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.

Comments

Re:"Employees are now training their replacements.

[Voogru]

I'd train them.

Poorly.

Yeah, rm -rf / –

That's how you fix it.

Re:This is why Trump is popular.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. I'm for Trump because he might fight for American citizens. Maybe. Sure, he might be lying, but no one else running even bothered to lie about fighting for actual Americans.

The current crop of Republicans in power are useful only for immediately dropping to their knees and gently sucking Obama's cock whenever he looks at them sternly. (Ryan swallows and asks piteously for more.)

Trump probably won't be able to accomplish much even if he gets elected, but at least he might fight.

Re:They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b

[haruchai]

"You don't get that with rigid labor markets"
Let's try something more flexible like outsourcing the management.
No golden parachutes for fuckups.

Re: "Employees are now training their replacements

[DrXym]

That depends on how you commit sabotage. I refer you to this WW2 OSS manual on Simple Sabotage that showed inventive ways of screwing up productivity without putting saboteurs at undue risk. Many of the techniques would be quite applicable to anyone today who held a grudge against their employer.

Re:Free Trade

[sycodon]

NY and Kentucky still must adhere to national labor laws.

Bumfuck India does not.

Lot's of talk going around about leveling the playing field, but offshoring of any jobs is definitely not a level playing field.

Even though I can be pretty Right Wong on stuff, I don't it's unreasonable to say if you are going to enjoy US distributions systems, regulations, and misc infrastructure, and most of all a consumer market that pays the prices you are asking for, then you need to make your stuff or support your services here. Feel free to build shit in China or India...but sell it there for the prices you can get there.

THAT, is a level playing field.

Re:Free Trade

[jawtheshark]

Look, I understand your perspective. Let me tell you a little story. In the time of our parents, it was not uncommon to start at an employer and work there for the full 40 years. You took care of them, they took care of you.

My father was like that. He started as a young man in 1973 in a large bank, and he did have a really nice career. Granted, I never saw him. He was always at work, always. He did it for us, I know that. He earned well, and could provide us with a good life and my mother stayed home for us.

Then something changed in the early nineties, I don't know what, but I suspect company culture, because my father worked hard. One day, end 1992, he came home and he told us he "had been let go". Basically, "on the spot", because due to his responsibilities he could do way too much damage. I was also superbly timed: a few months more, and he'd have worked there for 20 years instead of 19, which would have doubled his legal severance package.

My mother and my father were shocked. Both expected him to stay with the same company as had both my grandfathers. My father, was -by then- 45 years old. Try getting a job at that age. It took ages before he found anything again, and then it were basically consulting gigs that kept us afloat until he retired.

I was a teenager, when that all happened. It made a profound impact on me, never to trust your employer ever. I'm not going to give you all my time, I'm not going to continue to work for you if you refuse to give me raises. I will leave you.

I doubt, it's the employees that stopped being loyal... I believe that the employee-employer trust has been broken, and I doubt it was the employees doing the first step.