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.

291 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. Employees are now training their replacements. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And when the replacements are H1B's they are breaking the law.

    If we just had a union!

    1. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "If we just had a union!"

      Then we'd pay the union dues and the jobs would still go overseas.

    2. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget, at one time unions forced massive reforms that were taken for granted decades later and to some extent still are. Things like the 8 hour day, workplace safety, better pay. I have no doubt some unions have become corrupt over time, but that doesn't mean a newly formed union can't be effective today.

      For example, what do you suppose the management would do if nobody was willing to train their replacement or answer any questions? Two choices, cancel the layoff or go down in flames.

    3. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like the old employees could have been able to wield those cutting-edge skills without needing to pass them on to the outsourcing company replacing them. Oh well.

      Too bad they chose not to, thus making them part of the problem.

    4. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      But why should teachers be forced to pay union dues if they don't WANT to be part of the union?

    5. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Are you sure?

      I'm going to need a citation for that claim.

    6. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because, due to the union, they end up with more money even after paying the dues than they would have otherwise.

    7. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Then, by that argument, EVERY employee should be forced to pay union dues due to the 40 hour workweek, etc., mentioned elsewhere.

    8. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget, at one time unions forced massive reforms that were taken for granted decades later and to some extent still are. Things like the 8 hour day, workplace safety, better pay. I have no doubt some unions have become corrupt over time, but that doesn't mean a newly formed union can't be effective today.

      I think one of the biggest issues is that there is no organization that lobbies for Technologists at a political level to maintain their interests. This is why it is easy to pit technology professionals from one country against another country and old against young. If it is us vs us then technologists can never be acting in our own interests because we are to busy competing with each other instead of co-operating to promote our interests. It should be the other way around, organizations should be competing for us to work for *them*. As a consequence all or our salaries are lower and it's all our own fault. We have no power because we are individuals saying *unions are bad* then whining when these sorts of things happen.

      Call it what you will, a union, association, organization whatever. We have nothing representing our political interests. We have been naive and we now face the consequences of those many years of naivety. We have to face it before we can fix it. We have to own what we have done to ourselves.

      For example, what do you suppose the management would do if nobody was willing to train their replacement or answer any questions?

      This happened to me over 10 years ago. I was more than willing to train my replacement however everyone of them gave up because it was too difficult. I'm not saying that the work can't be learned but there is more than one way to comply with contractual terms. Mistakes happen and replacements sometimes cause downtime unintentionally whilst they learn, it's just an unfortunate consequence.

      Sometimes people can't learn the easy way and there is certainly no obligation for you to teach it. Sometimes business processes require 2 or 3 times more steps to be certain they will work. If the ineffectualness of the replacement, combined with the "certainty", combined with the inability to innovate (people just surviving cannot innovate) will rapidly make such a plan cost ineffective and rapidly make any board member who suggests it look like a buffoon to the board and shareholders. There needs to be a track record of these failures and failures of the C level careers who suggest it.

      Get creative people, it's what got you here and what will keep you here.

      Two choices, cancel the layoff or go down in flames.

      If I am reading you correctly I think that this is probably the time. Technologists don't need to picket. A passive protest could mean that any infrastructure attack on a company doing this is simply not resisted and no data is recorded, out of hours work is unsuccessful, incorrect commands, don't respond to outages.

      It should only take about 12 days of downtime for any business to be completely on it's knees and willing to negotiate with those who have worked hard to make that business function. 14 days and they will be offering pay rises for you to stay. This is what a technologist's protest should look like. Just because we don't *want* to work in management doesn't mean we don't know what makes business function when threatened. Disney paved the way, and make no mistake *every* technologist here is being threatened and this will happen more and more.

      We either control our own destinies or it will be controlled for us. In the 21st century anyone arguing against us organizing ourselves is effectively saying we should be slaves.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    9. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by caseih · · Score: 1

      Except that wouldn't such a passive protest result is all manner of criminal charges? "Go slow" might work in other areas of employment, but in IT such things are likely going to be construed as hacking or violating computer security, in which the law has been dramatically strengthened in recent years. What a mess.

    10. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Major+Blud · · Score: 2

      It's not quite that simple....and this is straight from the source you provided.

      "On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day and cut shifts from nine hours to eight, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, and a significant increase in profit margin (from $30 million to $60 million in two years), most soon followed suit."

      Ford wasn't unionized until 1941.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    11. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by sjames · · Score: 2

      Ford is well known for enlightened self-interest. If the management in other companies had bee likewise enlightened, the unions might not have had to apply as much pressure as they did. But even in the case of Ford, the decision to try it wasn't made in a vacuum. Unions had been advocating first for 10 hours, then for 8.

    12. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, at one time unions forced massive reforms that were taken for granted decades later and to some extent still are. Things like the 8 hour day, workplace safety, better pay. I have no doubt some unions have become corrupt over time, but that doesn't mean a newly formed union can't be effective today.

      I have mixed feelings on Unions, but it isn't like corporate culture is all that squeaky-clean either.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      But why should teachers be forced to pay union dues if they don't WANT to be part of the union?

      Why should management have to pay anyone more that doesn't want to belong to the union? I say if a person doesn't want to be in a workplace union, they should have their wages reduced by the amount of the dues. As well as have to negiotiate their own vacation sick leave and retirement programs.

      Now, oyu have an interesting situation. Let's say the non-unionized employees get an extra week of vacation and a better retirement package - that would kill the unions quicker than anything.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re: Employees are now training their replacements. by avocanite · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it's true in this case, but I think some of these 'training your replacement' scenarios involve a severance package that's contingent on your good behavior...

    15. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Then, by that argument, EVERY employee should be forced to pay union dues due to the 40 hour workweek, etc., mentioned elsewhere.

      Why do you say thet? Deduct the dues from their paycheck, and the company keeps that money. Couldn't be more fair than that. The employee would be able to continue in the workplace, and not be encumbered by them having to join a group htey had objections to, and wouldn' be profiting via lack of work expenses others had.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Huh? deducting the dues from their paycheck IS making the employee pay, that's my point.

    17. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't forget, at one time unions forced massive reforms that were taken for granted decades later and to some extent still are. Things like the 8 hour day, workplace safety, better pay.

      People DIED so that we could have a 40-hour work-week. Why, every country but the US just celebrated these protests that gave workers' rights – "May Day." This movement occurred about 120 years ago. The US chose instead to create "Labor Day", which takes place in the Fall, partly to obscure references to the bloody genesis of workers' rights. People DIED for your rights.

      For those in the US, start by reading Wikipedia's entry on the Haymarket Affair. Educate yourself further from there.

    18. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      > Things like the 8 hour day, workplace safety, better pay.

      Unions didn't bring us any of those things, but they did bring huge cuts from our paychecks in states were we don't have the right to work without being forced to be a member of a union.

      See my post, just above yours.

    19. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by sjames · · Score: 1

      How so? It wouldn't be the employees launching the attack, just them not being so particularly fast or proactive in stopping it. If I don't log in at all, I certainly haven't exceeded my authorization, I haven't even used the access I am authorized for.

    20. Re: Employees are now training their replacements. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it does, and as long as the employees are divided, they will fall for the tragedy of the commons and all defect.

      If they're united, they'll recognize that they might prevent their termination if nobody trains their replacement At the least, their employer might sweeten the severance pay.

    21. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Except that wouldn't such a passive protest result is all manner of criminal charges? "Go slow" might work in other areas of employment, but in IT such things are likely going to be construed as hacking or violating computer security, in which the law has been dramatically strengthened in recent years. What a mess.

      I understand what you are getting at but I don't think that is the case. I'm not suggesting anything criminal or exceeding any authorized access.

      This practise of mass training replacements is completely unethical and it is the precursor to a massive salary slide in IT work. This is the end of the party in IT, we are a cost centre and unethical people are constructing methods to reduce that cost. There will be a venomous argument that capital can do what it wants to it's employs, and they are right. However you are still free and you can't be forced to work or do anything, you can only be coerced. If you weren't already the authority with authorized access to a system you wouldn't be training a replacement in the first place.

      Slave or master, choose now to be respected professionals for what we do, or accept that we are no different from burger flippers. Wield power or be subject to it.

      There is no talent or skill we have to overcome this type of deceit. You can only fight deceit with deceit. Business is war, dirty ugly, gloves off war. You have to fight for respect, no one gives it to you. It doesn't matter that you are replaced by incompetent talentless hires. In their eyes you're not a talented individual, you're just another hire: "great worker,,,, sincere" a smile and pat on the back that makes you feel good, is code for you are exploitable, contemptible.

      You are right, it is a mess, I don't like it either, it's our new reality and it's time to get real about sorting the mess out.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    22. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Huh? deducting the dues from their paycheck IS making the employee pay, that's my point.

      Good. That way the non-union employee doesn't profit by it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    23. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      Because, due to the union, they end up with more money even after paying the dues than they would have otherwise.

      This is the argument that people try to make all the time but I don't buy it. Unions are designed to negotiate on your behalf. What if I don't want a union to negotiate on my behalf? What if I think I can negotiate a better deal? If I'm an above average employee there is no reason to think that I couldn't negotiate a better deal than a union that is having to negotiate the same deal for everyone which includes both above average and below average employees. Sure unions are fairer for the underdog but to make the claim that everyone should be forced to pay union dues against their will because they somehow all benefit is a lie. There are definitely employees that could negotiate a better deal on their own and they shouldn't be forced to pay union dues especially if they disagree with the union or are morally opposed to it.

    24. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      If it's illegal now, why do we need unions? A whole lot of good unions did to Detroit.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    25. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Two choices, cancel the layoff or go down in flames.

      If I am reading you correctly I think that this is probably the time. Technologists don't need to picket. ...It should only take about 12 days of downtime for any business to be completely on it's knees and willing to negotiate with those who have worked hard to make that business function. 14 days and they will be offering pay rises for you to stay.

      You think that would be the way it works. It doesn't. Watching the CEOs face as they realized they rolled the wrong dice as you walk out the door?... definitely worth the few weeks severance that might have been offered after training the replacements.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    26. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by kungfool · · Score: 2

      Read your damn history. Unions are the only reason we have the 8 hour workday, and child labor laws. This is barely history and you've already rewritten it in your mind.

    27. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Olsoc... That's the most tortured logic I've seen from you in a while. I'm half convinced you're trolling. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Either by chance or personality type, the IT field workers lack one important thing. It may be because of the independent nature, whatever. I'm not a head doctor - i don't know but I do see it. In one word?

      Solidarity.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    29. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      You think that would be the way it works. It doesn't. Watching the CEOs face as they realized they rolled the wrong dice as you walk out the door?... definitely worth the few weeks severance that might have been offered after training the replacements.

      I agree, I've been there. But we're not unique, we're skilled in a difficult profession. This practise is to pit us against one another so that they can have both and reduce us to beggars. They can only change the state of play, whereas I think we can change the rules if we don't let them pit us against one another.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    30. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by KGIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Slave or master, choose now ...

      False dichotomy! I choose "cable select."

      (No, I'm not too proud of that but it was there and I had to. I'm sort of sorry but not sorry enough to not post this.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    31. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Olsoc... That's the most tortured logic I've seen from you in a while. I'm half convinced you're trolling. ;-)

      Caught me!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by sjames · · Score: 1

      How about your action in your personal short term interest harms both your and everyone else's long term interests. For example, you might not want to train your dirt cheap replacements a year from now. Your best hope to head that off is the union.

      Keep in mind, it isn't always the union alone that wants an all union shop. The ability to negotiate once and be done for the whole workforce can be good for management as well. Will it make you feel better if management signs an exclusive contract with a particular employment agency? (especially one of those with an unofficial Americans need not apply policy).

    33. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Or maybe those cutting-edge skills are just buzz-words for things already being done or buzz-words for things that are ill advised.

      Either way, the GP's point appears to be that they failed to apply them, and that's why the employees were let go. So it kind of doesn't matter if your boss tells you to do a smart thing or a stupid thing: not obeying the boss by doing the thing means getting fired.

    34. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      And what is stopping those people from simply not joining the union? Is a gun held to their head?

      Where I work about one third of the employees are in the union. The rest are on their own.

    35. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      > Slave or master, choose now ...

      False dichotomy! I choose "cable select."

      ba dum *tishhhhhhh* - hilarious.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    36. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Solidarity.

      As usual KGlll, your wisdom is concise.

      a head doctor

      Speaking of which, per our previous conversations, I got mugged by three guys a couple of days ago. I sustained minor injuries and a concussion (and one hell of a headache still). I'm not saying I'm super tough or anything, I'm saying I didn't get killed and they ran away with injuries for their trouble.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    37. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I'm an above average employee there is no reason to think that I couldn't negotiate a better deal than a union

      This is the fallacy that is used to keep your wages down. Maybe you are a little above average, but how does that help you earn more than your co-workers? You don't know how much they are getting, so you can't say "I'm worth 10% more than John". You don't know if John joined at a time when the company had more money for staff, or needed to get someone in quickly or with a specific skill to finish a product and paid over the odds. All you have is some vague idea of what the "going rate" is and how much more you are worth than that.

      And everything things they are above average. No-one goes into a negotiation thinking "I'm worth 20% less than average", or if they do they certainly don't negotiate on that basis. The company knows this so starts low and makes you feel good by conceding a few extra $k, but you have little way of knowing if that final figure was above or below what they expected to pay. And if it was above, maybe they will try to claw it back by not giving you much of a raise.

      I'm not saying unions negotiating salary are the best solution, especially in IT. The best option would be to publish everyone's salaries, to make direct comparison possible. Even that has its down-sides, like making it harder to bullshit your way to a much higher salary when moving company.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Ford was also one company, controlled by a single man, Henry Ford, who aside from his anti-Semitism was a fairly progressive individual.

      Ford's position was an aberration. An exception, not the rule.
      The majority of businesses did not follow his example until forced by law, law that came about because of the efforts of labor organizers and activists.

      As well, the policy coming about by his decree, he also could have reversed it at any time, or by his successors when he was no longer in charge.

      Henry Ford led by example and was part of the coalition that brought it about.
      But to give him sole credit 20 years before it became year, and 20 years before it was widely adopted as a result, is to misconstrue and misrepresent history.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    39. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      And what is stopping those people from simply not joining the union? Is a gun held to their head?

      Where I work about one third of the employees are in the union. The rest are on their own.

      Then you are obviously in a "right to work" state. There are a lot of states where everyone has to join a union (or they are sometime given the option of not joining the union but still paying dues). So they might not be holding a gun to your head but they are requiring you to join the union to get the job. The argument is that everyone receives the "benefits" of the union whether they are a member or not so should be required to pay dues whether they want to or not.

    40. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      because in many cases the union is required to negotiate on their behalf and represent their interests anyway regardless of their membership.
      that's why its often referred to as a "fair share fee".

      now, if the non-members want to give up those protections, those better benefits, and the higher wages...then by all means don't pay the fees.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    41. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      you really that you vs the company is a stronger bargaining position than 100 of you vs the company?

      say, um, I got some beachfront property in Arizona you might be interested in.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    42. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      This is the fallacy that is used to keep your wages down.Maybe you are a little above average, but how does that help you earn more than your co-workers? You don't know how much they are getting, so you can't say "I'm worth 10% more than John". You don't know if John joined at a time when the company had more money for staff, or needed to get someone in quickly or with a specific skill to finish a product and paid over the odds.

      The best option would be to publish everyone's salaries, to make direct comparison possible.

      I agree. Where I work everyone knows everyone else's salary. It's not officially published but everyone knows. I've heard of places that supposedly try to coerce people not to discuss salary and I'm not sure how that is even legal. Unions and many industries have pay grades that are open to scrutiny. Netflix is one of those few companies that does a "mark to market" where pay can go up or down in a given year based on performance. Most companies have a hard time lowering someone once a raise is given. What generally seems to happen is that someone who is "overpaid" just doesn't get raises for a few years until their pay is back in line. The other thing that people should be doing if they want a competitive salary is to apply for a few jobs every couple of years. This lets you know better what you're really worth.

    43. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by SadButResolved · · Score: 1

      The very foundation your start you negotiations upon, are almost certainly a result of some social work force movement that preceeded you. Even the 7 day work week, child labor, etc. etc. Read your history, your going to chop a hole in the boat for your personal gain? Perhaps your already in management trying to fight your way up the food chain so you can retire early?

    44. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Timex · · Score: 1

      The way this reads, the replacements aren't H1B's, but actually off-shore.

      Companies do this crap all the time. If I were informed that I'd be training my replacement, I wouldn't do it. Buggers want to replace me, they can figure out what's going on for themselves.

      The search for cheaper labor is biting India too: they're losing jobs to nations on the African continent, because they'll do things for less than India's workers will.

      --
      When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
    45. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by rgbscan · · Score: 1

      But...but...but.... there's a shortage of IT workers! If only we had kids coding in school and a focus on STEM training in high school!

    46. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by holmstar · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet that a healthy portion of those "off-shore" workers are actually H1Bs working on site as off-shore liaisons. It's a loophole companies can use to hire an H1B when they otherwise would have to look for a local applicant.

    47. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by lordDallan · · Score: 1

      The writing has been on the wall for a long time.

      I wrote this post back in 2007*. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing the Slashdot community's thoughts on how a union/trade group for IT could get started. How did plumbers & electricians do it? Does it have to be the "right time"? Is this the "right time"?

      *apologies for the rant. I was younger and working for a very badly run organization at the time.

    48. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      *facepalm*

      Huh? What? WTF?

      I was reading a discussion about whether unions or enlightened self-interest were the primary motivator for the 8 hour workday/40 hour workweek. It seemed to be going pretty well with comments seeming to converge on the idea that Henry Ford is the kind of business owner who understood enlightened self-interest that we wish were typical of the vast majority of business owners. Then I got to this comment.

      This is more evidence of why the USA is truly fucked.

      I don't know where the hell you got a capitalism vs. socialism dichotomy out of that. I don't even know what the living fuck true socialism is other than some blinkered attempted to give the true Scotsman a shout out. I've heard the argument that Marxism has never been tried before.

      Goodness am I getting so fucking tired of people like you who simply are incapable of engaging in any discussion about a world where there are more than two colors: 100% black and 100% white. At least try grayscale, man!

      Ok, how's this? You hate socialism, right? What's social security retirement? Socialism. Wealth redistribution. What's social security disability? Socialism. Wealth redistribution. What's medicare/medicaid? Socialism. Wealth redistribution.

      I will take you seriously as soon as you can convince the common person to give up their social security and medicaid. Then I will be a 100% believer. Right now because of asshats like you who have no idea what the fuck kinds of ideas you're not even trying to engage because all you hear is labor unions == Stalin, because of dipshits like you, I currently pay taxes to a government with a completely fucking dysfunctional social safety net and a health care system that has to be the fucking worst combination possible of free market ideas and socialist ideas.

      I'd tell you to educate yourself, but there's no fucking point. Maybe the only hope left is to wait until you senile fuckers just fucking croak! I mean, are you that asshole we saw in that picture protesting something or other because you don't want government to screw with your fucking medicare or take away your fucking disability?!

    49. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      In union terms it's called a "rulebook slowdown". Every large organization has a ton of red tape, and the only time things really get done in the event of an emergency is if the red tape is ignored. Simply follow every rule, process, procedure perfectly to the letter. Unless you work for the military (which has procedures which actually work) business will pretty much grind to a halt.

    50. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's shitty. Did you keep your stuff? You can't just leave me hanging like that. Details, man! Details!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    51. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'll take the low hanging fruit, I'm not proud. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    52. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

      A union is only as strong as their members and the other employees that may or may not support them in a protracted strike. Considering the state of the print news business I think it would have made little difference. Here is the silver lining. The IT staff are training their off shore "replacements" but you can be sure that there is a very large amount of intimate knowledge that will either not be forwarded or lost in the translation. IT staff are in demand right now so employment should be fairly easy to find. The IT staff that are getting screwed will move on and find work elsewhere. That elsewhere will likely be with a company that has tried the off shore IT "professionals" and found that the service is poor at best and the high turnover makes it nearly impossible to train and retain competent staff. This is the result companies like GE have found and are slowly, quietly, pulling back the work load stateside or to their respective country of operation. The short term savings are going to be lost by the truck load after the program flops. They will then try to rehire some key staff from before only to find that they may not come back or if they do will only come back at two times or more their previous salary plus allot more. Most will not return but those that do will be there to bail a Titanic sized sinking ship with little more than Dixie cups in hand. They will then be blamed for the complete failure and terminated. Rinse and repeat, NEXT!!!

    53. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      bwahahaaa :-D BEST RANT EVER...

      Some free advice, ignore that idiot...he thinks the Left is responsible for everything from terrorism to war to malaria and pneumonia. He always finds a way to whine about the Left even if everyone else is talking about space travel or operating systems.

    54. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Dead on right, and ahead of y/our time. Time for us to grow a pair.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    55. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Companies do this crap all the time. If I were informed that I'd be training my replacement, I wouldn't do it. Buggers want to replace me, they can figure out what's going on for themselves.

      Usually, this is done by the company responding with: "If you want to leave now, that's fine. However, if you complete your duties, including training, and remain for the next 3 months, you will receive a severance package equal to 1 month's pay for each year you've worked here" or something like that.
      There are a lot of 40+ year old people with 10-20 years in a company that are not confident they'll find a job in the next 10-20 months, and may not have 10-20 months of savings tucked away.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    56. Re:Employees are now training their replacements. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      That's shitty. Did you keep your stuff? You can't just leave me hanging like that. Details, man! Details!

      At this stage the police investigation is still ongoing so details may be inappropriate, however I just got news that they have found and charged one of my attackers. I will pass details to you via email as soon as I can.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  2. Live by cheap labor, die by cheap labor by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Prediction: right when they get their outsourced IT working smoothly, those newspapers will be wiped out by Internet competition that uses a combination of volunteers and part-time work-from-home reporting staff doing "gigs" keying into off-the-shelf CMS's.

    1. Re:Live by cheap labor, die by cheap labor by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Prediction: right when they get their outsourced IT working smoothly, those newspapers will be wiped out by Internet competition

      They will not avoid this problem by continuing to use American workers. It is not like the volunteers and gig-workers only target companies that "deserve it". If anything, cost cutting will help them hang on longer.

    2. Re:Live by cheap labor, die by cheap labor by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Agreed (assuming the outsourced labor is any good). My point is that the same technologies that can save an owner labor costs can also put them out of business, or at least shrink them.

      While the traditional papers could adopt to a more "modern" work-flow and structure, typically startups leverage the Internet and connectivity quicker than the established players. It's hard to change your business practices overnight.

  3. "Employees are now training their replacements." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  4. ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I assume payroll is tax-deductible. That the money you pay your employees can be deducted from the gross that the business earns before paying corporate taxes. What if we exclude foreign payroll and expenses from being deductible? If the employees are coming physically to the U.S., perhaps a minimum salary is in order as some suggest (based upon industry). Maybe require the company to retain the employees that they're firing.

    Any thoughts? Good or bad about this.

    1. Re:ideas by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      I assume payroll is tax-deductible. That the money you pay your employees can be deducted from the gross that the business earns before paying corporate taxes. What if we exclude foreign payroll and expenses from being deductible? If the employees are coming physically to the U.S., perhaps a minimum salary is in order as some suggest (based upon industry). Maybe require the company to retain the employees that they're firing.

      Any thoughts? Good or bad about this.

      That would be great, if the 'elected' folks who would have to implement and enforce your excellent ideas, hadn't had their jobs bought and paid for by the very corporations whose policies you're trying to counter.

      This shit, and so much other shit like it, is ultimately the result of a badly broken electoral system. Fix that, and everything else becomes at least possible. Until we force electoral reforms that do away with elected offices going (mostly) to the highest bidder, we'll be stuck - bent over, holding our ankles, and paying for the privilege.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    2. Re:ideas by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      I assume payroll is tax-deductible

      It is not that it is tax deductible - it is that it is a simple expense. Frankly, trying to do what you suggest is crazy complicated. Now you have to define what is a payroll expense and would count against earnings, and what it a outsourcing contract that wouldn't count, and what is an outsourcing contract that would count (I assume that is someone like IBM/HP/EDS comes in as a US company that would be Ok, right?)
      Now that we have to define these things to the point where they are crystal clear - what happens if EDS uses a worker that is based in India? What happens if Wipro uses a US hired worker? Do we go racist and say that if they hire a Caucasian it is fine, but hire an Indian that got the MSCS here at Berkeley it isn't fine?
      Please god quit trying to use the tax code to get the behavior that you want - you won't get it, and you will only make things worse for most of us that aren't rich enough to hire 10-12 tax accountants

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    3. Re:ideas by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      >I assume payroll is tax-deductible. That the money you pay your employees can be deducted from the gross that the business earns before paying corporate taxes. What if we exclude foreign payroll and expenses from being deductible?
      H1-B was created for the case when there really aren't enough qualified American workers. In some RARE cases there is a legitimate need to import IT staff. Making their salary not a business expense would be so costly that it would be more logical to get rid of H1-B altogether.

      >If the employees are coming physically to the U.S., perhaps a minimum salary is in order as some suggest (based upon industry).
      H1-B workers must be paid at least 60K. This is already a rule. Probably not enforced though...

      >Maybe require the company to retain the employees that they're firing.
      Companies should only be able to use H1-B when they demonstrate a qualified American worker is not available. The Department of Labor should be required to investigate complaints. This would preclude anybody from ever being fired.

      I would support elimination of H1-B along with an expansion of green card limits for people who want to immigrate to fill jobs as fellow citizens.

      Importing H1-B project managers who funnel IT work overseas for low quality/low cost development and support services is a horrendously bad idea. It's short term thinking that is damaging our companies and decimating the ranks of high skill service economy workers. If we get rid of manufacturing and service jobs, who will be supporting the 60% of the people who don't work in our country?

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    4. Re:ideas by Immerman · · Score: 2

      You forgot:
      0. Convince the "representatives" profiting from current status quo that they should work together to change the laws to be less vulnerable to corruption (i.e. less profitable for them)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:ideas by gmack · · Score: 1

      Well, they could add an extra tax benefit for each employed person making more than x amount per year (to avoid them hiring a ton of unskilled labour for tax reasons) so that employees count as an extra % reduced from their tax bill.

      You can't punish based on taxes but you can reward.

    6. Re:ideas by vovin · · Score: 1

      Nah. It is really easy. It's just a disallowed expense.
      Lots of expenses are not allowed or substantially restricted.

    7. Re:ideas by paiute · · Score: 1

      5. Bell the cat

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    8. Re:ideas by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Any thoughts? Good or bad about this.

      Very hard to make it work. The reason being the company isn't paying payroll somewhere else, they're paying another company to provide a service. That's a tricky loophole to close, because B2B services (even offshore ones) is a perfectly legitimate thing to do for allthe right reasons as well as the wrong ones.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:ideas by acoustix · · Score: 1

      Any thoughts? Good or bad about this.

      Very hard to make it work. The reason being the company isn't paying payroll somewhere else, they're paying another company to provide a service. That's a tricky loophole to close, because B2B services (even offshore ones) is a perfectly legitimate thing to do for allthe right reasons as well as the wrong ones.

      Correct. Even it wasn't a true B2B service and they were paying the payroll the US-based company could just create another company and pay the company for services rendered.

      In my experience, that is how many companies get around rules, regulations, etc here in the US: Just create another company. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just pointing out that existing laws don't take those practices into account.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  5. If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If only someone could figure out how to outsource CEOs overseas...

    1. Re: If only... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Why send 'em that far? Into the sea would be more conclusive as well as less resource-intensive.

    2. Re:If only... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Most CEOs worth any money preside over numerous sites, in various states. And frequently international.

      And if you work onsite with the CEO, good luck seeing them anywhere other than a telecast.

      I don't see a difference now, and their millions would be worth much more in a currency disadvantaged country. And watch the cost savings roll in as the bench players step up and replace the overvalued kids.

    3. Re: If only... by DaveSewhuk · · Score: 1

      At least they would feed the fish!

  6. These guys are assholes by BitZtream · · Score: 2

    I'm in Cary NC ... and these assholes refuse to stop dropping 'The Cary News' in my drive way.

    You know what the Cary News is? A front page with some fake BS story on it, and 5-10 pages of ads. They distribute it FOR FREE ... because no one wants the fucking thing.

    Its awesome that they throw a bunch of dead tree in my drive way ... in an area known as 'the silicon valley of the east coast' ... where we have so many techies that you can't spit without hitting a geek ... and not a fucking one of us use dead trees for our news source.

    Nor do any of us give a flying fuck about their shitty spamvertising fake papers ANYWAY.

    I've had to call them multiple times to prevent them from littering in my drive way, which they have done for a small period of time and then all of the sudden, I get a bunch of dead tree pulp with no value thrown in my driveway where it can get wet and disintegrate. Its awesome.

    Really.

    At this point, I've informed the police of their littering and have filed a complaint against the newspaper for littering, as have 3 other houses on my street.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:These guys are assholes by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Analog click-bait and spam, how quaint.

    2. Re:These guys are assholes by sjames · · Score: 1

      Take pictures and then sue them for littering. A man in Atlanta did that successfully IIRC.

  7. Re:"Employees are now training their replacements. by Voogru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd train them.

    Poorly.

    Yeah, rm -rf / –

    That's how you fix it.

  8. This is why Trump is popular. by surfdaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by MHz-Man · · Score: 1, Troll

      Perhaps then he should lead by keeping jobs in the USA instead of having his ties (and possibly/probably other things) made in China:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      That is when he worked for himself...

      If he works for us, and takes it seriously, then he would stop doing that.

      But you have to hire him to get him to work for you. :) If you don't hire him, why would he care?

    4. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      This, a thousand times this...

      Maybe Trump will do something, maybe he won't. I have no idea. But I know for darn sure Clinton won't, she is bought and paid for...

    5. Re: This is why Trump is popular. by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the Donald is being genuine or just opportunistic

      Seriously? Question for everyone: When most of the rest of you watch Trump, Billary or Sanders (yeah, he talks a good line), are you truly unable to see the complete and utter lack of empathy and sincerity in their eyes or are you all just indulging in the most desperate of delusions?

    6. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Trump is popular because people think protectionism will make things better?

      Yes, polling has shown that protectionism is favored by the majority in both parties. Most people are ignorant of economics in general, and the ugly history of protectionism in particular. As we throw up barriers, other countries will retaliate, and everyone will be dragged down. Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong. Most voters understand that protectionism is simple and obvious. Fewer understand why it is wrong.

    7. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      I don't believe he will do this because he's shown no evidence of this in the businesses he ran previously.

      His Trump shirts are made in China. The steel in his buildings comes from the lowest bidder, not American suppliers.

      His employees are not treated well either.

      If he wants to help American workers why can't be point to his own enterprises?

    8. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      trump? that mega MEGA rich asswipe?

      you are delusional if you think he could give one shit about you or me or even america. he's all ego and all in it for self glorification. he says what his crowd wants to hear.

      don't buy one word of it.

      I wish someone would speak up for us. but believe me, he's not it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re: This is why Trump is popular. by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trump may be describing real problems, but his proposed solutions are hopelessly flawed and naÃve, not to mention dangerously divisive. Assuming you can trust anything he says anyway, since three quarters of his claims are provably wrong, and half his opinions change the next week. There's a reason even his own party want nothing to do with him, and it's not because he's been winning.

      The status quo may be crap in a great many ways, but go ahead and elect him if you want to see how much worse it could get. At the least it'll provide entertainment for us non-Americans.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    10. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Britz · · Score: 1

      > corporate behavior

      Trump is famous for corporate behavior. From his business past I would say he would have been the first to suggest outsourcing. Maybe we will hear about actual events in the past where he did just that in the coming months.

      After all, most of his buildings were built by illegal immigrants...

      Trump is just saying shit he thinks will get him elected. Most of them are the opposite of what he did and usually does. Remember the "birther" campaign? He was the head of that. How dumb do you have to be? He isn't dumb. It's all an act.

      Trump isn't different from any other politicians. He is just better. For now. He plays the Republican narrative better than the field. Not that the Democrats are much better. But for most of the things a current Washington politician says, you really have to wonder how they keep a straight face saying it. Which is the same thing Trump is doing. If you want a glimpse into a Trump presidency, take a look at Berlusconi from Italy. The two of them are very similar in many aspects. Berlusconis theory of governance was always: "What is good for me is good for the country." So what policies would benefit Trumps business empire and make him richer. Those are the policies you can expect from Trump.

    11. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Thought the same until I read a comment above: "You know what the Cary News is? A front page with some fake BS story on it, and 5-10 pages of ads. They distribute it FOR FREE ... because no one wants the fucking thing."

      The problem is deeper than the trade agreements. It's what we make and what we do.

    12. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Right. Which is why when he's solicited investors for his various businesses, he's always done his best to do right by them.

      Oh, no, wait... what he's actually done is designed to corporations from inception to go bankrupt while putting as much money in his own pocket as possible. But hey, I'm sure *this* time he's turned over a new leaf...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    13. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      500+ companies... half with his name on them...

      4 bankrupties out of all of that...

      How sure are you of your information?

    14. Re: This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      There's a reason even his own party want nothing to do with him, and it's not because he's been winning.

      Yea, they are afraid he'll upset their gravy train...

      The two parties are more interested in making sure it stays the way it is, than actually doing anything useful. Trump is a threat to that.

      Many Republicans would rather see a Democrat elected who is bought and paid for and will do what she is told, rather than see someone actually change anything.

    15. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      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.

      Wow. Just. Wow.

      It is absolutely idiotic to think that Trump is going to fight for American workers.

      Absolutely.

      Idiotic.

      Trump is a businessman, and business almost always look for the cheapest means to accomplish a goal. Trump and Clinton will both try to accelerate H1B replacements for American workers.

      Anyone who votes for either Clinton or Trump is a raging moron, and is wasting a vote for actual beneficial change.

    16. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      Yeah ok.. the same way he protected those American jobs in Florida right? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02...

    17. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by humptheElephant · · Score: 1

      Lets hope he can stop the TPP

    18. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      They see both current parties as out of touch and not fighting for their needs.

      What people need to keep in mind is that while we are in fact a two party system, it was not always these two parties.

      When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still supporting evil. All a 3rd party needs is a little momentum and it will steamroll over and replace one of these two jokes.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    19. Re: This is why Trump is popular. by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're right about that, what makes you think Trump will improve the situation? Even if he doesn't simply set up his own gravy train, what specific actions do you think he will take to help? Just "changing anything" is not enough, and frequently makes things worse if you don't have a better replacement.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    20. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      IMHO we can't blame these companies as they are operating to maximize shareholder value within the current set of rules (laws, regulations).

      The fuck we can't. You don't have to implement a greedy algorithm to solve every problem. Apple and Google have been raking in money by throwing huge compensation and benefits at top talent. They could have record profits for a single quarter by cutting all engineer salaries to minimum wage, but the following quarter would be a shitshow and they know it. That's the kind of thing Carly Fiorina did to HP and she damn near ruined it.

      There's something called enlightened self-interest that boils down to "be good to your employees, vendors, and customers and they'll be good to you". Good CEOs recognize that and use it to make their shareholders rich. Shitty boards of directors hire shitty CEOs to optimize for next week's net margins, then seem shocked, shocked! when it all comes crashing down around them.

      We can and should blame these companies for "maximizing shareholder value" at the expense of long-term viability.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    21. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      This, a thousand times this...

      Maybe Trump will do something, maybe he won't. I have no idea. But I know for darn sure Clinton won't, she is bought and paid for...

      I had this electrical problem once. The sparky came over, told me it was a huge job, was going to cost thousands to fix, but that didn't sound like what I wanted to hear. So I just asked some guy off the street and he said he'll make my wiring stronger again. Even though he had no electrical training, that sounded better to me than the other guy, so I hired him instead.

    22. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      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.

      Donald Trump uses slave labor.

      Trump is building a giant condo–hotel–golf courses development in Dubai. They, like all Dubai developments, use what is effectively indentured servitude – turned into slavery by not upholding the agreement.

      When asked by reporters, Trump said that he does not engage in such employment practices. Well, technically, he doesn't. There are a couple of shell companies that Donald Trump contracts-out the work to, and those companies import the (usually Bangladeshi) laborers using false agreements.

              Their Passports are confiscated upon arrival.
              They end up owing twice what they had agreed to.
              They earn half of what they were promised.

      A Vice documentary piece exposed this three years ago—They re-visited, and just released an update – Season 4, Episode 10.

      The original expose on slaves in Dubai.

      The recent update, but you have to have HBO GO, as its so new.

      Donald Trump uses slave labor.

    23. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Kant_resistor · · Score: 2

      I wish someone would get a clue and retire this fuzzy-thinking line of nonsense. Trump has succeeded in the system as it was written, playing by rules that he did not make. What he wants now is to change roles; to acquire the power to change the rules, so that people do not have to play that way any more. Don't believe it? Well let's go with the first and best example: factory owners in Industrial Revolution England helped bring about the earliest factory reforms in the history of the world, introducing a shred of humanity into what was hell for everyone involved. They did that because they actually wanted the regulation, so that they could afford to be more humane: they knew that individually, no one of them, no matter how well intentioned, could afford to play by a different, and more costly, set of labor standards. It not only wouldn't be profitable--it would not be possible: because their business would rapidly disappear, losing out against the competition that was using 15-hour child labor, and undercutting their prices. See how that works? No? Well, that's why you are not rich, like Donald Trump. But just to prove it, run a business like a charity for a while, then get back to me on how noble you were for those six weeks--before you burned through your capital and went back to work for someone else.

    24. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is just stupid fucking logic.

      An environmentalist can never pollute ?

      A pacifist can never get enraged ?

      A democrat can never be pro small government on an issue ?

      It's just lazy work to say that kind of shit. "I support higher taxes" - "oh? Then why don't you donate more money to the government?".

      It's just fucking stupid, Vancouver.

    25. Re: This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Assuming you're right about that, what makes you think Trump will improve the situation?

      Improve? He might... or might make it worse, or might not be a change at all...

      But I know that if we elect another RNC or DNC "chosen one" that we'll get more and more of the same...

      I'm so sick of it that I'm willing to take the chance. The more the media drones on about "how risky Trump is", the more I want him because they don't want their apple cart upset either.

      I miss Walter Cronkite... I SO wish he was still at the anchor desk and that he could have an hour with Trump... The "news" has become an entertainment/control product, far removed from the old days of "just the facts".

      Even if he doesn't simply set up his own gravy train

      I fully support paying the President $50 million a year and each person in Congress $5 million a year. You would never hire a CEO of a major company and pay them $400K, it is silly. You work for who pays you, and right now a person in Congress gets about $200K from the public and millions from private donors. If the public paid them millions, they would become much more expensive to bribe and would be more inclined to work for who is paying them, the public.

      Some public sector paychecks are equally too low and don't reflect the value of qualified people for those roles. When the head of the SEC is paid 3% of what the people who he is supposed to supervise are paid, you'll never get the right person for that job.

      what specific actions do you think he will take to help

      He will break with 70 years of assumed policy and take us in a new direction. That could be good or bad, but I'm willing to find out. In 6 months, we'll find out if enough Americans want to take that journey or not.

    26. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      When our government was formed, the whole idea was to have citizen legislators...

      People were not supposed to make politics a career... You were supposed to go serve for a bit, then go home back to the private sector.

      Now everyone thinks you have to do this for 30 years before you're "ready". So you have a situation where Clinton has been in government for more than 3 decades...

      She is so completely out of touch with the average person and so completely absorbed into the "bought and paid for" system that she cannot help the average person even if she wanted to.

      At least Trump has a chance to. Do I think he is the best man for the job? No, not at all. But he is what we have to work with because too many people respond to what he says rather than reason and logic.

      People are WAY too emotional, it will be our undoing. :(

    27. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Trump has succeeded in the system as it was written

      If going bankrupt a bunch and losing a bunch of daddy's wealth counts as success in your eyes, I hate to think of what counts a failure.

      But sure, vote for a pathological liar who can't even keep a business afloat reliably.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    28. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      When our government was formed, the whole idea was to have citizen legislators...

      And they believed that witches were real too...

      Now everyone thinks you have to do this for 30 years before you're "ready".

      Because time has shown that experience is actually a valuable trait in any given field of expertise.

      She is so completely out of touch with the average person...

      At least Trump has a chance...

      They are both as equally out of touch as each other, but at least Clinton has experience. This doesn't guarantee she'll do any good, it just means she's less likely to create a huge fucking mess than the novice option. Whether you are red or blue or a circle or square, we should all at least agree the the top job should be filled by someone who has at least some political experience.

    29. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      but political experience is not required.

      Like you prefer an electrician that has never touched a wire, or a plumber who has never seen a pipe?
      This makes no sense.

    30. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      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.

      This, a thousand times this...

      Maybe Trump will do something, maybe he won't. I have no idea. But I know for darn sure Clinton won't, she is bought and paid for...

      Sanders does not appear to have been bought.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    31. Re: This is why Trump is popular. by orgenegro · · Score: 1

      Is everything you buy American? Likely not. Yet you still think the rules if changed could affect people's behavior. A curious parallel with the candidate - who has been advocating these policies for more than twenty years.

    32. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I had this electrical problem once. The sparky came over, told me it was a huge job, was going to cost thousands to fix. I found out he'd worked on several neighbor's electricity and messed things up terribly. Maybe the guy on the street, despite his lack of experience, won't do any worse and hopefully better, than that experienced person that has a history of causing problems.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    33. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If going bankrupt a bunch and losing a bunch of daddy's wealth counts as success in your eyes, I hate to think of what counts a failure.

      No, look, he's right. That stuff proves that Trump is successful. He's playing the game as it is designed, and he's doing well. Bankruptcy is just a legal action, it is not necessarily actually going broke. The negative thing it does is that it proves that Trump is a shitheel. When you build these big companies and then declare bankruptcy, normal people get fucked. People lose jobs, people lose investment money they can't afford to lose, etc. Now, that's a risk that people just take, but when you do it on purpose as part of your business strategy, you may be successful, but you're still a gigantic asshole. And that's Trump: a gigantic asshole spreading shit across our nation. Making him president will only increase his shit-spreading abilities.

      The other thing all this Trump love proves is that a lot of Americans really are total fucking pieces of shit. They are supporting the false dichotomy of Clinton vs. Trump instead of getting out and supporting Sanders, because in the end, they actually admire Trump's fuckery. They would rather have Trump than Sanders, because Sanders might help someone that they feel is undeserving, and because they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires who could succeed as brilliantly as Trump if only "the government" would "get off their back".

      These people, obviously, are conclusively proven to be morons, because they are not going to be able to get "a small ten million dollar loan" from their father. They do not and will never have access to the realms in which The Donald operates. Hard work is the worst predictor of success in America, where success is measured financially. The best predictor is the social status of one's parents, for a large number of reasons which are mostly obvious to any thinking person.

      TL;DR: Trump is not an idiot. He is a shitheel.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Which will be completely irrelevant when he's not on the voting card.

    35. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Which will be completely irrelevant when he's not on the voting card.

      Unfortunately true.

      The same system that bought Clinton is propping her up. Without the bought electors she would have lost against Sanders.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    36. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Trump's latest plan to print money to pay off debt is just insane.

      Where will that money come from? From the central bank? With more debt attached? That's more retarded than the wall or the ban.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    37. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      No, look, he's right. That stuff proves that Trump is successful. He's playing the game as it is designed, and he's doing well.

      I take the other points you made, but he has LESS money than if he'd simply left all of pappy Tump's investments in real estate. That's not playing the game well, that's losing at it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    38. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Those are different, they are technical skills.

      A politician doesn't need to have been one before to have the skills for the job.

      Running a large company, managing thousands of employees, etc. all develop the sorts of skills needed to be a leader.

      What is needed is leadership, not "inside politics for 30 years".

      George Washington was a General, a businessman, not a politician...

    39. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Sanders does not appear to have been bought.

      I would tend to agree, and I would much prefer him over Hillary Clinton...

      Reality is somewhere in between Trump and Sanders, I'd love to see the two of them together.

      Clinton is just not helpful to the situation, nothing would change under her, she has no leadership, no vision, nothing. Just more gridlock, more debt, more suffering...

    40. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by avandesande · · Score: 1

      How does it prove he is a shitheal? If he reorganizes debt and saves hundreds of jobs that makes him bad? You do understand what reorganizing debt means....

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    41. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Microlith · · Score: 2

      Soy why not Bernie? You get all the concern for U.S. workers without the misogyny, bigotry, racism, and sheer idiocy and infantile behavior?

    42. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Bernie has problems with taxes, free everything, and he wouldn't be tough on foreign policy.

      There are parts of Bernie I like and parts of Trump I like. There isn't ANYTHING about Hillary that I like.

      For example, I'm all for single-payer health care. But I'm also for redoing our trade deals and standing up to the bullies of the world and reminding them that we are not a kitty cat.

    43. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Obviously you have zero historical knowledge how revolutions come about. That's exactly how they happen.

    44. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I had this electrical problem once. The sparky came over, told me it was a huge job, was going to cost thousands to fix. I found out he'd worked on several neighbor's electricity and messed things up terribly. Maybe the guy on the street, despite his lack of experience, won't do any worse and hopefully better, than that experienced person that has a history of causing problems.

      By messed up you mean he used blue wires instead of red ones, or installed a plastic switch instead of a brushed metal one. But the lights still actually worked. But fuck it, you're willing to risk burning your house down because you really want red wires.
      Sums up the logic nicely.

    45. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Those are different, they are technical skills.

      Still skills, and experience always carries value with skills.

      A politician doesn't need to have been one before to have the skills for the job.

      Because you say so?
      Doesn't need to, like a football player doesn't need to have played football before, but if you picking your team, who are you going to pick first?

      Running a large company, managing thousands of employees, etc. all develop the sorts of skills needed to be a leader.

      What is needed is leadership, not "inside politics for 30 years".

      Public service is a lot different from private, any contractor who works in both will tell you that.

      George Washington was a General, a businessman, not a politician...

      Yes and in the 18th century the required political skills were a lot different than today. It's why the rise of the professional politician emerged, because experience has value.

    46. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Yes and in the 18th century the required political skills were a lot different than today. It's why the rise of the professional politician emerged, because experience has value.

      Then you are completely and totally brainwashed and you're beyond hope...

      You will always be a subject to those in power because you are unable to think for yourself.

    47. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Which will be completely irrelevant when he's not on the voting card.

      Well he's not completely out of the running just yet which is why it's worth telling people to support him anyway, should they be so inclined.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    48. Re:This is why Trump is popular. by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Then you are completely and totally brainwashed and you're beyond hope...

      You will always be a subject to those in power because you are unable to think for yourself.

      Well that went into crazy land real quick.
      Pretty much explains the powers of reason of your average Trump voter...

  9. which side? by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:which side? by anchor_tag · · Score: 1

      Well Americans should be siding with Americans. We've given up more jobs than we can afford to at this point. Wipro is not one of the better ones btw..

    2. Re:which side? by erapert · · Score: 1

      Who are we to side with more?

      We'll see how long the self-righteous anti-trumpers keep calling him and everyone else racist bigots as their jobs go overseas.

      Remember: neither the suits, nor the government, give a damn about your well being or a third-worlder's well being. You're just a cog to a g-man or to a suit. So don't act high-and-mighty about how poor third-worlders are being given a hand up. The Man doesn't care at all and they'll flush us all down the toilet the instant they can make a buck or grab more power for themselves.

      The trick is to get yours before the suits outsource your job to someone who's hungry and has the living standards of a barn animal who has never known better. That doesn't mean you have to be a jerk, doesn't mean you have to climb over someone who might need a job. But if you got bills to pay and mouths to feed then you better do what you need to.

      “Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up, it knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the slowest gazelle, or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're the lion or a gazelle-when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.”

      -- Christopher McDougall, Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen

    3. Re: which side? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Clearly the corporations.

    4. Re:which side? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      On the winning side of course!
      Erm? That was not the question?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:which side? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >“Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up, it knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed.

      Poppycock. It's like hiking in bear or mountain lion country - you don't need to run faster than them - just faster than the people you're hiking with. Everything beyond that is just showing off for the ladies.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re: which side? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      From a global perspective, most Americans are the 1%, and off-shored jobs are simply reducing global inequality.

      Doesn't make it suck any less when you get laid off, and if your replacements have insufficient skills to do the job well then the company will (deservedly) suffer, but OTOH it's likely a huge opportunity for the new workers to get a crack at the big time.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  10. How many more examples do we need ? by nomad63 · · Score: 2

    I am wondering when the revolt against these outsourcing companies will start ? I think the number of jobs are still a-plenty for the displaced workers that they do not mind finding themselves out the door. But how long can this last ? It is unsustainable. Maybe the H1B drones in India, can benefit from Reading Sacramento Bee or Miami Herald to keep their numbers up. Good job Talamantes, for placing yourself in the cross-hairs of H1B opponents, displacing Souther California Edison and Disney. They owe a big one to you, right about now.

    --

    __________
    The more I know people, the more I love animals
    1. Re:How many more examples do we need ? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the H1B drones in India, can benefit from Reading Sacramento Bee or Miami Herald to keep their numbers up.

      This isn't about H-1B, it's about outsourcing. By definition there are no "H-1B drones" in India, because H-1B is a US immigration status.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  11. Did they also announce to outsource readership? by ffkom · · Score: 1

    Can they survive by selling their paper to the 1%, or will they also need to recruit subscribers from the offshore locations, as more domestic readers cannot afford to buy their product anymore?

  12. Wait, they still print newspapers? by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I thought this was 2016, not 1996.

    When was the last time you bought a newspaper? Answer my poll question

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  13. But Trump is racist, misogynist, rude and clown by Trachman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  14. Job hunting before training replacements by nicolaiplum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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"
  15. "Employees are now training their replacements." by grub · · Score: 1

    Fortunately I've never been in this situation, but why would "Employees are now training their replacements"? Financial incentives?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  16. How is this unsustainable? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    But how long can this last ? It is unsustainable.

    Why do you consider it un-sustainable?

    If anything what was unsustainable is keeping jobs in the U.S. with more and more per-employee overhead piling up.

    If you make it hard to make jobs people will not have a lesser need for jobs to be done - they will find out how they can get them done for a lot less if possible.

    Combine that with a lower and lower birth rate in the U.S. making it hard to even find workers, much less good ones.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How is this unsustainable? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      preferring to have people starve in the streets or they will just do what it takes to get in to jail and that will cost a lot more then UBI.

  17. They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    If the could offshore the work. And there are plenty of European countries with strong IT job markets. They also protect their working class.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by haruchai · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      IT salaries in America are higher than in most European countries, and tech unemployment, at about 3%, is lower.

      So are the cost of living. I doubt bottom line is a big difference.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So are the cost of living. I doubt bottom line is a big difference.

      London is more expensive than SF or NYC, yet median income is lower. Almost anywhere in the American Midwest or South has cheaper housing than Europe if you look at prices per sq meter.

      Or look at it from a different angle: How many American go to Europe to start a tech career? Very few. How many Europeans come to America? I live in San Jose, CA and not a single other person on my cul-de-sac was born in America. At work, my group includes three Brits, two Frenchies, a Swede, and a Kraut. They wouldn't be coming here if the opportunities were not better.

    5. Re:They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

      Just like job markets are substantially different from state to state, in Europe it's different country by country.

      As for IT salaries, are they higher or lower relative to the cost of living? I think you'll find that it's actually about equal. I am an IT guy in Norway and I make a lot more than Americans but my cost of living is higher... it balances.

      I think that there's somewhere in-between. America is the biggest and wealthiest socialist country in the world. Has been for a long time. When the unemployment rate goes up, they find something new like scaring the shit out of people which currently employs nearly 20% of the working population of America directly or indirectly using government funds.

      The thriving American economy is based almost entirely on providing work for millions and millions of people through more or less unnecessary programs. Even if it means giving a guy 20 years in prison for smoking weed... it creates jobs and without the constant fear of all these evil criminals, a million jobs at least would be lost and another million jobs would be needed for the people who are in prison if they were out.

      There are many shades of gray here.... whether it's militaries, DHS, NSA, FBI, police forces, CIA, TSA, prison systems, arms dealers, etc... the US has a massive protectionist market for employees. Bush senior started it, Clinton tried to screw the whole thing up.. Bush Jr got the ball really rolling and Obama thrived by building the most impressive FUD economy the world has ever imagined. Americans are so scared shitless now that the government can spend anything they want and create jobs a million at a time because some American-born professor of middle eastern descent is calculating a differential equation on the plane and the crazy assed woman next to him thinks he must be a terrorist because she can't tell the difference between Greek and Arabic writing so the plane is grounded and 500+ people are needed in different jobs to do everything from write policies to investigating it to providing PR etc...

      Your awesome and prosperous thriving economy is how the national deficit happens. Every country in the world prints a certain amount of new money each year and needs some legitimate method of feeding it into the economy so that everyone will have more to go around. Norway who doesn't even need to do it still does it because if everyone else did it and they didn't it would screw everything up. So they all make new fake money, run up deficits and feed that money into government funded jobs which eventually circulates to the gas station or fruit stand or restaurants. The deficit is a great thing if all countries can agree to go into debt at an approximately even rate. Thankfully, China is finally playing the game properly.

      Now, higher quality of life, standards of living, etc... that comes from rigid labor markets. As an American in such a country... I can tell you the standard of living in the lower, middle and upper class in Norway is substantially higher than in the US. The reason is because the standard of living is higher in all three classes due to protectionism. The rich don't surround their houses with walls like freaky scared people. The middle class send their kids to public schools because we all have a higher standard of living thanks to the rigid labor markets.

    6. Re: They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Americans generally don't travel much and seldom bother to learn a foreign language.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re: They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      Americans generally don't travel much and seldom bother to learn a foreign language.

      Many tech companies in Sweden use English as their working language. In Britain, English is even more common, although they don't speak it as well as the Swedes.

    8. Re: They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Americans generally don't travel much and seldom bother to learn a foreign language.

      Many tech companies in Sweden use English as their working language. In Britain, English is even more common, although they don't speak it as well as the Swedes.

      As a Brit, albeit not the GP, may I just say touche (you'll just have to imagine the acute accent :-/).

    9. Re:They wouldn't be paying for an H1-b by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

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

      Define fuckup.

      From the shareholder standpoint a fuckup is someone who does not maximize 'shareholder value' by any means necessary including but not limited to firing every employee just because they cost more.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  18. Re:"Employees are now training their replacements. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "We just set all passwords to qwerty to save time."
    "Just set the permissions to read/write access for all."
    "Updates just slow you down."

  19. Re: "Employees are now training their replacements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No you wouldn't. People train their replacements because they're getting paid for the time it takes to train them, plus usually some sort of severance. Getting fired for sabotage ruins all that.

    No, you smile through your teeth, and spend as much time as possible applying for a new job, and hopefully you can bail during the training.

  20. Re:"Employees are now training their replacements. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

    I wouldn't train a single one of these dipshits.

    Generally soon-to-be-ex employees do this because they receive a larger severance payment for doing so.

    It's easy to be high-and-mighty, but when you have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed it's hard to turn down that free cash, as you're going to be fired either way.

  21. translation by ooloorie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:translation by PRMan · · Score: 2

      (Whether this is going to work out as planned is, of course, another question.)

      No it's not. Outsourcing to India never works.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:translation by Kjella · · Score: 1

      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!"

      Regardless of that it's the job of any CxO to make a shit sandwich sound tasty. If they were laying off journalists he'd make that sound like some kind of strategic plan and realignment opportunity too, he wouldn't say "business has turned sour and people don't like our product anymore" any more than he'd say "those Indians work so damn cheap" even though that's the reality. Yeah I've met some dysfunctional IT organizations, but I doubt outsourcing would fix any of the because the dysfunction is usually at the management level that stays, the people who work on code, servers, databases, networks etc. usually know their stuff well enough. It doesn't matter though if people work on the wrong things or pointless initatives that'll be for naught, nothing has value unless it goes to production and actually solves a business need.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:translation by guruevi · · Score: 1

      It does cut costs and identifies some of the cruft but beyond the first few quarterly savings it doesn't last. These are the last spasms of a dying company.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "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!"

      Translation: There will be a minimum of 24 hour turn around for any issue, even in an emergency, and expect to repeat your instructions three times, and make sure your request has every little detail spelled out, because the other side won't ask any questions, they'll just fuck up the request.

    5. Re:translation by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      While in this case I agree that it's the last desperate move by a company slashing operating costs to stay afloat, I doubt that was the case when Disney outsourced their IT stuffs to India.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    6. Re:translation by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      IT staff is being replaced with more efficient and friendlier overseas staff,

      Until you actually need something done.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    7. Re:translation by ooloorie · · Score: 1
  22. Free Trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Free Trade: Where the 1% are free to trade your income and living for enterprises here, for profit derived from a lower standard of living elsewhere.

    Yessir. Protectionism is bad. cuz the 1% really, really CARES about you. Got that? Thought so. Now all you need is a rectal probe to remove it.

    1. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:Free Trade by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Free Trade by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:Free Trade by sycodon · · Score: 2

      Shit...Right Wing.

      Maybe Slashdot can outsource to Kentucky and get a fucking Edit button added to this site.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Free Trade by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Free Trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Free Trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that loyalty is a one way street?

      An individual employee may or may not as you describe but one thing is true - motivated or not, an employee's interests are aligned with your business. The interests of a contract company's employees are not.

      The contract support company is interested in generating revenue for their company so they want billable hours. How can they get billable hours if everything works all the time? What might they be motivated to do? Perhaps send a staffer to visit a contract sight to run an definitions update for antivirus and other stuff that can be automated. An actual employee would have no reason to do this - even if they are have selfish motives.

    9. Re:Free Trade by Raenex · · Score: 1

      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.

      If they aren't a commodity, then the business will fail or do worse when they treat their employees as commodities. If they are a commodity, then I don't see how it's any different than an employee changing jobs for better wages.

    10. Re:Free Trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Free Trade by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    12. Re:Free Trade by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And if you take that attitude with your workers, they would not be incorrect to assume that you are a flaming ostomy bag.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Free Trade by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Shit...Right Wing.

      Maybe Slashdot can outsource to Kentucky and get a fucking Edit button added to this site.

      Hehe you wrote the wong word.....

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Free Trade by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    15. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Who are you talking to? Did I say I have any trouble along those lines? I do not. You need to come up with a better straw man.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    17. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      What's the problem, exactly? That I'm objecting to someone who says that as an employer I should have to pay for employees whether I want them or not, even while the employees themselves should have the slack to wander off any time they want? Why shouldn't that be a two way street? Specifically. Would you be willing to trade your expectation that an employer can't stop employing you for your not having the liberty to go get a different job when you want to, for your own reasons? No? Think you should have the flexibility to leave when you want? I see.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    18. Re:Free Trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    19. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But if a company has nothing left to lose because they are competing against international counterparts with vastly lower costs, you think they should simply fail, rather than use cheaper, foreign employers? That ALSO means the local employees lose their jobs. So, along with the violence you're advocating (don't be coy, you ARE), you'd also rather that companies simply die, rather than exist and operate in the US (paying US taxes, dealing with the local economies in which they sit). At least admit it. Your position: if the employees can't compete with their overseas counterparts, than they company should die with them.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    20. Re:Free Trade by dbIII · · Score: 1

      In the long run that's how you get places like Detroit today.
      Another area offers tax incentives or other sweeteners (cold hard cash is offered to Hollywood by other countries for example) so the factory moves, stays for a decade or two then the place is undercut so it moves again, leaving those who offered the incentive before completely fucked over just like those they took the industry from.

      It's an example of more than government mismanagement - it's full on trying to game a system that they are not equipped to deal with, especially local governments. It often goes hand in hand with outright corruption.
      Governments playing such games skew markets and are really an enemy of capitalism - the state is picking winners instead of the market picking winners. It rarely ends well.

    21. Re:Free Trade by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.

      Why should they have a job at all when someone in India is making say 10 percent of what an American worker demands? Doesn't capitalism demand the most money in from the least money paid out for the producers?

      If the cost of living in India is low, and Americans making too much and now unemployed, they can move to India. The job creators are not responsible for keeping fat lazy overpaid Americans in money. Besides, the country will improve with them leaving, getting rid of those takers.

      This is the kind of stuff that the free market handles and handles very well. Right? As American workers make kess and less, the cost of living will come down - it will have to, or they will starve.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re:Free Trade by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    23. Re:Free Trade by dwywit · · Score: 1

      *cough*fark.com*cough*

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    24. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Why should they have a job at all when someone in India is making say 10 percent of what an American worker demands?

      Are you really so out of touch with reality that you're actually asking that question? Or is it a rhetorical question, that you know is BS?

      I specifically addressed that, above, before you fake-asked the question.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    25. Re:Free Trade by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It's amusing that you mention that. I'm in the 1% (globally, so aren't you - but I'm sure you mean some other 1% - the one that doesn't include you). Without knowing of this thread, of this comment, of this sentiment - in the last thread, the one about book prices in Uganda, someone mentioned that it would be easy to acquire a shipping container full of books.

      I offered to ship it there if they were willing to do the leg work - I'm pretty sure I can get them a donated shipping container too.

      I don't want to feel like I'm scolding or talking down to a child so I'm going to be polite and don't take this as if it is patronizing. It is not meant to be.

      The adage about painting with a broad brush? That's because when you paint with a broad brush you end up missing the finer details. That's what that adage is about.

      It's like the insane hate against corporations. The Linux Foundation, BSD Group, EFF, ACLU, and countless others - including for-profit, with share holders but not necessarily publicly traded, are all different types of corporations. I once asked an AC, while they were spittle flecked and ranting, if they meant all corporations and they indicated in the affirmative. I then pointed out the many different types.

      They then had the temerity to say, "Fuck you." We can fix ignorance - it's not always the fault of the individual due to time or bad instruction. We can even work on stupidity. What we can't help is willful ignorance.

      The ball is in your court.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    26. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      So, I'm the asshole because I think the deal between an employee and an employer is a two-way street? And the people who think they should be able to leave any time to get a better deal from a different employer are fine, but that employers shouldn't be allowed to do exactly the same thing are villains ... they have the perfect world view, from your perspective? The people who think like that are a nightmare to EMPLOY, because they consider their flexibility to be inviolate, but the employer's flexibility to be Eeeeeevil, by definition. I can see why you'd want someone who might point out that hypocrisy to stop posting, sure. Makes sense.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    27. Re:Free Trade by KGIII · · Score: 2

      IIRC that suit was because it was seen as breaking the Union - was it not? I don't think it had to do with the employees being less expensive, in particular, so much as it was about Union regulations and moving to "break" a union is illegal.

      That's the gist that I got from it when it was on NPR when it was still news.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re:Free Trade by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Funny enough, many of the people who are free-market evangelists (for lack of a better term) have no problem with the things you cite.

      I'd go off on a rant about it but I'd be preaching to the choir - at least in your case. (Having conversed with you before.) But, seeing as you're here... I wonder if mental gymnastics should be an Olympic sport. Or, perhaps, if politics (not just American) are the Mental Gymnastics Olympics®...

      It's televised, it's every four years in my country (for the big one), it's got corporate sponsors, it's got back-story, it's got doping and cheating and intrigue... Hmm...

      There's a Kurt Vonnegut-type of novel in there somewhere. Maybe Tom Robbins.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    29. Re:Free Trade by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      >

      It's perfectly ok to fuck your employees for a dollar.

      Only in Nevada.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    30. Re:Free Trade by dbIII · · Score: 1

      many of the people who are free-market evangelists

      Sadly so many of those want to play the "free-market" game with marked cards supplied via the taxpayer.

      The sweeteners to Hollywood are the ones really annoying me at the moment since the only benefit seems to be that of local people in politics getting to meet celebrities. The employment benefits and all other economic benefits are almost always obviously far less than the handout.

      The industry ones are less overt and have some benefit but function the same way, temporary boom then bust.

      There's a Kurt Vonnegut-type of novel in there somewhere. Maybe Tom Robbins.

      I'm going for Kafka or Lem (who managed to stay alive writing parodies of an autocratic government by setting it in Science Fiction).

    31. Re:Free Trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If your employee's don't feel like investing in your venture is worthwhile, or they don't take you seriously when you ask for even the smallest sacrifice, then you need to realize that is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. I'm surprised anyone can get into or run businesses with the kind of mentality you have; tax, compliance, legal and financial burdens are usually a symptom of the problems and are the least important facets of running a business.

      The cause is, as I put it, is Idon'tgiveaSh!tItus. It's caused when managers put forth honest plans then reap the benefits without giving any rewards; employee's faith in the employment market worsens until they decide it's time to literally screw employers over for everything they are worth because there are no investments of their time that will give them anything reasonable. This catches like wildfire, people literally commit career suicide in droves. Managers are left clueless and victimized wondering "How could people be so stupid?!?".

      It's also caused by managers who are so shortsighted they screw everyone and everything upto and including themselves and convince investors that quantification of problems needn't be done.

      Case in point, Fry's used to have a million dollar man program; work at the place for 25 years, you get a million bucks. Problem is the vesting would start your 2nd year and the store managers didn't like the cut their employee's were getting of their bonuses, so there'd be a lot of turn-over. This program was 100% management pissing on their own backs and telling themselves it's raining.

      Another great example; Wal-Mart deciding everyone is going to be part-time. People view wal-mart as a job they stick at for a few months while searching for something else, results are all the good employee's leave before the cost of their training is paid back.

      Look up the scanlon plan if you doubt the above statement. I work at a place that has something similar to that in place, and is currently kicking everyone's rear even in a recession.

    32. Re: Free Trade by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      Would you be equally upset if a robot took your your job? Probably yes. I mean you should be angrier if it was a robot, I mean if it's a human at least someone's family is being fed. So if you want welfare just ask for it via taxation. If a product can be produced better without you then it's charity to keep you hired. I mean, you deserve a paycheck .. after all your existence is important. But why shouldn't that paycheck be a welfare check instead of a job. Tax the company, get your money that way instead of the lose lose proposition of a job. Use your welfare check to buy stuff the robot has made affordable for you.

    33. Re:Free Trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    34. Re:Free Trade by radio4fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      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:

      • You have committed gross misconduct
      • You have committed a series of acts of lesser misconduct, which have all been documented through the agreed grievance procedure
      • Your position is redundant

      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.

      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.

      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.

    35. Re:Free Trade by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    36. Re:Free Trade by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Damn it, if only I had mod points left.

      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.

      That reason alone should be enough to invalidate the visa.

      Outsourcing (overseas), unfortunately, is another matter entirely...

    37. Re:Free Trade by Maritz · · Score: 1

      What's the problem, exactly? That I'm objecting to someone who says that as an employer I should have to pay for employees whether I want them or not, even while the employees themselves should have the slack to wander off any time they want?

      Who said you should have to pay employees whether you want them or not? Is that just an extremely ungenerous description, or a full blown straw man?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    38. Re:Free Trade by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      That had nothing to do with moving labour to cheaper areas. The complaint was that it was done in retaliation for union activities, which is illegal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re:Free Trade by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Remote working from half a world away only really works for simple, low skill jobs. Administrating a company network is about more than just configuring a few things and monitoring for low disk space. The IT has to support the business. The admin has to understand the business and its needs, and be responsive to what people are telling them.

      In theory someone in India with Skype can fix a lot of low level issues, but it's always going to be a trade-off between frustration and slow, barely adequate response and the cost of having someone on-site.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    40. Re:Free Trade by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      Many companies avoid employing people like that, because they know they are unlikely to stay the full length of a project. So while it might seem that switching to get a few extra dollars is a good idea, in the long run it limits your earning potential to companies who see workers as disposable, and where the environment is probably terrible because everyone is being crushed by a mountain of technical debt.

      Better to find an employer who doesn't see it as "us against them" and actually wants to build a good team.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:Free Trade by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      Kentucky is not overseas.

    42. Re:Free Trade by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      You also left out something between "don't" and "it's". Not enough coffee yet?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    43. Re:Free Trade by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      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.

      Gee, I wonder why that might be. Here's a free tip. Give your staff a little respect and treat them the way you'd want them to treat you and you might bet better workers. You pay peanuts and you get monkeys, you give no respect and you get none back. This isn't rocket science here.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    44. Re:Free Trade by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      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.

      I've founded companies and sold them. You can find and keep good employees if you are a good employer who manages the future prospects of those employees. Never 100% but then, nothing is. Most companies today don't make any effort to do this and so yes, the churn is huge.

      Once a company has been sold, after a short while the founding person or persons are generally no longer involved in which case the previous poster is correct - the employees are the foundation that the rest of the company rests upon. No employees, no company.

      Those employees are, however, looked at as 'human resources' in the same way that computers are looked at as 'technology resources' and are just as interchangeable. We see it every day and we're seeing it in TFA today.

      Your attitude about being perceived as a slave of those working for you is...interesting, if not a bit disturbing. I have never felt this way - never needed to.

      I disagree with you that someone who contributes to a company over time who then has expectations of loyalty from that company in return should be categorized as an 'entitled, lazy bum'. If people put in time and effort to help me build a company I'm not going to fuck them over to save a few dollars so I can buy a nicer third house.

      There needs to be a balance between owners and employees - a working relationship that gives a future to those involved, presuming they work towards it.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    45. Re:Free Trade by dywolf · · Score: 1

      "I matter.
      Not my employees.
      I make this place go.
      Not them.
      They should be thankful I was nice enough to give them jobs."

      you sound like a fantastic boss.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    46. Re:Free Trade by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    47. Re:Free Trade by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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

      Japanese companies feel that their primary reason for existing is to supply gainful employment. Profits are of course important, but the most important thing is to give people jobs. Japan also has the largest number of old companies in the world, that is companies that have be going for many decades rather than having some asshat decide to destroy them for a quick buck and a golden parachute.

      In fact, that kind of thing tends to be quite common among many small business owners even in the US I think, it's only when companies get larger and there is a split between the people doing the real work and the people brought in to make sure the next quarter's financials look good that employees start to be treated as disposable. Of course it's short sighted - who is going to buy your shit if every company outsources jobs to India and the US ends up with massive unemployment and low wages? But it's the tragedy of the commons, coupled with zero consequences for the decision maker.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re: Free Trade by KenHansen · · Score: 1

      The union thought they were 'owed' those new jobs, and by creating (not moving, but creating *new* jobs) in a non-Union state, the union took it personally.

    49. Re:Free Trade by SadButResolved · · Score: 2

      I'd have to say after 25 years in IT, that the vast majority of people left their jobs(jumped ship) because of the manager. People rarely leave their jobs, they leave their managers. Perhaps your very attitude here is part if not the whole root cause of your attrition. Or the cost of living is so far out of wack in your area for a person they need to eat and pay the rent?

    50. Re:Free Trade by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.....
    51. Re:Free Trade by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      That's not the point of free trade. You're not depending on the 1% to take care of you. What you don't want is a sclerotic economy (witness France ) where new jobs don't exist. Right now we have the worst of both worlds. We do not a free market (or anything close to it) and we don't have protected labor.

      One solution. Don't tax dollars earned outside the country (or if you do tax it a very low rate). This will remove the disincentive to keep dollars overseas (and hence use the money overseas.)

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    52. Re:Free Trade by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Generous? You're 20 years out of date. The US currently has one of the most onerous business tax structures in the world. Gee, I wonder why businesses aren't repatriating their earnings.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    53. Re:Free Trade by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has worked with both Americans and Indians can tell you that Americans are far more productive. They are worth more. They are also paid more, by a factor of about 15. For many jobs, Americans are 15 times more productive.

      I do find that very plausible. And not the idea that Americans are "better" in some way. It's a different mindset.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    54. Re:Free Trade by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      "At will" employment contracts are largely illegal.

      Which in the UK, they've invented Zero Hours Contracts (ZHC) where the employer will not guarantee any work for you and you are also free to seek other work elsewhere, unless they're a scumbag employer who've inserted an 'exclusivity' clause where you have to get written permission to be able to work elsewhere...

      Currently, people are now terrified to refuse any hours offered from employers as they are worried they'll not be offered any further hours if it is refused...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    55. Re:Free Trade by operagost · · Score: 1

      Virtual mod points for your insights, kind sir.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    56. Re:Free Trade by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Starvation being the most likely outcome since cost of living rarely comes down without it. So many people will die needlessly, crime will rise significantly needlessly, and society as we know it crumbles again needlessly.

      Shifting gears here - Keeping in mind that I was Poe-ing, you are right. As America further runs though it's wealth extraction efforts, we are going to have to come to the realization that you just cannot have it both ways. You can't have wealthy producers and impoverished serfs being ruled by them.

      Because the end game of that one sided paradigm will be the wealthy producers starting to cannibalize each other. You can't take money from the useless poor. They're starving and have none. So you have to go after your own kind.

      Now I really don't expect that scenario to happen, because right now, the Producer outlook has gone a tad pathological, to the point where people like Martin Shkreli are worshipped by many.

      As well as horribly reviled by many - which is a good sign that there are at least some limits of greed that people are willing to put up with. Trump even had some nasty stuff to say about this modern American Master of the Uniiverse. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-....

      Arrested for a shell game he was playing.

      The H1-B program is a sham, it probably started with a noble goal like bringing another Einstein to the country, that is all it should be for. That is not what most H1-Bs are though. They have no special skills and we're enabling this process without getting anything in return.

      What we need to be afraid of is a brain drain, where Americans end up going to other countries where there might be better opportunities. We're not there yet, but some day? Something like 6 million smart people by some counts . https://newrepublic.com/articl...

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      But don't worry - it's those egghead scientists who believe wrong things. That last was sarcastic.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    57. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Really, you're just reacting to my TONE? My first response was to a breathless bit of over-the-top snark lazily blaming the Eeeeeeevil 1% for everyone's problems. That sort of intellectual laziness and ignorance of the global economy, combined with petulance and misdirected juvenile hatred doesn't need some sweet coddling, it needs a smack in the face. I'm not feeling too badly about responding with some bristling to a typical snarky troll.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    58. Re:Free Trade by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Is that you, Lebowski?

    59. Re:Free Trade by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Most likely

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    60. Re:Free Trade by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      But they can't just move the jobs to those offshore locations. In order to do that, they need to get their current workers to train their replacements - whether they're H1-B workers in the US or outsourced workers in Chennai. Often, H1-B workers are used temporarily to facilitate 'knowledge transfer' before the offshore workers kick in. Certainly, the US government has a compelling interest in preventing that.

      If nothing else, the US needs to take over basic responsibilities - like health insurance - so that US workers are not competing with foreign workers whose governments cover such expenses.

      Oh, and by the way, offshoring rarely works in cases where there is significant knowledge to transfer. Suffice it to say that the transfer process is a joke - and the offshore workers stay on the project for a year or two, after which the next bunch ends up watching videos of the original US workers doing their jobs - and hoping to glean something useful from that.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    61. Re:Free Trade by Microlith · · Score: 1

      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.

      So you're raging against some unseen but ever present entity?

      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.

      Sounds like a conservative straw man to me.

      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).

      Sounds like a persecution complex and seeing the other side through an external tint, if you ask me.

    62. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So you're raging against some unseen but ever present entity?

      No, I'm pointing out that just because I don't hire people like that doesn't mean I don't encounter them every day. As you do, too, even though you're trying to change the subject in order to avoid acknowledging that.

      Sounds like a conservative straw man to me.

      Yeah, I'm sure you've NEVER heard lefty ranters shouting anti-business platitudes before. Maybe you're lucky, maybe you've never had to actually walk through an Occupy camp blocking the entrance to some poor guy's business, shouting at him about how he's a sellout for participating in Eeeeeevil capitalism ... um, but do you mind if we use your bathroom?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    63. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If your employee wants flexibility to move somewhere else, something that would annoy you....

      Why would it annoy me? I'm perfectly happy to see someone find greener pastures if someone else can afford to spend more on their services than I can. Why would I hold that against them? You're deliberately trying to avoid the point, which that other commenters here think the employer should NOT have the right to end that relationship, but that the employee SHOULD be able to.

      If you want the flexibility to get rid of them, which would financially destroy them...

      Why are you so unwilling to grasp that some businesses (and thus eveyone involved) can be financially destroyed if they can't adjust how many employees they pay, as their business revenue or projects come and go? You've clearly never had to run a business, and are laboring under the comic-book level fantasy that every business is just floating on a giant bucket of money and that when they reduce staff (or move to another place, or sell some or all of the business, or anything else disruptive) that it's just because they're villains who love to destroy lives. You can't possibly be that immature and uninformed, so that means you have to know you're just spouting nonsense in order to score cheap (cowardly, anonymous) points.

      ...and you don't see the difference

      Here, let's see if we can get this into the brain that you're pretending doesn't understand reality:

      One person starts a company. A one-woman graphics shop. She becomes successful through some good contracts and reaches a point where she needs to hire someone to help with the workload. Some of the contracts finish, and the economy is such that her level of work and the competition demand that she either reduces her overhead, or the business will be financially ruined. You seem to think it would be better for her and her employee to both lose everything than for her to go back to being a one-person operation in order to preserve the business and her income while she works to land some new contracts and eventually hire again (instead of NEVER hiring again because she had to close the business, because the overhead was unsustainable while paying a second salary to an underused employee that doesn't have enough billable work to do).

      Who's the asshole here? Me (or any other business owner that does what's necessary to keep the business viable), or you, who think it should be destroyed if it can't continuously lose money on payroll that's bigger than revenue?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    64. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      What's the problem, exactly?

      The problem is that you seem like a fullofhimself asshole who would be a nightmare to work for. Just stop posting now.

      Always nice to see that the people who hate the businesses they want money from will trot out some juvenile ad hominem in a lame attempt to distract and avoid answering the simple question. Let's try that again:

      Would you be willing to trade your expectation that an employer can't stop employing you for your not having the liberty to go get a different job when you want to, for your own reasons?

      So, answer the question. If you say yes, you're an idiot unless you're suggesting that the employment contract that forces both parties to be essentially married is remarkably lucrative - what are you, a famous sports figure, perhaps? If you say no, you're agreeing with me, that both parties should enjoy the same flexibility.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    65. Re:Free Trade by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily; it could simply mean areas with a lower cost of living. Even within the same state - an office in NYC has to pay its employees a lot more than an office in Schenectady. It simply makes no business sense to set up shop in Seattle nowadays.

    66. Re:Free Trade by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      A guy I did some consulting work for a while back, when he called a company's tech support, would insist on talking to someone in the United States. He'd refuse to talk to someone offshore. (Yeah, some "profiling" of accents was involved.)

      I thought at the time it was a sphincterish attitude, but with so many companies firing all their staff and requiring them to train their offshore replacements, perhaps he had a point.

      A number of companies pulling this have discovered that in spite of the cut-rate salaries, the quality of service they get offshore, and the difficulties (language, time zone) make it a net loss.

    67. Re:Free Trade by KGIII · · Score: 1

      LOL I tried not to sound that way - I knew it would but it's not meant to be. Broad strokes miss the fine details. I could think of no better way to express it. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    68. Re: Free Trade by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm so not gonna opine on that. ;-) I'm just gonna point out that that's how I understood it.

      I will say that, in principle, I'm very fond of the idea of unions.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    69. Re:Free Trade by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      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.

      The GP you're replying to mentions "free trade". Moving factory operations to Kentucky is not an example of "free trade". Moving factory operations to Mexico is an example of free trade. Since within the United States, "free trade" is defined by the Commerce Clause, I'm going to change the target of your example from "Kentucky" to "Mexico" so that your interesting question actually makes sense.

      When one company ships jobs to a cheaper foreign labor market it, it's smart management. When they all do it, it's the end of our economy. It doesn't matter how inexpensively our smart New York company can get their exploited laborers overseas to make their widgets if none of the New Yorkers have jobs and the income required to buy those incredibly cheap widgets.

      Now I'm not naive; I know that offshoring is a movement that is here to stay, and by and large will continue to send jobs offshore up until the time third world wages (plus logistical expenses) equal our wages, at which point there will no longer an economic incentive to offshore. My question to you is: Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Must we sacrifice our first world standard of living on the alter of free markets?

      If you're fine with living on third world wages in a first world country, then we need do nothing. If you aren't, then some public policy changes are required; some constraints on our vaunted free markets are required.

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    70. Re:Free Trade by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      "Lower cost areas" which is double-speak for "right-to-work states", where unions are much less powerful....

      Um, no, lower cost can mean Tennessee but can also mean China or India or Ireland or even a different part of the same state with the exact same rights so please don't put words into my mouth and read something that wasn't there.

    71. Re:Free Trade by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Now that you make me think about it - it's more meta than that. It's a Kilgore Trout (Vonnegut novel-writing character) novel.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    72. Re:Free Trade by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure you've NEVER heard lefty ranters shouting anti-business platitudes before. Maybe you're lucky, maybe you've never had to actually walk through an Occupy camp blocking the entrance to some poor guy's business, shouting at him about how he's a sellout for participating in Eeeeeevil capitalism ... um, but do you mind if we use your bathroom?

      Yup I have. But you seem to try to turn anyone that disagrees with you into "lefty ranters'.

      A person that wants American companies to do well, and a middle class that is well paid enough to buy the products American insutry produces is not a lefty ranter product of the occupy movement.

      This is not rocket science. The ideas promoted by some on the supply side of things haven't worked. Trickle down and rising tide boats. Job creator tax cuts. Wars on the installment plan. Mentioned mainly as a tremendous boon for some particular contractors.

      At what point is enough?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    73. Re:Free Trade by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Not a chance. ;-) They're usually at my house, after all. Shit, I'm not proud - I also bring the very best of party favors. So no, I'm not alone or even unhappy. Hell, I'm probably twice as pretentious in real life. *snickers*

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    74. Re:Free Trade by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      But you seem to try to turn anyone that disagrees with you into "lefty ranters'.

      Nope, just the ones trying to prop up the notions championed by the political left. These include, for example, those that would tie an employer's hands as we've seen done in places like socialist-minded France. That's exactly the context in which this thread is being discussed ... that it's cool for an employee to seek, keep, or step away from a job as their personal circumstances and bottom line dictate, but it's Eeeeeeevil for the person who owns (for example) the small consultancy or other operation where they work to exercise that exact same flexibility for the same reasons. There's only one political camp that holds positions like that, and which shriek at business owners who point out the hypocrisy.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    75. Re:Free Trade by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That nails it!

    76. Re:Free Trade by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There's only one political camp that holds positions like that, and which shriek at business owners who point out the hypocrisy.

      So who in here's been shreiking at you?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    77. Re:Free Trade by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... "Lower cost areas" which is double-speak for "right-to-work states", where unions are much less powerful....

      "Lower cost areas" which is double-speak for "right-to-work states", where unions are considered to be Yankee CarpetBaggers.

      Fixed that for you!

      I grew up in South Carolina. Even the workers don't like "foreigners" coming in to take over control. They consider the Unions to be worse than the Corporations.

    78. Re:Free Trade by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Oh my God YES! Every job I've ever left has been because of managers: generally being asses, but occasionally because they kill the ability to move up on the company.

    79. Re:Free Trade by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Vonnegut was a hell of an author. If you get a minute, check out Tom Robbins too. Even Cowgirls get the Blues has even been made into a movie but that's not his best work, by far. I'd consider "Another Roadside Attraction" to be a good choice if you're into trying it out AND unfamiliar.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    80. Re:Free Trade by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Never seen the movie but yes, excellent book - far too many years since I've read it. Too long since I've read any Vonnegut too.

    81. Re:Free Trade by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I have a similar story about the father-in-law of a close friend.
      He worked for a major Telecom for a couple decades and was let go without warning along about 6 months before he turned 55, when most of his pension benefits would have kicked in.
      So, no pension for him but at the time he had over $2 million invested so he wasn't worried, started to live the easy life, spending time with the grandkids and taking the occasional contract job. Then while on a Mediterrean cruise, the DotCom market meltdown hit and he lost 3/4ths of his investments so back to work he went only to find out that job opportunties are scarce for the greyhaired, even when very well qualified.
      After a few years, he found another pretty good telecom job from which he recently retired due to poor health but, again, no pension.
      So he & the wife and living off of savings, gov't pension and whatever he can earn in stock dabbling.
      So far, he's doing okay but it's precarious for an old guy who's not in the best of health.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  23. Re: "Employees are now training their replacements by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:"Employees are now training their replacements. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    you don't get it. let me explain.

    when you are training your replacment, this is not usually the first time for you. which means, you have been on and off jobs (I have and I'm not in the area that this story is about) and you probably NEED the severance that they bribe you with, so that you do their bidding for the final few weeks.

    no one willingly does this. we do it because we have a need to eat and they have us.

    I don't love this idea. I'm not happy about admitting it, but I have lived it and its a real thing. when employment is reserved for younger folks, foreign folks; and you are neither - you soon get used to going from job to job and restarting it all over again when they are done with you (as soon as the project ends and no later).

    it sucks! and I understand. I wish I didn't, but I do.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  25. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump will stop this madness.

    Give him a chance.

    Yeah. He's only four bankruptcies down so far; why stop now? Five's a great number. Sure, let's elect yet ANOTHER rich fuck to lead the country further down it's corporate rathole. Plus, one known to be a xenophobic, misogynist, jingoist, grade-school-vocab-having MORON who thinks "Rosie-O-Donneling" someone he doesn't like is how to manage a disagreement. Peeeerfect. THAT'S a great idea. Wonder why I didn't think of it?

    Oh.

    BECAUSE I'M NOT A STUPID FUCKTARD

  26. He's being opportunistic by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    I wondered that too until I found out he ran focus groups to figure out what to say to win the primary. Trump's serious this time. He's not just putting his name out there, he's in it to win it. The scary part is all that stuff about walls and patrolling Muslim neighborhoods is what his base wants to hear too. That said, don't expect any actually action from Trump on any of those thing, or indeed anything he's said. The funny thing is we're so used to hearing him flip-flop I don't think it'll matter. Plus Hilary is about as likeable as a rattlesnake. If she wins it'll be the first time in the history a candidate lost the "Would you rather have a beer with?" poll and won the general.

    Expect to see Trump quiet down about the Hispanics and the Muslims in order to prevent fear from driving them to the polls. By the time the general comes around they'll have forgotten most of what he said and they'll forget to vote like usual. Whether Hilary wins or not will largely depend on how many more gaffs Trump has (which, given his experience in public speaking and the focus groups he's running will likely be very few) and how good a job Hilary does scaring minorities and women ( Trump has forgotten his Dog Whistle a few times when it comes to punishing women who seek abortions ) into showing up at the polls. Hilary has a history of being a lousy campaigner though...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. Goodbye Slashdot by linuxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Goodbye Slashdot by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      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.

      This is important for many of the people on the site, obviously enough. If it isn't important to you then don't click on the header.

      Then we don't have to hear your griefing any more than you have to hear ours.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    2. Re:Goodbye Slashdot by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There are too many stories about jobs being outsourced.

      I agree, but the root cause of this is not Slashdot.

      Guess what, we're in shit times. We're on the tail end of a recession, the resources industry is in the shitter, and outsourcing is becoming easier and easier in the Web Four Point fing Oh era.

  28. "IT employees thought..." by tlambert · · Score: 1

    "IT employees thought they were part of the solution to McClatchy's tech direction, not the problem."

    Yeah.

    It's pretty common for the people who are the problem to think that they are the solution, and then not be the solution.

    There's even a term coined for people who insert themselves into a process, but have no real utility to the process itself, other than to slow it down. It's "AI", and no that doesn't mean what you think it means: it stands for "Artificial Importance". People who insert themselves into processes in order to make themselves important are worse than useless.

    1. Re:"IT employees thought..." by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      People who insert themselves into processes in order to make themselves important are worse than useless.

      Another reason why CEOs to keep their noses out of IT.

    2. Re:"IT employees thought..." by tlambert · · Score: 1

      IT departments often insert themselves in ways which make for "process for the sake of process".

      A perfect example of this is the IT department which tells employees which Apps the can or can not install on their iPhones and iPads.

      This is asinine, since what they are effectively claiming is that they are better at curating Apps than Apple, Inc..

      Are they? No. This is an absurd proposition. If your IT people could really do a better job on App curation than Apple, then your entire company would have been bought by Google, which is pretty piss-poor at App curation, and the entire company, other than the IT department, thrown away, and the IT department installed as Google's new Android App curation team.

      And that didn't happen, did it? So your IT people are sticking their noses into something that the vendor of the device has already accomplished better than they could themselves accomplish, just so that they can weild a bit of petty power over the other people who work for the company.

      It makes no sense to /pay/ them to do this.

  29. Re:"Employees are now training their replacements. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Most companies will have it written into their severance agreements that you must train your replacements or forfeit your severance pay. There's nothing whatsoever in them that says that you can't train your replacement badly.

    Naturally, don't give them anything in writing that would leave a paper trail to your doorstep, but beyond that, you still have a whole lot of latitude. We're talking about Indian tech support workers here, they're scarcely better than simple script-reading automatons - they certainly aren't going to know if you're giving them bad advice.

    When the shit hits the fan 6, 12 months down the road and the company comes calling demanding to know what you did, "I have no idea what you're talking about! I trained my replacement to the best of my ability, any review of the e-mails I sent and documentation I wrote will show it. Perhaps you're just getting what you're paying for?"

  30. Re: "Employees are now training their replacements by DrXym · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  31. Trump is none of those by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    instead he's whatever the hell you want him to be. He's been running focus groups left and right to figure out what to say. He's still running them. He's saying whatever it takes to get elected and he's so brazen about it and we're so used to him flip flopping that it's not hurting him with voters. Trump couldn't give a rats ass about racism, misogyny or just being plain rude. Now, I _am_ a little scared to find out that all that nonsense he spouted was exactly what Republican primary voters wanted to hear, but at least they voted for the guy not using the dog whistle...

    Also, these newspapers are owned by mega corps. Anyone who touches the issue finds themselves out of work in less than a week. Fuck, there was just a story about a cartoonist running a gag in an small Iowan newspaper about the only ones making money farming being the CEOs of Monsato & John Deer. He'd been working for the paper for 33 years and they canned him on the spot when the CEOs in question said "Knock it off". You have a ruling class. Deal with it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Trump is none of those by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Indeed, he's completely unpredictable and irrational. He doesn't have a plan, or even a clue that he knows how things work. He's playing his supporters like a drum, light on thought and heavy on emotion.

      Trump couldn't give a rats ass about racism, misogyny or just being plain rude.

      Of course not, that's how immature and childish he is.

      I _am_ a little scared to find out that all that nonsense he spouted was exactly what Republican primary voters wanted to hear, but at least they voted for the guy not using the dog whistle...

      What, so blatant racism and bigotry is somehow better than subtle racism and bigotry?

      I think I see the real problem here!

  32. All IT work is vulnerable by HemRamachandran · · Score: 1

    Esp. when a companies profits are down in the changing times, management will look to cut costs, and IT looks like an easy target. High 'burn rate' and with the power of Internet, others with similar skills can take over. Have to wait and see if this plan succeeds though.

  33. Re:"Employees are now training their replacements. by xevioso · · Score: 1

    "There's nothing whatsoever in them that says that you can't train your replacement badly."

    This never works, because replacements usually start doing some part of your job while you are training them. if they start doing part of your job while you are training them badly, the folks you report to will likely notice. It's rare that you train folks to do stuff in IT without them actually doing some of it under your watch. it's rare that there's a cutoff date where, you train them, and you quit and they start on the same day. That doesn't happen often.

  34. Re: "Employees are now training their replacements by humptheElephant · · Score: 1

    Remember a very large fraction of CEOs are psychopaths.

  35. First order of business by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    Don't train your replacements. If unionized, strike. maybe strike anyway.

    Second immediately go to competing media and take out ads advising the public what is happening. write editorials for other media.

    Talk to your government representatives about the American press being outsourced to India.

    Then explain to management about a cable equipment supplier in Pennsylvania that was going bankrupt. At the last moment a "White Knight" appeared. During the phase of doing do diligence they discovered that there IT and IT development was outsourced to India. The White Knight who was bailing them out, they dropped the offer as the little cable company in trouble actually owned very very little at that point that they had control over... And the WK didn't want to be dependent on outsourced IT were they no longer even had the current source or databases in the US.

    The information is the real value, hold it in a third parties hands overseas, and you court disaster. This is not to say that overseas outsourcing is inherently bad, just non tech companies do a horrible job providing for contingencies and keeping domestic...

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    1. Re:First order of business by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      I don't think any of the things that you suggest would have reversed the actions of McClatchy. By the time that the employees got the memo, it was too late. Contracts with the firms in India had already been signed. There was no way McClatchy was going to breach the contract.

    2. Re:First order of business by tlambert · · Score: 1

      There was no way McClatchy was going to breach the contract.

      It's not breach of contract unless there was already an exchange of consideration. Without that, there was no contract.

      McClatchy may have indeed paid the company in India money: they probably did, in fact; but did the company in India perform any IT tasks on behalf of McClatchy? Unlikely in the extreme, if their employees had not even been trained as of yet.

  36. Waste Management by DesertNomad · · Score: 1

    did a similar thing last month, getting rid of "only" 6% of its IT workforce locally by outsourcing to India. No H1B visas needed as the call-center jobs moved to India.

    http://www.azcentral.com/story...

    I'm not sure how much this saves customers, the monthly charge customers pay probably didn't drop, but I'm sure that this helped the local organization's bottom line and made their management look good to the bosses. Short-term profit vs long-term stability. Except for an article in the newspaper, didn't seem to be much outcry.

    To be fair, I don't remember ever reading in any significant company's corporate prospectus that employment was more important than revenue.

  37. I hope Wipro FUBARs it all up by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    I honestly hope this Indian outfit fucks it up beyond all repair and recognition.

    Such an outcome would do nothing to help the displaced workers, but would signal the newspaper company's leadership and shareholders that maybe, just maybe, this was not only a dick move, but a poor technical one, to boot.

    Really -- I wish the newspaper the absolute worst.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  38. Walk out now by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

    Walk out now. Do not train replacements.Leave them to their own demise.

  39. Stupid is as stupid does. Again. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    FTFA : Employees are now training their replacements.

    Not enough guts to all say "screw that?" Don't have the tools to organize a mass walkout because you can't use email or social media?

    Didn't learn anything from the prisoner's dilemma?

    Well, once again, you can't fix stupid.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  40. Re: "Employees are now training their replacements by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    I did a shitty job of training?

    I'd do a great job of training. My 4 year syllabus starts with "This Is A Mouse", and no, it cannot be rushed.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  41. Too bad I don't live in Miami... by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

    ...so I can not buy their paper.

    Wait, I can not buy their paper from home!

    I hope you go bankrupt, assholes. Wait, that wouldn't be fair to the remaining employees. Now I don't know who to root for.

    Fuck it, I hate everybody!

  42. Daft.. by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Why not petition the Government to do what they are supposed to do instead of saying your only option is to fuck over your neighbors? Are you really that much of a sociopath that you can't grasp another option? Don't even try that shit about you being a job creator, because if you are defending off shoring jobs you are not a creator but a destroyer. Anyone can look at Henry Ford's business model and understand why it worked and built a huge middle class economy, you sending money overseas destroys that very thing. Without any question at all.

    If you are a small business, you are not outsourcing because it costs too much money.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Daft.. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Why not petition the Government to do what they are supposed to do

      Which thing is it that government is supposed to do:

      1) Force foreign people to stop offering their services for lower prices?

      2) Impose gigantic tariffs on overseas services until the guy in a small town in India costs as much as a programmer making a comfortable income while living in downtown San Francisco? And never mind the resulting trade war?

      3) Force the US employer to only hire local people regardless of what it means to their viability as an ongoing business or what it would mean to the prices they'd have to charge to customers ... and, what, subsidize them with newly raised taxes taken from other businesses?

      Anyone can look at Henry Ford's business model and understand why it worked and built a huge middle class economy

      No, anyone can look at the bigger picture and understand that the few decades during which that sort of arrangement in the US produced that sort of prosperity ONLY happened because there was no global economy in the way there is now. Your isolationism is a childish fantasy. You're wishing away entire industries in places like Germany and Korea so that you can insist that things can still be like they were when those didn't exist. You're either actually ignorant of reality, or pretending to be. Either way, you've waived your right to have an opinion. Please don't do anything dangerous like voting.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Daft.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Thanks for demonstrating that you are a sociopath. The delusion of the "Global Economy" is all the validation we need to know you are exactly that. A global economy would mean that workers are all on par. Minimum wage would have a global definition, working conditions would have a global definition, workers compensation would have a global definition, worker rights to unionize would exist, and employers would be held accountable for breaking those global regulations.

      That world does not exist, and you are simply repeating propaganda as an excuse for your psychopathy.

      Obviously you can't picture any action that your Government could take, you refuse to look at the _real_ world.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Daft.. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      The delusion of the "Global Economy" is all the validation we need to know you are exactly that. A global economy would mean that workers are all on par.

      Wow, you really HAVE been at the Kool Aid, haven't you.

      So I suppose you're also going to insist that we don't even have a "national" economy, right? You are confusing central control of everyone's lives and business with "the economy." Classic brainwashed lefty nonsense. Why do you think that local laws being different in, say, Germany ... mean that the US and Germany aren't participating in overlapping (gasp! international! on the same globe!) economies? Are you that sheltered there, in your Safe Space at your middle school, where your parents have gone to such great lengths to make sure your tender little mind hasn't been made to feel icky, uncomfortable feelings caused by seeing reality? Do you really think that trade between nations doesn't exist, just because the market for a person serving food in Mumbai doesn't place the same value in dollars as it does for a waiter in Manhattan or Paris's 6th Arrondissement?

      Your creepy desire for control over ever culture and everyone's lives and entrepreneurial efforts has blinded you to the fact that trade still happens even when you don't like the fact that different cultures approach their affairs in different ways. I imagine you'd probably be shocked to discover how people live in, say, rural Montana. And they'd laugh you out of the room when you tell them that they're not part of the economy because they don't live each day according to your vision of what constitutes an economy.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Daft.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

      How amazing that your argument starts right away with a personal attack and more absurdity. I gave you the definition of Global economy and you simply pretend that it didn't happen. You jump to asinine arguments about what the Government role is for protecting the Nation, make absurd claims as an ad homimen, and completely ignore presented factual people like Henry Ford who defined the country.

      I do so hope your children and grandchildren get to participate in the 3rd world poverty economy you are so gleeful about. You will reap what you sow in the end, and I sincerely hope you get to wallow in it for a good long while. Right now you have "stuff", maybe.. I'm guessing you are a piss ant paid peanuts to troll.

      Lastly, I don't speak Troll myself but I sure do recognize the dialect. Given that you are Trolling you go pound a bag of sand up your ass.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Daft.. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      How amazing that your argument starts right away with a personal attack

      Fascinating. You call someone a delusional sociopath, and then are amazed when someone comments on the way you behave? Still, I suppose your amazement that someone isn't content to let you off that insulting hook you put yourself on is consistent with how entitled you feel about the actual subject matter at hand.

      I gave you the definition of Global economy and you simply pretend that it didn't happen.

      Right. Because it was pure nonsense. We have a global economy because trade is conducted across the globe by pretty much every culture that isn't still in the stone age, or which hasn't joined the North Korea club of crazy (and even they have global trading partners after a fashion). That's a global economy: economic activity what takes place globally. Get it? If people in the only did business with Canada and Mexico, we'd be talking about our participation in a continental economy. But that hasn't been true for North America since Asians who walked over 20,000 years ago (and became the "Native Americans") stopped being the only economic activity here. We've had a truly global economy for well over 500 years. Your strange desire to wish it away would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous.

      You jump to asinine arguments about what the Government role is for protecting the Nation

      No, I responded to a completely information-free assertion that the government should do something by asking WHAT specifically the government should do. I even gave some examples, which are based on the long history of governments trying to make international competition and trade magically go away. You of course have avoided providing any specifics about what the US government should do to make people in India charge you more for writing HTML or answering a phone call ... crickets chirping.

      completely ignore presented factual people like Henry Ford who defined the country

      No, I specifically pointed out that the US prosperity that rose so dramatically at that time was the result the lack of competition for similar manufacturing services from anywhere else. That lack of competition ended decades ago, and no other places are far, far more effective at much of that sort of work. It's called competition. Henry Ford faced none of it (for the type of products he was making), but you're chalking that up instead to ... what? Fantasies about government intervention keeping the rest of the world's comparable products at bay? There were no such comparable products and they didn't appear until decades later. Now they exist.

      Lastly, I don't speak Troll myself but I sure do recognize the dialect. Given that you are Trolling you go pound a bag of sand up your ass.

      Yeah, I can see how - given your complete lack of ability to understand that there actually are other countries with companies making competing products that people anywhere in the world can buy (you know, because there are global mechanisms in place to make that trade, that economic activity, happen) - that you'd resort to calling anyone who points out your ignorance a "troll." Here's the thing, though. Imagine you're a third party reading this thread. Who's the troll - the person who says that someone pointing out that there is in fact global trade occurring is a delusional sociopath, or the person who simply describes it for what it is? You're the troll, buddy, and you've got some serious emotional issues to deal with. But first, open a couple of history books, and next time you're in a store, note where the products you're buying come from (and look at a globe while you think about it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  43. Re: "Employees are now training their replacements by kimvette · · Score: 1

    > No you wouldn't. People train their replacements because they're getting paid for the time it takes to train them, plus usually some sort of severance. Getting fired for sabotage ruins all that.

    Better off getting the severance package in writing and then take it to a lawyer and bring criminal charges plus a civil suit against the executives and middle managers responsible for the extortion.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  44. DAMAC by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    It's being built by DAMAC properties, Trump's company designed the golf course and put it's name on the project.

    https://www.damacproperties.co...

    A more proper statement would be - A company that is licensing Trump's name and using his design firm uses slave labor.

    Well, according to an anonymous source it's slave labor.

    Hell, truthy enough for politics, right? //Not a Trump supporter

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:DAMAC by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      It's being built by DAMAC properties, Trump's company designed the golf course and put it's name on the project.

      https://www.damacproperties.co...

      A more proper statement would be - A company that is licensing Trump's name and using his design firm uses slave labor.

      Well, according to an anonymous source it's slave labor.

      Hell, truthy enough for politics, right? //Not a Trump supporter

      Yes, he usually licenses his name to projects. But my recollection is that he owns this one, and that the construction that is being contracted out. I could be wrong – and probably am. You cited sources, so I'll trust that you are correct. But, that difference does not mitigate the circumstances that are known.

      I would not license my name to a third party that is known to use slave labor. Donald gets licensing fees, so in the end (w/you right & me wrong), then Donald Trump is still profiting from the product of slave labor, as it might not have been built without the franchise name-usage.

  45. Re:"Employees are now training their replacements. by swb · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately it works even when you don't want it to work.

    I've been "trained" by people who had every incentive to train me well, but they were just terrible at it. Some yak too much about bullshit (which is worse if you have some rapport with them, worse yet if you know and like them), some are just bad at explaining things, some weren't that good at their job to begin with. And many IT jobs involve so many intangibles that technical knowledge isn't the issue, it's figuring out fucked up politics and 1001 broken workflows and unstated management expectations.

    And then I've been on the training end of it, where training somebody else was to my absolute benefit and had miserable outcomes. Sometimes it's just my lack of teaching ability (I refuse to coach any of my son's youth sports for this reason, and my wife wants to divorce me whenever she can't figure something out on her computer). Sometimes the person's just not at the right level of expertise -- management usually has multiple incentives to hire someone with less experience. And sometimes its the intangibles of a specific job and employer, things that defy documentation or obvious rational reasoning or have dependencies you couldn't fix.

    And that's when everyone WANTS to play ball, speaks the same language, eats the same food and maybe even has inside experience at the same job.

    Now, add conflict (losing your job), stress (ditto), cultural differences, language barriers and everything else associated with a forced transition. How does it ever work out right?

    if they start doing part of your job while you are training them badly, the folks you report to will likely notice.

    I mean, what are they gonna do, fire you? You're already making me train my replacement and you're going to complain about their poor performance and try and hold me accountable? That's laughable. If you were willing to shitcan me without whatever it is I know, you would have done it already. At this stage you need me bad enough that nitpicky performance questions aren't likely to be on the table. And if they are, then go ahead, fire me. I'll take unemployment for $200, Alex. You'll never demonstrate termination for cause after at (likely coercive) separation agreement has been signed unless I show up high on mescaline, waving a gun and exposing myself.

    The absolute best management is hoping for is anything they can get OTHER than a cold transition to outsiders, especially contractors. Because that option was available up front and was free. But someone up the food chain has a hard on for making their little outsourcing plan work, so they're desperate for any advantage they can get. Marginal training is better than no training.

  46. God help them. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Have had dealings with Wipro.

    Some of their US staff aren't bad. Not great, but not bad.

    But their overseas staff. Jesus fuck!

    I've seen more technical aptitude at a luddite convention...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  47. Re: "Employees are now training their replacements by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

    Sorry but if you start a process that you know will cause problems, that is sabotage. Be the better man. If you don't want to train the replacements, don't train them. Personally, if I were in that position and could afford to do so, I'd decline to train the replacements. But I'm not going to commit sabotage nor would I undertake to train the replacements and then do less than my best. Two wrongs don't make a right.
    Of course, there's nothing wrong with making sure that the IT community at large knows who my (former) employer was and what they did.

    --
    linquendum tondere
  48. Walk by ogar572 · · Score: 1

    Tell them to go fuck themselves and walk. Thinking that offshoring will cut cost is a sign of incompetence in the leadership of the organization. If you haven't lived working with an offshore team like this, then you don't know the pain.

  49. Re: "Employees are now training their replacements by DrXym · · Score: 1
    There are obvious analogues between what the book says and every kind of job. Even in an IT admin environment there is plenty of potential for causing damage by basically reversing your work practices.

    Writing scripts that are not easy to maintain with hardcoded assumptions in a monolithic format, compile binaries that don't correspond exactly to the sources, write code that leaks memory or scales badly, write documentation that is ambiguous, contradictory or potentially dangerous, bend cables or pins in connectors, tangle up ethernet cables and use a confusing colour / labelling / layout, schedule backups and jobs at the peak periods of the day, put a scratch across the server restore disc, set the backup system to miss files, write down passwords incorrectly (e.g. o, O, 0), routing traffic through incredibly onerous filters, violate licence agreements or lose registration keys, ignore or delay hotline requests, loosely seating drives and daughter boards so a knock could crash the computer etc.

    All things that look like incompetence rather than malice even if they end up costing a business days to fix them.

  50. Re:"Employees are now training their replacements. by tsstahl · · Score: 1

    They tie the severance package to 'successfully' transitioning your job function. Most of the time they also make you agree to be contacted for a set amount of time post employment.

  51. Re:"Employees are now training their replacements. by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

    If you can train a monkey to do your job and a monkey is willing to do it..... well, then maybe your years of experience and collected knowledge isn't that worthwhile anyways...

    --
    Don't quote me on this.
  52. Re: "Employees are now training their replacements by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Deliberately mistraining your replacement is sabotage. Giving it a half-hearted effort isn't. In that situation, I'd probably have such bad morale that I wouldn't be doing a particularly good job, and I'd be looking forward to being laid off.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  53. Transformation by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Transformation is corporate speak for layoffs. I've experienced it myself in the last couple of years. So if management starts talking about "Transformation", "Realignment", or "Reorganization", they are all the same thing, layoffs, get your resume ready.

    In a very parallel situation, we had a specific group of IT workers, win a sector award the same year that they were all "Transformed" into unemployed. All of this with a Union, such that it is. About the only help it did was that a small percentage of workers were able to move into new positions, however most were lost.

    Progress.