University of California Hires India-Based IT Outsourcer, Lays Off Tech Workers (computerworld.com)

dcblogs writes from a report via Computerworld: The University of California is laying off a group of IT workers at its San Francisco campus as part of a plan to move work offshore. Laying off IT workers as part of a shift to offshore is somewhere between rare and unheard-of in the public sector. The layoffs will happen at the end of February, but before the final day arrives the IT employees expect to train foreign replacements from India-based IT services firm HCL. The firm is working under a university contract valued at $50 million over five years. This layoff affects 17% of UCSF's total IT staff, broken down this way: 49 IT permanent employees will lose their jobs, along with 12 contract employees and 18 vendor contractors. This number also includes 18 vacant IT positions that won't be filled, according to the university. Governments and publicly supported institutions, such as UC, have contracted with offshore outsourcers, but usually it's for new IT work or to supplement an existing project. The HCL contract with UCSF can be used by other UC campuses, which means the layoffs may expand across its 10 campuses. HCL is a top user of H-1B visa workers.

Comments

Completely wrong....

[beheaderaswp]

This university should lose it's state and federal funding for doing something like this.

Horrible insult to the USA, our students, and our educators.

Terrible.

Re:Completely wrong....

[sg_oneill]

Nationalism is never a particularly rational argument.

However there is a much more reasonable argument. Part of the reason we pay taxes is because they are good for the economy, as they keep money flowing in the economy and increases employment in the public sector thus increasing consumption by the working class (which in turn feeds businesses). But if that work goes offshore, then that tax is going offshore and stops being useful to the taxpayer from an economic perspective.

Re:Completely wrong....

[psmoot]

Nationalism is a very rational argument.

I respectfully disagree. The older I get, the fewer reasons I see to make a distinction between "us" and "them" other than selfishness.

My ancestors fought and died to establish a government of, by, and for the people.

Your ancestors and mine fought and died to protect our inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that to protect these rights, we institute governments. Government is a means, not an end. But I split hairs...

The purpose of the government is to serve the citizens of the country. The purpose of the economy is to serve the citizens, not the other way around.

Yes, and in this case, the state government is serving the people by running a public university dedicated to teaching medical skills. Running an IT jobs program and spending more than necessary on IT staff does not serve the students or taxpayers of California. You may want more IT training and jobs in the US but that's not UCSF's mission or expertise. They quite reasonably decided to let someone else handle that and focus on their core job.

Re:they should be teching real skills not outsourc

[Kabukiwookie]

Also PASS the savings on

Passing savings on? What kind of commie talk is this. Real capitalism is asking the highest price the market will bear.

Re:I'm so mad, I almost want to vote for

[Tailhook]

Trump is...

Here is Trump's actual policy regarding H-1B, which you may read on his campaign site:

Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program's lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.

The last time anyone heard anything definitive about H-1B from Clinton was early in 2016 at which point she wanted a higher cap (more H-1B workers.) Not surprising given how much loot Silicon Valley has dumped into the Clinton coffers.

Re:Training is immoral

[unixisc]

Immoral maybe when having a citizen train another citizen. Probably illegal when having citizen train H1B worker. After all, when are H1B workers allowed? When an organization can demonstrate that they can't find Americans to do the same job (says nothing about the cost of doing it). But here, you have Americans who can do the job having to train foreign workers who can't as yet do the job. If they were training an offshore team in Bangalore or Gurgaon to do it, it would still be legal, if sadistic, but if they have to train H1B's to do it, then no!

Re:H1B

[Anonymous Coward]

They *HAVE* skilled workers. They are getting rid of them.

Re:It was likely on the table.

[paiute]

You can trust HCL (which is actually located in Sunnyvale, not India) with that, because they have deep pockets to sue

If they ever lose a major judgement we will find out that the US entity is a penniless shell and the money is all in India.

Re:they should be teching real skills not outsourc

[silentcoder]

>The fact that these elected politicians sell legislation to the highest bidder has nothing to do with Capitalism and everything to do with Statism.

Sorry pal, but now you're moving the goalpost. You declared that capitalism is selling at the highest cost the market will bear. These politicians are being capitalists by selling their product, legislation to the highest bidder. Their supposed to sell it to the voters (who appointed them at the ballot box and pay their salaries with taxes) but the voters offer less than the market will bear.

That's capitalism - like it or not.

The thing is - this is not supposed to be a capitalist institution. A public university is part of the civil service. What you're seeing is the outcome of the long republican drive telling us "universities should be more like businesses" - which is what they are now doing, and this is exactly why that was always a terrible idea. The two types of organisation have nothing in common. Universities are not SUPPOSED to be profitable or efficient or even cost-effective. They are suppose to produce knowledge and to give that freely to the world. That's the exact opposite of what a business is supposed to do.
If all you care about is the cheapest school the market will bear - private universities exist for that purpose, but public universities first and primary goal is supposed to be research and even their entire education section's sole real purpose is to pass the results of the research into the population and, coincidentally, train another generation of researchers to take over when the current batch dies.

Making money, even training people for a job, is nowhere on the list of things a university is supposed to do. The latter is, at most, a tangential benefit from sharing knowledge with students.