not equal impossible.

Re:Only doing nothing will accomplish nothing

[bingoUV]

The only thing guaranteed to not make a difference is to do nothing.

False. Entropy is a bitch. Sometimes you must do something so as to not make a difference, otherwise entropy will make the difference for you.

Re:I'm Going To Sue Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the federal government hasn't gotten in on a textbook case of H1-B abuse shows what a scam H1-B usage is. It's bad for the guest worker and bad for the replaced worker. It needs to be based upon the skills of the individual H1-B holder. If they are good enough to do the job here, they should be good enough to have an H1-B in their own name, not be beholden to a company sponsoring them. If H1-B workers are truly a valuable commodity, then we want them here *regardless* of where they are working because their skills cannot be replaced. Stop indentured servitude replacement of American workers. Encourage immigrants who bring much needed skills.

Re:No union needed

[Anonymous Coward]

That is akin to "the law already protects the innocent citizen, no need for a lawyer to dip his beak into the citizen's money bag."

A law is just some sheet of paper, you need people to actually enforce it.

The difference being that aside from a small retainer fee, a lawyer doesn't charge you unless he actually does something. A Union, meanwhile, is more than happy to siphon your paycheck for decades without doing a damn thing.

Also, if there's a law protecting your job, you don't need a Union to enforce it, just a lawyer. If you have a Union, plus a law protecting your job, now you pay the Union, then they go hire the lawyers on top of that. Unions are primarily useful in situations where there is NOT a law protecting the workers.

Copyright term for replicator patterns

[tepples]

It's called corruption.
It's happened in every society before us, and will likely continue to until we get some currency-less "everyone gets everything they need" replicator-based non-economy a-la United Federation of Planets.

And even then, Disney will still figure out how to rent-seek by asserting copyright on replicator patterns. This is where the life of the author's grandchildren copyright term comes in: as health care lets people live an order of magnitude longer, Disney can make an order of magnitude more money off the same work.

It's the IT service providers that need fixing

[ErichTheRed]

I've been working in IT for 20 years now and have been through a couple of these outsourcing/offshoring exercises. The truth is this - there is no way to convince executives that IT is a strategic investment opportunity unless the company's only business is IT. Therefore, outsourcing will happen in most big companies the first time the MBA's spreadsheets show a big enough paper cost savings. And in Disney's case, it's not the money -- I have 2 little kids. Disney could fill several of Scrooge McDuck's money bins with just the daily cash flow from their parks. They must carry all the cash out of Disney World in dump trucks. So, there's proof that they're not doing it for cost savings.

The thing that needs to be attacked is the IT service providers' use of H-1B and offshore labor for inappropriate tasks. Go after Cognizant, Tata Consulting Services, Accenture, IBM, HP, Infosys, Tech Mahindra, Xerox, etc. for bringing in H-1B labor for purposes that don't meet the original intention of the program. H-1B was designed to import specific high-end skill sets for a limited time to fill in actual gaps in education/experience. These service companies use the H-1B to bring in "job shadowers" who train the offshore teams, and low-level DBAs, developers and other roles that could easily be had locally without the communications or quality issues. The problem is that this will never get popular support until the vast majority of white collar workers are out of a job or underemployed. IT is still seen as a hot field, and we are all still considered well paid, so we don't get any political attention.

Do I think outsourcing is a good idea? No, I think companies need to have some FTEs who at least have a connection to the company. When you go down the service provider route, the provider has to make money at the rate they bill you. The only way they can do this is reduce labor costs and reduce service levels to the absolute minimum to keep you from invoking breach of contract clauses.

I have no idea how it will work out for Disney, but I've worked on both sides of the outsourcing fence. In the company doing the outsourcing, the FTEs left behind are stuck in a stagnant IT department behind a wall of change management process, 2 AM conference calls and incompetent newbie offshore guys that keep rotating. The outsourcing company is forced to cut so many corners that being an on-site employee of the company is not a fun job -- you get to tell people why they can't have things, why projects are late, etc.

Re:It's the IT service providers that need fixing

[moeinvt]

"So, there's proof that they're not doing it for cost savings."

Their positive cash flow and profits "prove" nothing about their motivations. To a corporation, profits are never high enough.

  "bringing in H-1B labor for purposes that don't meet the original intention of the program."

The federal government publishes a set of "guidelines" and describes the "intentions" of the program for sure. Unfortunately, neither the guidelines nor the intentions are codified in actual LAW. Therefore, corporations like Disney can simply ignore them.

"According to federal guidelines, the visas are intended ... to fill discrete positions when American workers with those skills cannot be found. Their use, ... should not âoeadversely affect the wages and working conditionsâ of Americans." (NYtimes 6/3/15)

Great, except for the fact that we're supposed to trust that corporations will follow the "guidelines" as opposed to exploiting the LAW to maximize their profits? Ha! That's why the fired workers can't accuse Disney of breaking the law and have to resort to this "discrimination" theory.
Once again, we get royally screwed by the Federal Government and the corporations get blamed.

If there's a return on investment

[tepples]

Disney's IT is atrociously expensive (take a look at what rolling out RFID + fingerprint scanners cost them, it was in the several billion dollar range).

It's not how much money it costs as much as how much money the company saves when CMs no longer have to key in lengthy passwords all the time.

Re:Typical Liberal Thinking

[crow_t_robot]

Where the fuck did you dream up all this garbage? I can't even follow this brain vomit.

Re:No union needed

[Anonymous Coward]

And you sound like the perfect corporate shill. Tell you what, you want to negotiate with me personally rather than a selected representative? Fine, get every single one of your shareholders in a room and I'll negotiate with them. What? "Collective bargaining" is good when it's your side? You get a representative and I don't?

McDonald's menu has become more diverse

[tepples]

Even McDonald's tries to make the workplace at least slightly palatable.

Thats a lie, or the free employee lunch would be sent out for.

Ever wonder why McDonald's menu has become so much more diverse than it was in the days of "Big Mac, McDLT, a Quarter Pounder with some cheese"? It's not only to bring in more business but also so that McDonald's can improve employee lunch without having to send out for it.

Re:McDonald's menu has become more diverse

[blue9steel]

Ever wonder why McDonald's menu has become so much more diverse than it was in the days of "Big Mac, McDLT, a Quarter Pounder with some cheese"? It's not only to bring in more business but also so that McDonald's can improve employee lunch without having to send out for it.

Excuse me for a moment while I roll around on the floor laughing.

Re:McDonald's menu has become more diverse

[Joe_Dragon]

In accordance with Brazilian law, employers have to provide a “healthy and varied” lunch for their workers. This is commonly accomplished through distribution of meal tickets that can be redeemed at restaurants and grocery stores, giving employees the optionof bringing their own lunch or eating out. Last year a state labor court in Pernambuco ordered the company to pay $15 million in damages to employees who were not allowed to bring their own lunch to work and were obligated to eat McDonald’s. In São Paulo a pregnant employee who was ordered by her doctor to stop eating McDonald’s food filed charges when her employer refused to cooperate.

The rising tide of Balassa-Samuelson

[tepples]

How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?

Probably not WDW Florida and not immediately. But after companies have started to hire skilled workers in the export sector of a particular country's economy, workers in the export sector will be earning more than the workers in non-export sectors. This means two things: the country's currency will become more valuable to international buyers of its services, and employers in non-export sectors will have to gradually raise wages to retain workers. As the rising tide of the Balassa-Samuelson effect continues to lift all boats, people in a particular region may eventually become rich enough to visit a regional Disney park.

Re: The rising tide of Balassa-Samuelson

[cyber-vandal]

The eventually part is the problem since there will inevitably be a gap between the collapse of the middle class in the developed world and the rise of a new middle class with similar spending power anywhere else.

Re:The rising tide of Balassa-Samuelson

[Ol Olsoc]

How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?

Probably not WDW Florida and not immediately. But after companies have started to hire skilled workers in the export sector of a particular country's economy, workers in the export sector will be earning more than the workers in non-export sectors.

Respectfully, at the pace that corporate moves these days, as soon as the wages go up, the shareholders cannot have a reduction in profits, so the company has to find more people to pay as little as possible.

Ak Mexico. As wages went up, those people had to lose their jobs.

A sort of positive outcome of the ADHD jobjumping done by Corporate world is that eventually there won't be any more people to pull that stunt with. It is going to be interesting when the whole world is at one pay level. But will that happen before robots take over.

One of the most amusing things in the world of business is billionaires telling people making minimum wage that they are being paid too much.

Re:The rising tide of Balassa-Samuelson

[tepples]

A sort of positive outcome of the ADHD jobjumping done by Corporate world is that eventually [after more countries' wages improve] there won't be any more people to pull that stunt with. It is going to be interesting when the whole world is at one pay level. But will that happen before robots take over.

If anything, at least subsaharan Africa will likely lose its reputation as a den of poverty.

Re:Maybe US IT deserve what they get?

[ErichTheRed]

"US IT workers could change the situation if they wanted to do so. But that would require actually doing something."

I totally agree. The problems with the current situation are:
- The problems are appearing too slowly for people to perceive any wider issue. Everyone assumes that it's just their company making questionable decisions and everything will be made right once they come to their senses. The reality is that this is accelerating and it may be too late to stop the train.
- Most of the people I've ever worked with are very conservative, free-market, Libertarian types -- I'm a pretty big exception among IT peers. Mention anything that might limit a company's power, or involve an organization drive on the labor side, and you'll be labeled a pro-union communist.
- There is also a very strong belief by people in our field that they are the absolute best at what they do, and they would never dare compare themselves with peers, let alone organize alongside them.
- I'm not sure where it comes from, but there also seems to be this belief that if we allow executives to do what they want, then they will let us into their club and we will be rich beyond our wildest dreams. Anything that might limit their ability to amass wealth is seen as jeopardizing that (nonexistent) goal.

Currently, there is very little support for my suggestion -- creating a profession for IT and development, and buying the laws we need. I think it's going to have to get much worse before people get mad enough to fight. And I'm not even talking about a traditional labor union; I'm talking about a professional organization that can lobby alongside the big companies who are fighting for things they want like more H-1Bs and the ability to offshore work more easily.

The remaining 20 percent

[tepples]

If I can get someone from (or in) India to do something about 80% as well for 50% of the cost of an American worker, then why wouldn't I do it?

Because of the cost of locally fixing that other 20 percent.

We go online to buy items to avoid salestax.

And then, more often than not, break the law by not declaring use tax on your annual individual income tax return.

Or because Amazon sells it $10 cheaper than the local store, which employees people

My local store sells on Amazon, which employs people.

and keeps your property values higher

Does everyone want high property values? Unless you're in the business of flipping houses, rising property values tend to raise your rent, meaning you may have to settle for inferior food, clothing, or entertainment.

Public benefit corporation

[tepples]

If corporations didn't make profit, they wouldn't have been created and they wouldn't continue to exist because no one would invest in them to start with.

That or there would be more not-for-profit public benefit corporations, whose earnings stay in the company's foundation. You might remember one that was created out of the BUCK FETA scandal on Slashdot: SoylentNews.

Re:Public benefit corporation

[sociocapitalist]

If corporations didn't make profit, they wouldn't have been created and they wouldn't continue to exist because no one would invest in them to start with.

That or there would be more not-for-profit public benefit corporations, whose earnings stay in the company's foundation. You might remember one that was created out of the BUCK FETA scandal on Slashdot: SoylentNews.

Possibly, although such can still be misused as many 'not for profit' organizations are used by the wealthy to shelter income and avoid death taxes.
http://www.economist.com/node/...

or on Disney's MPAA colleagues

[tepples]

Anonymous Coward wrote:

The news you'll never see on ABC (owned by Disney)

But will you see it on other TV outlets (owned by Disney's colleagues in the MPAA)? NBC is Universal, CNN is Warner Bros., CBS is Paramount (through National Amusements), and Fox is, well, Fox.

Re:Typical Liberal Thinking

[blue9steel]

Perhaps you should consider some basic education then. Failure to understand the philosophy of your enemies is a major weakness.

Whites flooding into Indian country

[tepples]

Are you sick of millions of non-whites flooding into every white country on Earth?

And some are sick of whites flooding into Indian country. ("Indian" here refers not to India but to Mescalero Inde, meaning "the people".) Others are sick of whites flooding into Aboriginal country.

"Go back to..."
"I'll help you pack."

Sonny Bono disproves you

[tepples]

If Americans were willing to vote with their dollars, Disney revenue would have dropped after the 1998 copyright term extension.

Re:No union needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Free market? In IT? The existence of the H1-b program proves that is incorrect. The H1-b program is a perfect example of government meddling for the benefit of corporate America at the expense of workers. Compensation has declined significantly since the late 90s and one of the reasons is the H1-b program.

The Middle Class is being decimated because of crony capitalism in the USA.

Lower standard of living.

[Anonymous Coward]

IT compensation has declined significantly since the late 90s.

As a result, I've had to cut back. I don't buy any iThingy or Android thing for that matter. I don't go to movies. I don't have cable because it's too expensive.

My wife and I cook our own meals and we don't go out. And I do my own car and home repair.

My TV is years old and I just have a $30 DVD player I got years ago. My Netflix streaming and over the air TV is my entertainment. Go to the movies? Only if I'm given a gift certificate.

I live worse than my Dad did back in the early 70s when he supported a family of 5, a house and two cars on one engineer's salary. Mom didn't work.

My grandpa supported a family of 7, a house and a car on just a machinist's pay - 50s and 60s.

Try to do that in 2015.

Go to Disney? For an American Middle Class family it's out of reach. It costs a family of 4 thousands of dollars for just a week.

We are spiraling to the bottom and there's plenty of evidence for it.

There are 7.2 billion people with a net increase of about 65 million every year on the World. And unless you're a super model or some extraordinary sports star or entertainer, anyone can be replaced - I don't care how smart you are. Brains are a commodity.

Re:Lower standard of living.

[thinkwaitfast]

In the late 90s, you could make $60 an hour creating 'home pages' for people on yahoo profiles.

Re:Typical Liberal Thinking

[crow_t_robot]

Do you really think that people in the real world would be working from such a byzantine, bond-villainesque scheme? It's actually simpler. People that inhabit reality are fed up with corporations that are in bed with politicians and the self-righteous 1% elite that are mostly made up of people that acquired their wealth from inheritance.

Re:No union needed

[erapert]

Why did you post as AC? You should be modded up to the stratosphere for this post.

Re:No union needed

[khallow]

The difference being that aside from a small retainer fee, a lawyer doesn't charge you unless he actually does something.

Unless, of course, the lawyer is receiving a large fee for doing nothing. They're not that different from labor unions.

Re:Wages in America

[walterbyrd]

Why not the same for other professions?

Healthcare is a huge issue. Part of the problem is the astronomical salaries enjoyed by many US physicians - will over one million dollars a year in many cases.

Why does Greenspan scoff that US IT workers want to be a "privileged elite" but he says nothing about doctors earning over $1 million a year?

So let's flood the US with offshore physicians who don't earn anything near that, and thereby reduce our healthcare costs.

Of course, that will never happen. The AMA will not allow it (for the patients good of course).

 

Re:No union needed

[Anonymous Coward]

A law is just some sheet of paper, you need people to actually enforce it.

Unions don't enforce laws.

A federal judge can see to it that the law is followed, which is why the IT workers are suing.

Re:Wages in America

[thinkwaitfast]

Americans are constantly, through their media (tv, newspapers and social media) force fed a diet that causes and enhances Dunning-Kruger syndrome. This is the new national psyche.

Its all legal

[Steve Smith Charlott]

Sadly, replacing Americans with H-1B workers IS perfectly legal. It is not because the government has failed to enforce the law. IT IS THE LAW. Folks should read the book Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America's Best & Brightest Workers. http://www.amazon.com/Sold-Out... It is shocking and busts many of the myths about H-1B visas. I was tearing my hair out when I read it. I never realized things are so bad and that the news media simply does not report on them.

Re:How many IT workers will see Star Wars?

[Bratch]

Everyone here pointing out what Disney is doing to their IT staff will go see the new "Disney Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and every sequel. Even if most IT people didn't go see it, they will still make record profits, having over $50 million in pre-sales already. There doesn't appear to be a way to stop it from happening.

ITT: Tons of anti-US, internationalist apologists

[sethstorm]

There's a whole lot of people that want to take the US down a peg, sanitizing it in the name of some sports term called "global competitiveness". They just want to see the US have to be the nation of people desperate for any port in a storm, even if it's the worst in jobs. In the McCarthy era, they would have been rightfully removed and replaced with citizens that properly value citizens as assets - not problems.

The US citizen's worth and way of life shall not be challenged by such low-freedom internationals. Besides, the worst citizen can be trained to be above the level of the average "body shop" guest worker.

Dunning-Kruger == Godwin-class quackery.

[sethstorm]

Attempting to justify hate for Americans through that Godwin corollary, only reduces your argument to: "I hate the US and want to see it brought low".

Re:Typical Liberal Thinking

[xdor]

Essentially, the rich and powerful in government want everyone else to stay poor -- because poor people can't spend money -- so this allows those rich and powerful to make-up money ("printing", "inflating") via the central bank without having the normal consequences of the printed money devaluing.

Normally if everyone has a lot more money -- prices will rise.

But if you can give yourself a lot more money (i.e. you are a central bank and can just decide: gee, today I think I'll print myself a few billion dollars) -- you can give yourself and your friends a bunch of money -- but prices won't rise (as fast or as much) if you make sure the majority of people never get any.

Case in point: the housing crises. They "solved" the problem by bailing out the insurance companies and the banks -- when they could have directly bailed out the homeowners for (perhaps) less money. The "solution" was making the government give their buddies in affordable housing and banks a bunch of made up cash.

Frankly, I think both "sides" are in on this. Democrats doing the free-money thing to all their buddies and then a switch back to Republicans to do the nasty correction (because you can't inflate forever). Republicans benefit with the Democrats because if you know a correction is coming (i.e. you're doing it) you can hedge your investments accordingly.

Re:Fairly dumb.

[oh_my_080980980]

And that violates the rules of the H1B Visas. You might want to read about it sometime. It expressly forbids hiring a worked for lower wages. The program is meant to supplement not replace the workforce.

No It's Not

[oh_my_080980980]

It is not the law. H1B Visas are not meant to replace US worker force but to supplement the the workforce. It also expressly forbids paying workers lower wages. Look it up sometime. The problem is enforcement and the companies that game the system.

Further..

[snadrus]

When their next waves of movies are boring and meaningless and Americans watch movies from the new studios made up of ex-Disney employees, we will see this move hurt shareholders.

Re:Typical Liberal Thinking

[crow_t_robot]

I see a little bit more what you are saying but it doesn't make sense. You are essentially saying that all of the rich and powerful are trying to induce a crisis of capitalism where workers can't afford the shit they produce. You have a laser-like obsession with inflation as well which leads me to believe you are very much in the Ron Paul camp. As someone very far on the left side of the political spectrum all liberals want is a respectable wage like factory workers had after WW2 where they could work an honest job and own a house, car and have a wife at home with their 2 or 3 children. We are at the stage where two adults with full-time jobs and no kids can barely cover apartment rent and food. CEO's are keeping wages obscenely low to the point a full-time employee can't provide the basic necessities and requires government assistance. That means that the public has to subsidize those corporate wages (i.e. McDonalds). Only customers should be subsidizing those wages through product and service prices. I don't even shop at Walmart or McDonalds so why am I paying to keep those people clothed and fed?

Re:Maybe US IT deserve what they get?

[walterbyrd]

> I think it's going to have to get much worse before people get mad enough to fight.

I think you are right. But I also think that, by that point, it may be too late.

Fairly soon, Americans are get disgusted, and stop studying for STEM. When that the happens, the tech companies will point to declining enrollment as evidence that Americans don't want the jobs.

Not Disney's first labor dispute

[walterbyrd]

Watch PBS American Experience "Walt Disney." Disney has been abusing it's workforce for a long time.

Like other corporations, the only way to stop is to make them stop. You need to organize, and fight back, or the abuse will continue.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-st-fall-tv-walt-disney-20150913-story.html

Re:Typical Liberal Thinking

[xdor]

No, I'm saying the rich and powerful Liberals in government (e.g.. Nancy Pelosi) want you to have a respectable wage, have a loan on a house (preferable a student loan, too), and barely be able to feed your 2 or 3 children.

We are at the stage where two adults with full-time jobs and no kids can barely cover apartment rent and food

Exactly.

When a majority of the populace is surviving (but not quite rioting), the government may print money without hesitiation. Why? Because all the money you earn is spent servicing debt or providing basic needs -- not bidding up the price of durable goods.

This gives the government an incredible amount of power. The government may invent money out of nothing (work required: absolutely zero) and buy real things or pay real debts -- and that money still has value -- because 300 million Americans will value those dollars because they need to buy groceries for the week.

Say 300 million people in the US can't (or choose not to) pay $5 a gallon for milk. What happens? The dairy lowers their price. Because when 300 million people don't buy the dairy product because dairy priced themselves out of their range -- the dairy is better off selling the milk for $3.29 a gallon and thereby encouraging say 298 million people to buy it. At the point, the dairy doesn't care that there's 12 thousand people in Washington D.C. who would think nothing of paying $8 a half gallon.

So while the people in Washington have money enough to swim in -- the price of goods is not overly affected by all that made up money -- because most people in the US are not in the same position.

The Liberal infrastructure is more than happy to subsidize people. One the money is free. Two, it only pays for basic needs and keeps people from competing with their dollars in the Liberal elite sphere. Just enough for people to live, but not enough for them to grow.

And that's all you want, anyway. You don't want to get better, you just want to get by. And that's all they want you to want.

Because as long as you stay low and average, they can continue to make up dollars, build political and industrial empires and live incredibly -- all thanks to 300 million others wondering where all the jobs went.

Re: No union needed

[easyTree]

What's the advantage to disabling the middle class?

shaking with rage

[Kaitiff]

This happened at my job year ago.. albeit in a much lower tier job working an internal help desk. I fortunately escaped the help desk months before it was dissolved and started working as a local IT guy in the same company. Ever since that episode, I've told my boss and anyone else in the hierarchy, I do not care what you offer me.. when you decide that it's a viable alternative to give my job to someone else for less pay.. you've decided I'm supernumerary and I will NOT train my replacement. I am not racist, or in any way derisive of other cultures but in the case where the Indian group took over the help desk that I worked at it was in no way 'better' for anyone, other than possibly whatever middle manager managed to get a promotion off of the backs of the 'saving's he managed to make. To this day I have to deal with the incompetence and ignorance of this off shore help desk on a daily basis. As commonly practiced, as soon as you train up someone to do the job, they move on to greener pastures and you start all over again with another untrained and unusable new trainee. It's an abhorrent practice.

Re:shaking with rage

[John M. Miano]

We need more Americans like you how have a backbone!

Re:No union needed

[Kaitiff]

The people making the laws are the same ones pushing the H!B agenda...the laws in this country increasingly do not favor it's constituents, rather it's capitalists and those who can afford to 'buy' the laws to ensure their profits.

A single worker usually doesn't have the political and legal acumen to be able to represent themselves in negotiations. Like it or not, there is strength in numbers. A company can callously fire or mistreat an employee w/out the support of his fellow workers, it's considerably harder to do so when there is an organization that watches out for his rights. I will agree that there is corruption and graft in the unions, but that is true of ANY organization once it becomes large and established. A board of directors have their own (and supposedly their stockholders)) best interests at heart and will do anything to maximize that profit margin. Having a counterbalance like a union to look out for the welfare of the workers, and in a lot of cases the company itself is a good thing.

Re:No union needed

[left00coaster]

That is akin to "the law already protects the innocent citizen, no need for a lawyer to dip his beak into the citizen's money bag."

A law is just some sheet of paper, you need people to actually enforce it.

The difference being that aside from a small retainer fee, a lawyer doesn't charge you unless he actually does something. A Union, meanwhile, is more than happy to siphon your paycheck for decades without doing a damn thing.

Also, if there's a law protecting your job, you don't need a Union to enforce it, just a lawyer. If you have a Union, plus a law protecting your job, now you pay the Union, then they go hire the lawyers on top of that. Unions are primarily useful in situations where there is NOT a law protecting the workers.

Actually most if not all of the laws protecting workers came as a DIRECT RESULT of unions.

The misinformation here is appalling

[John M. Miano]

I have had a friend working in my office for the past couple of days. He has been asking me questions related to the post here. I finally am going to step in myself.

Replacing Americans with low paid foreign workers, as as Disney, is what the H-1B program is DESIGNED TO DO. Disney is not an accident. Politicians, like Rubio, may say otherwise but what they say and what they do are two different things.

It is perfectly legal to replace an American with an H-1B worker (even if Disney had down so without using Infosys) unless:

1. The H-1B worker is paid less than $60,000; AND

2. The H-1B worker does not have a graduate degree; AND

3. The employer has more than 15% of its total workforce on H-1B visas not counting those making $60,000 or having a graduate degree.

The national average wage for a computer worker is $84,000 (much higher in NYC and California where H-1B workers are more prevalent). Pay the worker $60,000 and you can replace Americans at will. Effectively, any employer can replace Americans at will in technology fields.

Infosys alone generates 8 figures a year in lawyer fees for H-1B visas. If Infosys cannot replace Americans, it is not getting H-1B visas. If it doe not get H-1B visas, there are no legal fees for lawyers. If there are no legal fees for lawyers, the lawyers cannot run their yachts. Therefore, American programmers are expendable.

If you go to the top of 8 USC 1182(n)(1), yes it says H-1B workers have to be paid the prevailing wage. But moved down to 8 USC 1182(p) and you find that Congress requires the Department of Labor to provide 4 skill-based prevailing wages. As the provisions dictate, the result is

Skill Level 1: 17th percentile of wages for the occupation and location. Employers classify 50% of H-1B workers here.

Skill Level 2: 34th percentile. 32% of H-1B workers

Skill Level 3: Median wage. 12% of H-1B workers

Skill Level 4: 64th percentile 6% of H-1B worker

Go to FLCDATACENTER.COM and you can see the wage savings by going H-1B for any occupation and location combination. You can see that this system is designed to allow employers to pay H-1B worker ridiculously low wages.

Those of you are hare saying that Disney came about due to a lack of enforcement are WRONG. What happened at Disney, under the H-1B program, IS PERFECTLY LEGAL. Maybe Ms. Blackwell can win on some other grounds. I wish her luck,.

You can read the complete details in Sold Out: http://www.amazon.com/Sold-Out...

The H-1B program is deliberately convoluted and designed to make the casual reader believe something different from reality. I spent two hours on Monday walking another lawyer who initially could not believe it was legal to replace Americans with low paid H-1B workers through the twists and turns of the H-1B statutes.

If you are posting nonsense like this—"It is not the law. H1B Visas are not meant to replace US worker force but to supplement the the workforce. It also expressly forbids paying workers lower wages. Look it up sometime. The problem is enforcement and the companies that game the system."—showing publicly that you don't know what you are talking about, I suggest you start listening and reading; rather than talking.

When you "look it up sometime" be sure you pay special attention to:

1. Defining an "H-1B Dependent Employer"

2. Defining an "exempt H–1B nonimmigrant"

3. The restrictions imposed on enforcement

4. The prevailing wage provisions of 8 USC 1182(p).

You will find that H-1B is, quite simply, the best legislation money can buy.

Congress needs to be held accountable. The problems with H-1B (and H-1B is just the tip of the iceberg), can only be fixed by Congress.

Otherwise, we lawyers can laugh all the way to the bank.

Standing up without a union?

[John M. Miano]

Unions these days have a number of structural problems that I will not delve into hear. However, I will point out that when Southern California Edison replaced its American workers with H-1B workers last year, notice its was non-union workers that got replaced and the Americans that stayed. If I were running a union, that would be one of my marketing points. It is true that Americans programmers at all these companies that have been H-1Beeing could have prevented their own jobs losses by collectively following Nancy Reagan's advice: JUST SAY NO. The fact of the matter is that H-1Beeing has been going on at least since 1994 and NOT ONE company doing it has had the slightest problem getting their soon-to-be-ex-American-workers dig their own graves. NOT ONE. The programmer motto has been "Thank you sir. May I have another?" I throw this out as a serious question: If no unions be needed, when are Americans going to stand up without one? No, you don't kneed a union to stand up when the employer says "Train your foreign replacement." But the fact of the matter is no one stands up without a union.

The NFL Problem

[John M. Miano]

Does anyone remember who the two companies that started the outsourcing trend were?

The companies whose leaders were held up as visionaries, who provided a new model for industry to follow?

Anyone?

Anyone?

That's right. Kodak and Enron started this all in the early 1990's. One of the reasons outsource persists in spite of not saving any money is what I call "The NFL Problem."

You're a team owner. It's January. Your team went 4-12. You've just fired your coach. Now you need to find another coach. But you want someone with NFL head coach experience AND you don't want to pay what it would take to get Jimmy Johnson or Bill Parcells out of retirement.

What's then available?

The coach that went 3-13 and just got fired from some other team.

Let's now move into the computer industry. You may have read that Fossil (a company I had never heard of until this event) H-1Beed its Americans. http://dailycaller.com/2015/05...

I turned out that this was a decision made by new IT management Fossil had hired that had previously come from JCPenny. CIO magazine described the situation there as "Mismanagement for the Ages." http://www.cio.com/article/284...

Why in in the world with Fossil want to hire "Mismanagement for the Ages" to run their IT Department?

Just like the NFL owner, they probably wanted "experience" and did not want to pay a lot. That's why you see incompetent CIOs getting fired from one company and moving to another. It's not uncommon to see CIOs creating serial disasters at four or more companies.

Sadly, that is not a topic we got into in Sold Out because it was too industry specific but maybe in another book.

Maximizing Executive Pay

[John M. Miano]

You might say that the sole reason for some corporations to exist is to maximize CEO pay.

Mr. Iger, who actively lobbies for more more H-1B visas was the 2d highest paid executive in the country. http://money.cnn.com/gallery/n...

In the wake of the Disney H-1Beeing, he got a raise: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Note that Mr. Iger's salary is more than that of the 320 Disney workers who got H-1Bed COMBINED.

And if you total the on-paper savings of replacing those Americans with H-1B workers, it adds up to about what Mr. Iger's RAISE was that year.