Slashdot Mirror


IT Employees At EmblemHealth Fight To Save Jobs (computerworld.com)

Reader dcblogs writes: IT employees at EmblemHealth have united to stop the New York-based employer from outsourcing their jobs to offshore provider Cognizant. Employees say the insurer is on the verge of signing a contract with Cognizant, an IT services firm and one of the largest users of H-1B workers. They say the contract may be signed as early as this week. They fear what a contract with an IT services offshore firm may mean: Humiliation as part of the "knowledge transfer" process, loss of their jobs or a "rebadging" to Cognizant, which they see as little more than temporary employment. Many of the workers, about 200 they estimate, are older, with 15-plus-year tenures. This means a hard job search for them. The IT employees have decided not go quietly. "We're organizing," said one IT employee, who requested anonymity. "We're communicating with one another. They need the knowledge that we have. They can't transition [to Cognizant] without the information that we have. That puts us in a position of strength — they can't fire us for organizing; we're protected by the law," she said.

24 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Get Use To It by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Get use to it. Without H1-B reform (not going to happen under Trump / Clinton) , unless you want to walk out now without "parting gifts", you will be training your replacement. Again, without H1-B reform, this will continue to be the "norm".

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Get Use To It by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      First, H1-B reform isn't going to happen under Cruz (or Clinton). Last I heard, Trump was actually in favor of doing something about the H1-B problem, though he changes his mind so much it's hard to know what he'd really do.

      Anyway, these IT employees might finally have gotten the right idea: unionizing. Yeah, right now, if you refuse to train your replacement, then you can just be terminated and not get that juicy severance package. That works just fine when you're eliminating only part of the workforce. When you're replacing them all, and then they decide to unionize and none of them will train their replacements, that strategy doesn't work: those IT employees have all the institutional knowledge, and the company is just going to fail without it being passed on. The company can certainly just terminate them all and have the replacements try to figure it out on their own, but good luck with that. It'd be funny as hell to see a big news report about a company like this doing just that, and then having to declare bankruptcy shortly after when the whole thing collapses.

    2. Re:Get Use To It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Get use to it. Without H1-B reform (not going to happen under Trump / Clinton) , unless you want to walk out now without "parting gifts", you will be training your replacement. Again, without H1-B reform, this will continue to be the "norm".

      H1B reform MIGHT happen under Trump.

      It WON'T happen under Clinton. You don't have $20 million to "donate" to the Clinton Foundation. Even if Hillary said she'd support H1B reform, would you believe her even for a millisecond? There's no money in it for her.

      And all you Clinton apologists can wail, "SO'S EVERYONE ELSE!!!" And you'll be lying too. Please. Show us another national-level pol with the history of corruption that Hillary! has. Anyone who has anything like a $1000 investment with a trader that has dealings with the government somehow growing to $100,000 - go ahead, name 'em.

    3. Re:Get Use To It by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Back in the 1980's the US Air Traffic Controllers went on strike, and Reagan fired them all with a prevision that they could not be rehired for many, many years. Jets still flew.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Get Use To It by Holi · · Score: 5, Informative

      A long time? No banned from federal service for life.

      And yeah no consequences from that at all:

      "the FAA was faced with the task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired, a hard problem to fix as, at the time, it took three years in normal conditions to train a new controller.They were replaced initially with nonparticipating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some nonrated personnel, and in some cases by controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. Some military controllers were also used until replacements could be trained. The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it would take closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal."

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    5. Re:Get Use To It by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two slight differences, though -

      1) Reagan had a large pool of former military ATC folks who were able to practically jump into the job. PATCO didn't really expect that to happen.

      2) Air traffic was a whole lot lighter back then.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:Get Use To It by vivaoporto · · Score: 4, Interesting
      From the Wikipedia, emphasis mine:

      On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life.

      In the wake of the strike and mass firings, the FAA was faced with the task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired, a hard problem to fix as, at the time, it took three years in normal conditions to train a new controller.

      They were replaced initially with nonparticipating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some non rated personnel, and in some cases by controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. Some military controllers were also used until replacements could be trained.

      The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it would take closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal.

      The only reason that was possible was because

      1) the public sentiment was favourable to empty the power of what was perceived to be very corrupt institutions (the unions)

      2) the government could get away with things the private sector would never ever be allowed, like using non rated personnel or military air controllers or taking 10 years instead of 3 to normalise the situation and

      3) because you, the american people, was there to pick up the tab so no expenses would be spared to break up not only that union but the whole concept of collective bargaining, striking and fighting in equal footing for workers right.

      For reference see what happened in the U.K, about the same time.

      The situation is not very similar to the workers mentioned in TFA although the only thing they would get by unionise would be to get the company to declare bankruptcy and to reemerge with another name in the same geographical area, same business plan and most likely same portfolio of customers (but without the workers).

    7. Re: Get Use To It by kenh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you talking about the repeal of Glass-Steagall? That was under Clinton Administration, not Reagan.

      --
      Ken
    8. Re:Get Use To It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am no Trump fan, but who would he be a puppet to? The Republican establishment has alienated him, so if he wins, they won't be pulling the strings. He's predominately using his own funds, so the special interest groups won't be pulling the strings. He's a Washington outsider, so they won't be pulling the strings. So who, pray tell, would he be a puppet for?

    9. Re:Get Use To It by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Back in the 1980's the US Air Traffic Controllers went on strike, and Reagan fired them all with a prevision that they could not be rehired for many, many years. Jets still flew.

      Of course, none of the air traffic controllers walked off the job until all of the jets under their coverage were safely on the ground or transferred to other air traffic control zones. The public was never in danger from that strike any more than if pilots go on strike, the passengers in flight are in danger. Sure, something can go wrong, but the pilots still fulfill their obligation to the public until the plane is safely at the gate and the passengers disembark.

      As for the jets still flying, the FAA grounded over 50% of all scheduled flights and 60% of smaller airports because of safety reasons. So, it would be more accurate to say that "some" jets still flew. Ironically, the price tag of what the air traffic controllers were asking for was around $770M. The government paid about 50% more than that, by the time everything was said and done and back to normal. So, while Reagan put the air traffic controllers in their place, it cost the taxpayer almost $400M more than if he had not done so.

  2. Re:good luck with that by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not, the company is acting antagonistically against them. The only people who benefit if the workers remain quiet is the company.

  3. Re:Refuse to transfer knowledge by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Usually they offer a somewhat reasonable severance package that you only get if you agree to transfer the knowledge. That's about the only carrot they have, of course, but for many people it works.

    There is, however, a big difference between transferring information and knowledge. Information is "this is how you do X;" knowledge is 15 years of experience doing the job and knowing the pitfalls and how to negotiate them to keep things working. You can meet all the requirements of a severance package by transferring information without worrying about the knowledge. Besides, if Josephine is also losing her job does the newbie need to know to go to her if something bad happens, so she can get help from Bob, who is also now gone?

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  4. Re:Take Your Vacation, Find A New Job by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is a bad IT Staff can still keep the company running. While a good staff if allowed can have the company expand and grow.

    However the real question other than years of experience is their staff actually really good at their job?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. Monkeywrench the replacement training by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not just monkeywrench the replacement training?

    Train them wrong. Give them incomplete information. Be anti-social. Make a game and see how long you can go answering only yes or no. Basically make the training as empty and useless as possible. Waste time on useless details. Take long shits.

    Obviously, no active sabotage, that would be a problem. But who says you have to be any good at the training?

    1. Re:Monkeywrench the replacement training by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Give them incomplete information. Be anti-social...Take long shits...

      How is this a change?
         

    2. Re:Monkeywrench the replacement training by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Julian?

      I knew a dude who, whenever he started drinking, would preach the gospel of 'Always shit at work, take your time, last year my boss paid me $10k for shitting, I'm always holding it on the drive in...'

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. Re:Change passwords by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How did that work out for Terry Childs? Admittedly he did a more extreme thing than that, but the sentiment is roughly the same.

    I applaud the sentiment these folks have, but I expect they will barely slow down the wood chipper as they pass through. They are a lot more expendable than they realize, and it will barely cause a hiccup in operations.

  7. Re:who does knowledge belong to? by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're dead wrong on that account. My employer pays for my time. I still own the knowledge and skill that I utilize in order to make that time worth anything. Just like when you hire a plumber, you don't own the tools that he brings to the job even though they are intrinsic to his employment.

  8. Re:Refuse to transfer knowledge by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Depends on the scope... and all it takes is for one key group of people (*nix sysadmins, say) to refuse and stand firm on that refusal.

    Personally, if I worked for EmblemHealth, I'd be doing a couple of things right now:

    1) start looking for another job - like yesterday.

    2) dutifully record every last transgression made by the organization against HIPAA, SOX, and any other authority the organization is subject to. Then start sending emails to the uppers stating those problems, and asking for $$$ to fix it. Word them as if it's no big deal, but it really is a big deal, so as to give yourself a big cushion. Carefully record the expected refusals and store them offsite if you can. After leaving, blow the whistle, because odds are perfect they haven't complied by then if they hadn't complied by the time you left.

    (and now for some fun ones, made mostly in jest, you understand...)

    3) "Wow - for some odd reason I can't seem to locate all the really critical documentation! Where did it all go?"

    4) carefully scrutinize every last labor law for the state. Do your level best to find transgressions against it (especially when it comes to discrimination laws)

    5) as an extension to #5, record every spoken conversation, on your phone if you can. save the bits that could be construed as discrimination or suchlike.

    6) "Training is going to take a lot longer than I thought..."

    7) "I just got hired on to XYZ corp, but I won't start for a month. I'll be happy to transfer my critical knowledge at consultancy fees of $400/hr..." (just be damned sure you have that critical knowledge, have a job waiting for you, and that said knowledge isn't already documented somewhere).

    8) carefully study the BOFH archives... see what you can put to use. ;)

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  9. Those 2% raises don't add up over time... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many of the workers, about 200 they estimate, are older, with 15-plus-year tenures. This means a hard job search for them.

    As an IT support contractor who works one day to one year per assignment, I hate dealing with people who has been around forever in the IT department. They think that being a contractor is a novelty, joke about getting laid off and taking a six-month vacation on unemployment benefits, and have no clue what they're worth in the job market. The worst part is that all their knowledge is inside their heads and not documented anywhere else. I had two friends who ended up working at drug stores because they fell into this trap, took a six-month vacation and discovered that no wanted to hire them with obsolete job skills. Because they stopped learning after they got out of school, they couldn't change their circumstances and settled for less.

    1. Re:Those 2% raises don't add up over time... by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing is.. I'm not really clear on what IS a job skill that is in demand.. I could spend the next year learning everything about Java, but when my training is done if there are no Java jobs that are better than the job I had before then I have done myself a disservice. Plus people should be able to live to work not work to live. If I have to spend all my personal time learning things for the next job then there isn't much point being in technology at all.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  10. Re:what Trump is, and isn't by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Trump is a businessman, that means he steer clear of unprofitable ventures.

    Four business bankruptcies later...

  11. Re:Refuse to transfer knowledge by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Depends on the scope... and all it takes is for one key group of people (*nix sysadmins, say) to refuse and stand firm on that refusal.

    If your refusal to do knowledge transfer prevents someone from operating a system you maintain, then you are very bad at your job. If a bus hit me tomorrow, any of my coworkers could pick up the systems I maintain using the documentation. Worse case, if a bus took out the entire operations team, someone from outside of the company would be able to use the docs to come up to speed.

    If you've left such sparse documentation that no one can figure out how to maintain your systems, the company is better off without you.

  12. Re:Refuse to transfer knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then you work in a rare company where staff is doubled or tripled up. Many places hire exactly 2 fewer people than they should, and spread all of their jobs out pretty wide.

    Almost every place that I've worked has been set up this way to save on costs. Generally people leaving under good terms will continue to get phone calls and emails for assistance for at least 2-3 months.