Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper Chain CEO 'Pleased' To Announce IT Plan, Then Fires Tech Staff (computerworld.com)
dcblogs writes from a report on Computerworld: The McClatchy Company, which operates a major chain of newspapers in the U.S., is moving IT work overseas. The number of affected jobs, based on employee estimates, range from 120 to 150. The chain owns about 30 newspapers, including The Sacramento Bee, where McClatchy is based; The Fresno Bee, The News and Observer in Raleigh, N.C., The State in Columbia, S.C. and the Miami Herald. In a letter sent to the chain's IT employees in late March, McClatchy CEO Patrick Talamantes detailed all the improvements a contract with the outsourcing firm, India-based Wipro, will bring, but buries, well down in the letter what should have been in its lead paragraph: There will be cutbacks of U.S. staff. The letter received by McClatchy's IT employees from Talamantes begins by telling them [the company] is "pleased to unveil our new IT Transformational Program, a program designed to provide improved service to all technology users, accelerated development and delivery of technology solutions and products, variable demand-based technology resources and access to modern and cutting-edge skills and platforms." Seven paragraphs down in the letter, he lowers the boom: "As we embark on the implementation phase, there will be a realignment of resources requiring a reduction in McClatchy technology staff." IT employees thought they were part of the solution to McClatchy's tech direction, not the problem. Said one IT employee: "This has taken us all by surprise. I'm not saying that we felt untouchable as they have been doing layoffs for the past 10 years, but being part of IT we felt that we had a big part in what happens" in the company. Employees are now training their replacements.
And when the replacements are H1B's they are breaking the law.
If we just had a union!
"Employees are now training their replacements" gets me fuming each and every time. If I'm being laid off because I'm a shit worker, that's one thing. Skipping meetings, missing deadlines. Shit like this though? Fuck, if I'm not a valued asset then neither are my years of experience and collected knowledge. These assclowns can get in the god damn ocean, I wouldn't train a single one of these dipshits.
If only someone could figure out how to outsource CEOs overseas...
I don't know if the Donald is being genuine or just opportunistic, but his messages about loss of American jobs, unfair trade agreements, and corporate behavior is why so many people will put up with his other flaws. They see both current parties as out of touch and not fighting for their needs. IMHO we can't blame these companies as they are operating to maximize shareholder value within the current set of rules (laws, regulations). We should be blaming the government for propagating a set of rules that encourage practices that cause loss of jobs. While I'm no protectionist, we DO need some balance. I find it reprehensible that people have to train their own lower-cost and offshore replacements.
Here in the US, "This is awful, we're losing our jobs!"
In India, "Hooray! We're getting jobs!"
Who are we to side with more?
Well, editorials of this newspaper were calling all the names for daring to touch the subject of outsourcing. But these are not the editors' and article writers' jobs that are on the chopping block.
This is the reason that most of the newspapers are doing rather badly with no profit to show.
Being politically correct has a price. Chicken came to roost. They always come. One way or another.
"Employees are training their replacements", I hear that often.
I hope they're spending all their hours at work prioritising job hunting and not training the replacements. Loyalty is two way.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
And there are plenty of European countries with strong IT job markets.
IT salaries in America are higher than in most European countries, and tech unemployment, at about 3%, is lower.
They also protect their working class.
The best route to prosperity for working people is a thriving economy. You don't get that with rigid labor markets.
He's making an announcement to the entire company. Difficult as that may be to believe, IT staff isn't actually the most popular group of employees in many companies.
So, roughly translated, his message reads: "Rejoice, journalists, artists, writers, editors, and business people, our ornery and expensive IT staff is being replaced with more efficient and friendlier overseas staff, and we're going to save money too!"
(Whether this is going to work out as planned is, of course, another question.)
It's not sabotage and you could never prove it without documentary evidence of a deliberate conspiracy.
I'm not a trainer or an educator. I have no background in training. Presumably any reasonable job in IT involves a lot of fairly complex skills which I am not competent to instruct others on doing in anything but an informal manner, especially under the duress of a looming and forced period of unemployment.
I did a shitty job of training? Probably at least as shitty as I do plumbing, haircuts, landing an airplane or any other skilled task which I am not specifically trained to do. You have to have a college degree and a license to teach children to count to 10, and you expect perfection when I train someone, particularly from a foreign country less skilled in English, in how to do my job?
Fuck you. Fuck you for importing people to do a job so you can get rich(er), fuck you for treating my career keeping your under-capitalized IT system running as if it was a cookie recipe. How about you train me to do your job asshole? Oh, that's right, executives have innate magical skills that warrant six figure salaries and incentives.
If your 6 rupees for a dozen replacements do a terrible job, don't blame my training for being inadequate.
Slashdot, as of late, appears to discuss less technology and more of this drivel. There are too many stories about jobs being outsourced. And the usual "freedom loving" crowd is begging politicians and anybody who will listen to force companies, one way or another, to not outsource. It did not work for manufacturing jobs, but somehow it might just work for their service sector jobs
You people need to adjust your expectations. You don't need a new plan B. You need a better plan A. If you think your job is in danger of being outsourced, do not expect someone else to come in and save it.
And for crying out loud, stop with the freaking doom and gloom. You guys sound like a bunch of griefers. Every story is filled with people whining about something or trying to recycle really old jokes about Soviet Russia or some shit like that.
I have been hitting Slashdot out of habit over the years. But man, this shit is getting old.
So if a company in New York finds that they can run their factory more efficiently and thus sell their low-margin products more competitively, by firing their NY staff and moving operations to Kentucky, would that also be wrong? Be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Guess who earned that NY company the money to "move their operations to Kentucky"
Too hard for you to figure out?
Not specific enough?
The problem here -- and it's always been the problem, frankly -- is that the worker is considered a commodity. Not the foundation of the business, which is what they actually are.
It's perfectly ok to fuck your employees for a dollar.
That's what you are saying, right?
Sure. It's fine. They can starve, etc. it's ok. Long as you get an upgrade on your beemer, eh?
Fuck you. Really. Just fuck you.
the worker is considered a commodity. Not the foundation of the business, which is what they actually are.
Ah, I can see you've never actually founded anything. I've started businesses, and believe me, I am the foundation of those businesses. And I've worked with PLENTY of (topically, here) IT people who consider employers to be commodities, exhibiting exactly zero loyalty as soon as a recruiter drops them an email with a slightly better offer. The foundation of the business is the person or group of people who conceived of it, came up with the funding for it, and deal with the crushing load of tax, compliance, and other legal and financial burdens involved in keeping it alive - including dealing the constant churn of employees who very much see them as a commodity - a place where they can work eight or ten hours a day and take home some cash and other benefits.
It's perfectly ok to fuck your employees for a dollar.
That's what you are saying, right?
Are you suggesting that it's illegal for either the employee or the employer to walk away from an "at will" arrangement? Are you suggesting that the both the employer and the employee should be forced to continue a relationship they don't want ... or that only the employer should be forced to, but the employee can do whatever they want.
I get it. You think that everyone who starts a business is suddenly a slave to the state, and to anyone that wants a paycheck from them. You're exactly the sort of entitled, lazy bum that's chasing businesses and jobs out of the country.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's an interesting opinion.
Let's face it, though: The same technology that allows me to work from home also allows someone in a place with an extremely low cost-of-living to compete with me, whether that location is Murrieta, CA or Memphis, TN, or Mumbai, India. If someone has the skills that I have and will work for half the price, why wouldn't a company take advantage of that?
Frankly, I have no problem with this. I don't like it, sure, but it's something I can compete against. I can move to a less expensive area. I can boost my skills. And if a company is looking for the cheapest workers, I'm not sure that's the kind of company I want to work for, anyway.
Where I have the problem is the, "Oh, we need H1B Visas so these people can come to the US and can be trained to do the work you do now." Uh, no. The idea behind H1Bs is that these people have skills that American workers don't have. If I have to train my replacement, then he obviously does not have skills that I, as an American worker, have.
No what we're saying is that if you're benefiting from the generous US tax structure that favors business taxation over individual taxation(if you're doing it right and not doing a sole proprietorship) then you should be employing those people whom allow for that to happen, not abusing the H1B system to create a system of indentured servitude in the US. The tax structure in the US is so out of whack that a tiny sliver are not paying the percentages that they used to,which were...punitive to say the least,and that has swing so far to the other direction that those at the top of the wealth pyramid are essential transferring wealth to themselves and setting the country up for another great depression. We're basically at 1920s levels for income disparity and that's a problem for a functioning capitalist society as well as a functioning democracy and with the advent of the internet news cycle we've seen a huge swing away from journalism to yellow journalism. Your business may be (hopefully) doing well now, but if this trend keeps happening you're mortgaging against your future for short term profits on the backs of the American worker and no one wants to see your business fail, America go into depression, or a jobless economy.
You wouldn't have such a hard time retaining personnel if you paid better than market rate(if your shop is a shit show and/or bad culture you need golden handcuff level pay) and offered raises as their experience working for you grew their resume. It's called "retention" it is as much your job as a business owner as paying your taxes. Did you think the employee OWES you loyalty as their flat wage salary was eroded by inflation? Lack of loyalty is a two way street, and employees' willingness to forego self-interest is limited to the history of similar acts of good will they've received in kind). Loyalty/obligation also has a "time-value of money" sort of relationship to time, so a nice thing a long time ago isn't as meaningful as a broken promise recently.
Bottom line: cry me a river.
I get it. You think that everyone who starts a business is suddenly a slave to the state, and to anyone that wants a paycheck from them. You're exactly the sort of entitled, lazy bum that's chasing businesses and jobs out of the country.
Actually, I believe fervently that business owners should leave the country as they outsource.
Tell me - and try not to go hyperbolic like you did with the other guy. Should Americans be paid the same as the people that you outsource to? How about making a universal non management pay of 1 dollar a day. At that point, I suspect you mimght consider keeping jobs in America?
So now, you are making the money you deserve as a founder, and a job creator, and those American takers will be making what "entitled, lazy bums" deserve. And should thank you for it while they are at it.
So when all of us lazy bums are unemployed or making third world wages, you better be selling food, because that's where most of their money goes to. Because we'll be doing the same thing. And as "entitled lazy bums" it will be well deserved to only have money foro the most basic of life's needs.
Because you appear to willingly see only one side of the equation. In the world of money matters, there are two, and they should be balanced
1. People need to make shit and make money selling it.
2. People need to make money to buy shit that people who make shit to mke money so that people who make shit can make money.
And in parting, you really should move to wherever you outsource the jobs to - they'll buy your stuff as we takers assume our well deserved collapse. And you won't have to deal with all of us "entitled lazy bums." that you very obviously hate with a white hot passion. Let us know - we'll have a party for you.
The day after you leave, because if you can't hire us "entitled lazy bums' - you are no job creator - you're a parasite.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's an interesting opinion.
Let's face it, though: The same technology that allows me to work from home also allows someone in a place with an extremely low cost-of-living to compete with me, whether that location is Murrieta, CA or Memphis, TN, or Mumbai, India. If someone has the skills that I have and will work for half the price, why wouldn't a company take advantage of that?
And then you can move there, and work for less money.
Altogether too many people seem to thing that American workers are a black hole that you put money into and they never do a thing with it. Well paid people have a tendency to pay well.
There is a tipping point, and we might be right abou there, where the overpaid Americans who "deservedly" lose their good paying jobs, and have to work for a lot less, simply won't have teh money to continue to buy the stuff that the job creaters expect them to buy.
People have to have money to buy the things that people build to sell to make money on. And gaming the world's economies to accumulate greater wealth will only work for so long.
The very best possible outcome of this game is that eventually everyone in the world will be paid the same. Then everyone will be lazy privileged takers. Then weirdworld might happen - a total reversal - where the job creators have to figure out ways for the rest of us to make enough money to buy more and more of their stuff every quarter. I kinda doubt that the days of people having several maxed out credit cards are going to return, so wages might have to increase, not decrease.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Should Americans be paid the same as the people that you outsource to
Why should they? Cost of living in the US is substantially higher than it is in, say, India. A person who wants a decent living in the US needs to be offering an employer something they can't get from someone in India - something worth so much more that the employer is willing to write a much, much larger check for that person's time than he's willing to write to someone in India. For some employers, having a staff that's part of the local culture, speaking comfortably in the local style and able to communicate smoothly with local customers and vendors (all other skills being equal) is WELL worth the difference. Obviously for others, it's not. I've watched clients of mine head off to Indian shops, and then come running back to US-based staff less than a year later, having painfully learned their lesson.
And you won't have to deal with all of us "entitled lazy bums.
Happily, I don't have to deal with such people. I work with people every bit as entrepreneurial as I am, and with unassailable work ethics. The lazy asses I'm talking about are out there, and you KNOW they are. I don't hate them, because I'd rather just ignore them. But unfortunately the people in that entitlement culture have politicians scrambling to tell them they're right that people who start businesses are always the villains. Which would be funny (since everyone seems to want to find one of those businesses to give them a paycheck), if the hypocrisy wasn't so strong that it confuses people into voting for anyone who promises them free stuff and the spectacle of tearing down Eeeeevil business owners (even as they promise to pay for the free stuff through the ongoing taxing of those they want to destroy - the cognitive dissonance is really something).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sure, actually starting a business from the ground up is tough unless you've got some angel investors propping you up. However, the CEO of most Fortune 500 companies are not the founders. It is an all-to-common tale that once the original founder/CEO is out of the picture, the PHBs take over.
Jobs and Wozniak were the foundation of Apple. Jobs was kicked out and then the company nearly went bankrupt. It took his return to save the company, and it is already apparent that Cook isn't up to the task that Jobs left behind. Similarly, HP used to make kick ass stuff, because it was a company that actually valued engineering talent. That went out the door when the founders were out of the picture. Now I wouldn't touch HP goods and services with a ten foot pole. They've driven all of the competent workers out of the organization.
Ultimately, loyalty is a two way street. If your IT guys consistently leave the moment a "slightly" better offer shows up, then there are probably additional factors at play that make you an undesirable employer. My employer is not the best, but I would be hesitant to simply pick up and leave for merely a "slightly" better offer. I've invested many years with my current team and you'd probably have to offer me at least 10k more a year for me to seriously consider bailing.
The Obama administration sued Boeing for moving jobs from Seattle to South Carolina. So yes, some people believe that moving jobs from higher costs areas to lower cost areas, even within America, is wrong.
The problem is that if you don't allow existing companies to hire employees in lower cost areas then they will eventually go out of business when their new competitors open shop in the lower cost area and offers a cheaper product.
It sounds like you're the person that is disloyal if your employees jump ship the second that a *sightly* better offer comes around. Did you ever ask yourself why they were jumping ship? Or did you just file it under "worthless disloyal PoS", not bother with figuring out why they left in such a hurry, and start working to correct that so that the next time an offer comes around the "worthless disloyal PoS" might consider their current job more stable and worthwhile?
Most people, whether they are an employee or an employer, will not suddenly change their current arrangements unless they feel that provides a better long term solution. An employee that knows that their work is important to their employer and that the employer is appreciative of their work is a lot less likely to jump at the first offer given to them than the employee that knows their work is just a line item on an expense sheet and that they are replaceable meatsacks as far as their job is concerned. Conversely, an employer that treats their employees as valuable assets and actually cares about the well-being of their employees is more likely to keep them than an employer that treats the employee like a subhuman inanimate object and pays them less than what they need to pay their bills at the end of the month.
In short, both sides must respect and trust one another for the employment relationship to work long term.
Another aspect since you brought it up, (the entitlements), is justified. Why? Because if the damn employer would pay their employees enough to pay their bills, the "entitlements" wouldn't need to be enforced by the government. If you as an employer think that an uninsured, one missed paycheck away from bankruptcy, employee that constantly works an ever-changing number of hours on different days at different times, in an unsafe environment, while being afforded no chance to socialize (at work or at home), have anytime to themselves, or even have a lunch that doesn't involve inhaling their food, is a good business decision then you are:
A. Insane if you think that such conditions or any combination thereof would not break the employee's will to continue working.
B. A sociopath if you think that such conditions or any combination thereof would inspire ANY form of trust with the employee or the job market in general.
C. Corrupt if you think that such conditions or any combination thereof is fair working conditions for your employees.
D. Beyond hope if you think that such conditions or any combination thereof wouldn't harm society as a whole or that the employees wouldn't want to jump for greener pastures given their current conditions.
If you as an employer don't want to be forced by the government to pay for all of this, then clean up your own workplace and keep it clean of your own accord, treat your employees like human beings, and pay your employees enough so they can buy the services they need and pay their bills themselves. Otherwise, if you want to run a skeleton crew sweatshop and pad the profit margin as much as possible to the determent of your workforce, then yes the government will need to step in to protect the workforce from you.
Also "at will" employment is just code for "we can fire you for any reason, deal with it." Typically, an employee that gets fired without warning, winds up spending 6+ months looking for another job. (Especially if they have no real special skill set.) 6+ months that unless their former employer payed the unemployment taxes on their former position, (there are those "entitlements" again!), and they can qualify for them, (government likes tightening it's belt too, in addition to fudging the unemployment numbers), the former employee goes without a form of income and still has bills to pay. Given that situation, there shouldn't be any question as to why an employee is always on the lookout for the next job offer. They want to have something lined up in the event they get fired, so that they can continue paying their bills.
Well, this might seem really weird to you, but the second scenario is how it works in pretty much every country in Europe. "At will" employment contracts are largely illegal.
The employer can't get rid of you unless one of these is the case:
Note that in the last case, you won't be required to train your replacement, because it's your position which is being made redundant, not you.
For their part, employees have to work their notice period, which for some difficult-to-recruit positions can be as long as six months.
Note that Germany has some of the strongest laws on employee rights, and also is one of the most productive countries in Europe. Germany is also the third largest exporter in the world, only slightly behind the USA (not bad for a country with a quarter of the population and a fraction of the natural resources). I'm not saying there's a cause and effect, but I am saying that productivity and employee rights can co-exist.
No, it's the ruthless and uncontrolled search for profits that are chasing businesses and jobs out of the country. Businesses are not motivated by enforcing some idealist "protestant work ethic". It's all about the money. US workers cannot compete with Indian workers: they don't have access to their cost of living, for one thing.
If an employer wants loyalty from employees, they only need pay them a fair rate for the job and provide decent conditions and the employees will stay.
If an employee wants loyalty from an employer in the US, they're shit out of luck.
The problem is that if you don't allow existing companies to hire employees in lower cost areas then they will eventually go out of business when their new competitors open shop in the lower cost area and offers a cheaper product.
"Lower cost areas" which is double-speak for "right-to-work states", where unions are much less powerful....
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....