Slashdot Mirror


Facing Layoff, An IT Employee Makes A Bold Counteroffer (computerworld.com)

ComputerWorld reports: In early December, Carnival Corp. told about 200 IT employees that the company was transferring their work to Capgemini, a large IT outsourcing firm. The employees had a choice: Either agree to take a job with the contractor or leave without severance. The employees had until the week before Christmas to make a decision about their future with the cruise line. By agreeing to a job with Paris-based Capgemini, employees are guaranteed employment for six months, said Roger Frizzell, a Carnival spokesman. "Our expectation is that many will continue to work on our account or placed into other open positions within Capgemini" that go well beyond the six-month period, he said in an email.
Senior IT engineer Matthew Culver told CBS that the requested "knowledge transfer activities" just meant training their own replacements, and "he isn't buying any of it," writes Slashdot reader dcblogs. "After receiving his offer letter from Capgemini, he sent a counteroffer. It asked for $500,000...and apology letters to all the affected families," signed by the company's CEO. In addition, the letter also demanded a $100,000 donation to any charity that provides services to unemployed American workers. "I appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and I sincerely hope that you can fulfill these terms."

And he's also working directly with a lawyer for an advocacy group that aims to "stop the abuse of H-1B and other foreign worker programs."

531 comments

  1. Dear Matthew by buddyglass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Matthew,

    No.

    Roger Frizzell
    CEO, Carnival Corp.

    1. Re:Dear Matthew by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Except, it's Capgemini CEO who should send a reply.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be more like: "Ha ha ha... SECURITY!"

    3. Re:Dear Matthew by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No.

      That's a French company's response. An American response would probably be like this Sear's commercial, "The Boot."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpiz_gR9P00

    4. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I am sorry that foreign tech workers are willing to do the same job you are, but at a lower salary.

      I am sorry that hiring them to replace you is the most rational action I can take.

      I am sorry that furthering the best interests of me and my clients means letting you go.

      I am sorry that your prospects in the job market lead you to believe that you won't find superior employment once you leave.

      I am sorry that you would like to be protected from free market forces, and to charge rates that are MUCH higher than your competition charges. I am especially sorry that trying to do this is not working out for you.

      I am sorry that you think you need to mod me troll for being objective while discussing an emotionally-charged issue.

    5. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Foreign workers are willing to do a job at a lower salary in most if not all cases b/c the cost of living in their respective countries is a fraction of ours. I would be willing to do my job at a fraction of what I am paid currently should that (that being how expensive it is to live here) change. It is equally infuriating to me when American companies use loopholes in our ridiculously complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign tax shelters to avoid paying taxes while at the same time benefiting from our infrastructure, emergency services, military, etc.. Its assholes like you that always spout off about free market this or that, os some companies feduciary responsibilities to it's shareholders blah blah blah... as justification for shitty behavior.

    6. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I outsourced your company's product by downloading its software from pirate bay. Open market bro and they offered me a better offer :)

    7. Re:Dear Matthew by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It is equally infuriating to me when American companies use loopholes in our ridiculously complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign tax shelters to avoid paying taxes

      So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the politicians that put them there? Fury doesn't help unless it is properly directed. Does your fury influence who you vote for?

      ... while at the same time benefiting from our infrastructure, emergency services, military, etc.

      No. Taxes are only sheltered on income generated overseas, using overseas infrastructure, emergency services, etc. I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in China and sold in France.

    8. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm glad folks like you are no longer calling Democrats "communists". You are all still full of astonishing unmitigated bullshit, but at least you seem to be making progress towards realizing that the right doesn't have your best interests at heart. I bet Hillary Clinton would in fact be glad to hear you are coming around.

    9. Re:Dear Matthew by unixisc · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am sorry that foreign tech workers are willing to do the same job you are, but at a lower salary.

      I am sorry that hiring them to replace you is the most rational action I can take.

      I am sorry that furthering the best interests of me and my clients means letting you go.

      I am sorry that your prospects in the job market lead you to believe that you won't find superior employment once you leave.

      I am sorry that you would like to be protected from free market forces, and to charge rates that are MUCH higher than your competition charges. I am especially sorry that trying to do this is not working out for you.

      I am sorry that you think you need to mod me troll for being objective while discussing an emotionally-charged issue.

      I am sorry that furthering the best interests of your company's shareholders and clients means letting you do - especially since yours is one of the easiest jobs to automate. One need not even hire a Kannada speaking human to step into your shoes

    10. Re:Dear Matthew by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in China and sold in France.

      In a seriously silly Monty Python sketch about taxes, someone mildly suggested:

      "I think we should tax foreigners, living abroad."

      Kinda sorta the same idea . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    11. Re:Dear Matthew by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "I am sorry that furthering the best interests of me and my clients means letting you go"

      It's fine for a CEO to be acting in the best interests of the clients and the company - but NOT his own.
      I'm sure he can quickly find one who'll do his job for a fraction of the cost and for a much smaller golden parachute.
      If the company's performance declined on his watch, he should give up some or all of that up as well.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    12. Re:Dear Matthew by Rob+Y. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that calling, say iOS sales 'generated overseas' when the software was written in the US, using US infrastructure, etc. And the company is making the bogus claim that their Irish subsidiary owns the rights to that software. It's a scam - not a loophole.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    13. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, taxes are based on profits. So Google, for instance, makes a bunch of money in the US. Their Irish branch then charges about that much for "consulting" leaving the American part with little to no profits to tax.

    14. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The US is one of the only countries that feels entitled to taxes on income generated entirely overseas. It's why Burger King moved to Canada. Canada only taxes them on income generated in Canada, not the world over like the US.

      The same applies to US citizens who've been living overseas for years and still have to pay taxes and/or take time to fill out intrusive paperwork for the IRS. The idea of paying for citizenship would be abhorrent to most people, but it's exactly what happens to expatriates.

    15. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Roger,

      While you were writing your letter, I got a sex change. You are now attempting to fire a transsexual which is a very bad PR move. Would you wish to reconsider before I alert the SJWs that a white-privileged male CEO is about to fire me because I asked for a gender-neutral washroom?

      Matilda Culver

    16. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad folks like you are no longer calling Democrats "communists". You are all still full of astonishing unmitigated bullshit, but at least you seem to be making progress towards realizing that the right doesn't have your best interests at heart. I bet Hillary Clinton would in fact be glad to hear you are coming around.

      OMG, there's someone who thinks Democrats actually worry about you.

      Wow. That's like finding an insomniac cat!

      I bet if you put a flashlight at the back of the head of such a person, you'd see light coming out of the eyes...

    17. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the politicians that put them there? Fury doesn't help unless it is properly directed. Does your fury influence who you vote for?

      Double Irish arrangement. How can a US citizen do anything about what the Irish government is doing? Btw, that loophole was closed by Ireland, eventually, after presumably a lot of pressure after the financial crisis when they showed great corporate tax revenue--you can imagine the why. Meanwhile, one of the countermeasures, like taxing the difference for those funds if they're brought back into the US (where the US has jurisdiction) are being constantly met with the same calls for "amnesty" that we sell called for illegal immigrants. Ie, it's more an acknowledgement that we aren't really addressing the issue in a meaningful way and try to somewhat rectify the problem with an enforcement holiday.

      No. Taxes are only sheltered on income generated overseas, using overseas infrastructure, emergency services, etc. I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in China and sold in France.

      How about, you're wrong? Meanwhile, this is not about "tax the sale of a product". It's "tax the income of". The former ends up being a regressive tax for all parties, even with VAT being distributed through the supply chain meaning each party might only see a small part of it and it might help localize infrastructure costs vs taxes collected. Income taxes also allow for repeated use of revenue to only count the final income at the end of the year--much like fractional reserve banking gets to reuse money and not tie it all down in the first cycle. You can argue all you like about how it's unfair how the income tax is distributed or even argue that corporations shouldn't be taxed because it just shifts the burden to consumers--the latter point being an argument for everything being an indirect sales tax.

      How about people be honest? People don't like taxes. They'd like not to pay for them. But avoidance schemes should often be illegal and it's not a question of politicians "creating" loopholes as much as companies creating them. Any system is gameable, so let's stop pretending that there isn't reason to be infuriated with companies like Apple, Google, etc pulling shit that I as a person can't and if I tried would be smacked down hard by the IRS. The only part politicians play in this is when they pull a Trump--not that he's the first or last--and suck up to companies, giving tax breaks or just outright not enforcing the law as intended and all for "job creators". Or put simply, "fuck you, person!"

    18. Re:Dear Matthew by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1

      Oh get real. Companies make it appear that nearly all income is generated overseas in order to get around that. It's mostly a scam.

    19. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am sorry that foreign tech workers are willing to do the same job you are, but at a lower salary.

      I'm sorry that this action is a federal criminal offence when you do not meet all of the required H1B restrictions on hiring unqualified replacements for American workers.

      I'm also sorry your HR department so kindly provided the evidence of your crimes by specifically indicating in writing that there is indeed at least one skilled American capable of performing the work of the H1B worker you plan to hire.

      I am sorry that hiring them to replace you is the most rational action I can take.

      I'm sorry the most rational choice you are capable of making is to break federal law resulting in a $200,000 fine and 24 months in a federal prison per incident.

      Once things get to the level of bad you are claiming, perhaps a more rational option would be to resign your job, instead of resigning yourself to prison time by committing a felony that you will be held personally responsible for.

    20. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      S/democrats/republicans

      And vice versa. Politics don't concern the little man.

    21. Re:Dear Matthew by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Dear Matthew, No.

      Where is The Donald on this one? He's going to have a lot of these to deal with, so he best roll up his sleeves and get started.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    22. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    23. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT's a good first start. But I'd get everyhing in writing. Indians are well known for being cheats.

      CAP === 'resistor'

    24. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I not be infuriated at both?

      I would like to say it does influence my voting; however, with only a couple of choices and those choices both being heavily influenced by corporate dollars its really hard to choose, especially when politicians have a tendency to say one thing to get the vote and do something entirely different once in office. But hey, it as simple as just voting the right person in... amiright?

      Also, do you honestly believe that companies only shelter income generated overseas? To answer your question, I believe companies should pay taxes where their income is generated.

    25. Re:Dear Matthew by geoskd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a scam - not a loophole.

      They are the same thing. The only way to ensure that there are no tax dodges out there is to simplify the tax code, and eliminate the words: "except", "but", "excluding", "omitting", "minus", "exempt", "without", and any other words to those same effects.

      Americans are too stupid to ever vote for a poltiician that states they will raise taxes. This means that either politicians lie, or they actively undermine the tax base. Both of those situations are bad for the majority of americans, but they vote for the same scumbags over and over, and will soundly reject any politician who openly advocates tax increases. The result is a race to the bottom. Welcome to reaping what you sow, brought to you by Democracy(tm).

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    26. Re:Dear Matthew by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry people like you will be separated from society due to your disloyalty and proclivity to treachery. Thankfully, much of Africa remains underpopulated. You can start your new life there. A life free of all constraints of modernity and the ethics and glory of European Civilization.

    27. Re:Dear Matthew by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in China and sold in France."

      Because the manufacturing and sales are controlled by a US based company, as is the profit benefit which results. If a US entity, which receives the benefits of US law, makes a profit by any means, why should it not be taxed by the US?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    28. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We cant punish the politicians, but the companies can. So we have to get mad at the companies and hope it rolls up to congress.

    29. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Taxes are only sheltered on income generated overseas.

      Technically correct but in reality incorrect. Take a look how they structure the deals. They sell the rights to the product at a pittance to their overseas subsidiary and then the subsidiary garners the profits. Take a look at how Apple in Ireland works and how much of the profits they rake in vs. how much work is done in Ireland.

    30. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you really that clueless? If that was the case, I don't think anyone would complain. But, that is NOT what happens. Google (for example) set up a company in Ireland. Google Ireland owns all the patents to the search tech. So Google USA licenses that tech from Google Ireland for several (hundred?) billion dollars per year. Thus, it manages to shift all (most) of it's income outside of the US using trickery. Google Ireland does NOTHING except own patents given to it by Google USA. Google Ireland did not invent anything, it creates nothing, it employs no one (at least not in the sense of actually doing anything related to Google USA). All it does is exist to "force" Google USA to pay huge sums of money to itself (via a subsidiary) that exists outside the USA thus "legally" shifting said income outside the border.

      There is no fucking way this is what politicians intended when the law was written. Even I'm not that cynical. I have no doubt it was to legitimately shield actual profits earned outside the US (and thus not using our infrastructure) from being taxed where they were not earned. I can't imagine anyone could forsee that at some point some fucking company would be licensing shit to ITSELF to shift profits.

      In conclusion, you are another cunt who spouts off at the mouth whilst knowing NOTHING.

      I also love all you assholes who point out that this is LEGAL. Who cares? LEGAL AND MORAL ARE NOT EQUAL. There is no law that prevents a company from acting in a moral manner. That B.S. half of you shills spout about a company having to maximize profits is a LIE. No such law exists.

      Slavery was legal for fuck's sake...... IT WAS NEVER MORAL

      I run my company in as moral a fashion as I possibly can. (And no, I'm not religious, I'm an atheist).
      I collect no data beyond what is absolutely necessary to function, none is ever shared beyond what is absolutely imperative. None is ever sold. EVER EVER EVER. And I'm very profitable. So no.. You don't have to be a cunt to have a successful business. I am so tired of hearing this bullshit.

      Companies that pull this shit are competing unfairly with companies that don't. And they should be penalized. And yeah, this is coming from someone who is very conservative. If you don't like a law, you work to change it, you don't dodge it and let everyone else suffer under it.

    31. Re:Dear Matthew by fibonacci8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suppose it's related to the idea that intellectual property "rights" granted by a country of origin should still have the same benefits and drawbacks when transferred to another country. Or at the very least should be treated as an export at such time a base of operations moves out of country.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    32. Re: Dear Matthew by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      >quote> ... et al ...

      Gore

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    33. Re:Dear Matthew by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You're mad at the laws.

      Change those.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    34. Re:Dear Matthew by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Except that calling, say iOS sales 'generated overseas' when the software was written in the US, using US infrastructure, etc.

      That makes no sense. Plenty of non-American companies develop software in America. Yet only if they are incorporated in America do they pay income tax on their overseas earnings, and it is irrelevant where their engineering and development was done. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "using infrastructure". It is just an extraterritorial money grab that is almost certainly counterproductive since it incentivizes American companies to invest and create jobs overseas.

    35. Re:Dear Matthew by superwiz · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am sorry that foreign tech workers are willing to do the same job you are, but at a lower salary.

      This is not a lawful use of H1B visas. So working with a group of lawyers to ensure that H1B visas are not used in such a way is a completely appropriate behavior. This is no different than fighting age discrimination or race-based discrimination. There are simply some reasons which are not legally supported justifications for laying people off. Replacing them with lower paid H1B visa holders is one of those.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    36. Re:Dear Matthew by skegg · · Score: 1

      I won't disagree that companies are only doing what's permissible. And rest assured I place the blame squarely on politicians. (And you better believe these things do influence my vote.)

      But in many tech cases the IP is created in Silicon Valley (using American infrastructure, emergency services, etc), it resides in Ireland, and is financially offset by everyone else. So Americans could argue they are owed a little more in tax.

      Again, I blame politicians. I know they leave these loopholes open deliberately -- they're remarkably efficient at passing legislation when they wish. (Violating our privacy, extending their entitlements, closing tax loopholes for private citizens, etc.) I presume they turn a blind eye to mega corporations for one or both of the following reasons: (1) political donation largesse; (2) a board seat when they leave politics.

      On the upside: tracking the rise of minor parties and independents in Australian politics over the past decade -- including the occasional hung parliament -- gives me hope that democracy might just be working. (Albeit slowly.) And I don't think the future is great for the major parties ... I believe younger voters don't particularly identify with them.

    37. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather make more, live reasonably, then take all that saved money and live in another country. I'll live like a fucking King.

      I would rather not race to the bottom because someone in China pays 100 bucks a month for a 100 sq ft box in PollutionVille.

    38. Re:Dear Matthew by emaname · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yah. An AC. Go figure.

      I'm sorry you miss the obvious problem that employees are forced to take cuts in salary and benefits while CEOs continue to get obscenely huge salaries, benefits, and separation packages which contribute directly to the cost of a product or service. And the only ones making decisions about a CEO's salary are other CEOs that sit on the company's board.

      Note that the CEOs are not the free market. Neither the free market or the investors have any influence re CEO salaries and benefits. And also note that even when shareholders vote to reduce or limit a CEO's salary and benefits, the board (again, typically made up of other CEOs) can choose (and typically does) to ignore the shareholders' request. So no free market controls on CEO salaries and benefits, but there are on the employees'.

      Yup. That seems fair.

      --
      An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
    39. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, it's haruchi, King of the Trolls!

    40. Re: Dear Matthew by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I'd offer whatever crown you think I have if only you'd learn to spell or type but I suspect I'm dealing with the Lord High Emperor of All Anonymous Cowards.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    41. Re: Dear Matthew by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm glad folks like you are no longer calling Democrats "communists". You are all still full of astonishing unmitigated bullshit, but at least you seem to be making progress towards realizing that the right doesn't have your best interests at heart. I bet Hillary Clinton would in fact be glad to hear you are coming around.

      And The Russias have finally won the cold war. And the party that gave them the keys to the kingdom? Popcorn time!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    42. Re:Dear Matthew by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      I personally am trying to come to grips with something a (economically extremely conservative) relative said at Christmas, so I will channel his thoughts: does the work need to be done in the US, at American wages and cost of living; does it provide strategic advantage to the company to invest in this service, or is it a commodity function best outsourced; if by reducing costs for this service, is the company able to offer other things to their customers that are perceived as having a higher value?

      For me, the jury is still out. I think there are competitive advantages that can theoretically be provided, and moving on to a non-commodity endeavor is better economically. At the same time, I don't want the government to subsidize the process by providing h1b visas to eliminate jobs. Make people get b1 visas and control it that way.

      But long term, not sure where the pendulum heads. Whatever policy or approach you take has to be based on long term planning and not short term financials.

    43. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The US is one of the only countries that feels entitled to taxes on income generated entirely overseas. It's why Burger King moved to Canada. Canada only taxes them on income generated in Canada, not the world over like the US.

      Yet private citizens in Canada must declare all worldly income regardless of country of source and/or investment holding, and pay income tax based on said world income.

    44. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know who will work cheaper than Pajeet? Instead of paying slave wages... why not just advocate slavery?

      Luckily I elected a guy to actually give a shit about Americans. Rich dick might want to take that employee's offer.

    45. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They are the same thing.

      No, they are not. That is the first time I have ever seen someone try to make those terms equivalent. A loophole is an allowed practice by omission. A scam is an exploitative practice. A cake and a pastry are not the same thing either. SMH

    46. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are taking money from people inside a country that is not the US. It is right that this transaction is taxed in the country that is not the US where it is happening.

      If you merkins want to tax a transaction, you are welcome to tax your own transactions that are happening in merka. We'll do the same about our transactions on the outside, and everyone will be happy.

    47. Re:Dear Matthew by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      They get the benefits of American infrastructure and foreign labor costs. Why wouldn't a company do this?

    48. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry the most rational choice you are capable of making is to break federal law resulting in a $200,000 fine and 24 months in a federal prison per incident.

      As I understand it, no one enforces the penalties that may apply to H1B violations. Or, following your pattern:

      I am sorry that the federal law is not enforced, making violation of that law the most rational choice.

    49. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And any American working aboard has to pay income taxes both in the foreign country and in the US.

    50. Re:Dear Matthew by Soccerguy1832 · · Score: 1

      Note that the CEOs are not the free market. Neither the free market or the investors have any influence re CEO salaries and benefits. And also note that even when shareholders vote to reduce or limit a CEO's salary and benefits, the board (again, typically made up of other CEOs) can choose (and typically does) to ignore the shareholders' request. So no free market controls on CEO salaries and benefits, but there are on the employees'.

      If the shareholders get ignored enough they will sell their stock in the company. If that keeps happening, people won't want to buy that stock. Then the value of the company goes down and the board has to take notice.

    51. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foreign workers are willing to do a job at a lower salary in most if not all cases b/c the cost of living in their respective countries is a fraction of ours. ...

      Trump talks tariffs and such as a way to keep jobs from leaving. As appealing as that sounds, I think it is a bad move. Other countries can impose tariffs as well.

      I don't think the cost of living in a place is in itself a reason to tariff, but I do think there might be a couple valid reasons to at least consider limited tariffs.

      1.) Apply a tariff to imported goods to those countries with substandard environmental policies. The goal is to make it slightly cheaper for those countries to fix their policies.

      2) There may be some OSHA type working conditions issues where you could do the same. I.E. Perhaps the conditions aren't bad enough to say we won't buy from you, but they are bad enough to want to make that product less attractive.

      I think this must is worth it, provided the process is very transparent and the tariffs vanish as soon as the problem does. Of course for this to not lead to a trade war you would somehow have to get all parties to agree to it, which might be impossible. The last two are not remotely enough to level the playing field, but then I'm not sure if we can win by doing that. Sure we might make more money if we built everything here, but everything would cost more, so do we come out ahead? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it.

      Protectionism will also speed up the move to mechanisation. Just because people can't hire those foreign workers, doesn't mean they will pay Americans. If there is a 1 cent savings, then expect your next burger to be the app made for that. I'm honestly not sure that any "fair" system where the government stays out and/or taxes everyone equally can work long term. Money seems to be pooling at the top. wikipedia chart According to that chart we have crossed the point where the richest 1% control half of the wealth.

      I think we need to increase taxes on those making say over a million to about 50%, and if necessary keep increasing it until that chart stops crossing. Use the funds to run the government, provide training, etc.

      Now is that increase "fair". Probably not. I think it is, however, necessary for a functioning society. The imbalance must have a limit if society is to remain stable. For the free market to work, money cannot sit idle. Put another way, suppose that this year 51% of the wealth was owned by the top 1%, and for every year to come that number increased by 1%, well, how with that trend can society continue to function?

      The chart shows the top 1% when from 44% to 50% in 5 years, so that is about 1% a year. In 2020, will the top 1% own 55%? In 2040 60%? in 2080 everything? Perhaps the magic of the free market will fix everything? I don't quite buy that.. Sure things will get cheaper and cheaper, but with less actual money to spread around, it won't necessary buy more, or even the same amount.

      Seriously, does anyone have any ideas that would really work other than just taxing the heck and hoping for the best? I'm fairly sure that this Donald Trump experiment won't pan out long term.

    52. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I am sorry that foreign tech workers are willing to do the same job you are, but at a lower salary."
      Just like there are foreign companies willing to provide the same goods and services at a lower cost, however companies have rigged the rules to protect local markets from foreign competition.

      "I am sorry that hiring them to replace you is the most rational action I can take."
      Just like buying cheap Chinese/Indian/Etc knockoffs directly from Chinese/Indian/etc would be the most rational action we can take, too bad you setup IP/Copyright/Trademark rules to prevent competition. Not to mention forcing artificial incompatible protocols/standards to make sure we can't buy products intended for other markets, no to mention collusion and cartels that divide up markets.

      "I am sorry that furthering the best interests of me and my clients means letting you go."
      Furthering OUR interests means destroying the system you have put into place where by you take advantage of global markets and lock us out from the same benefits that a global market would provide.

      "I am sorry that your prospects in the job market lead you to believe that you won't find superior employment once you leave."
      I am sorry that because of your inability to compete on quality, ingenuity and innovation you are forced to penny pinch and slash jobs to make sure upper management gets their bonuses.

      I am sorry that you would like to be protected from free market forces, and to charge rates that are MUCH higher than your competition charges. I am especially sorry that trying to do this is not working out for you.
      Yeah...because we all know corporations do not try to protect themselves from free market forces. Not at all. Nope. Never. They compete fair and square, amitrite?

      I am sorry that you think you need to mod me troll for being objective while discussing an emotionally-charged issue.
      I personally would not mod you as a troll, however you make it sound like it's the workers fault for DARING to aspire to having above subsistence level existence. When it benefits the corporations, they invoke free markets and global economies but when it works against their interests, they buy the local politicians to setup barriers and protection rackets to keep the free market out.

    53. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should probably just get rid of the income tax. It's political poison.

      What we should do, instead, is charge a user-fee for anyone who uses civil services or infrastructure in the US.

      I think the big corps, especially, would be screaming quickly to go back to the "tax all the poor people to pay for our infrastructure" system they used to have.

    54. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Google Ireland does NOTHING except own patents given to it by Google USA. Google Ireland did not invent anything, it creates nothing, it employs no one (at least not in the sense of actually doing anything related to Google USA)."

      Oh - right - so the 400 engineers working here at Google in Dublin are doing what? Twiddling their thumbs? What exactly do you think the 6000 people employed here do, if they're not doing anything related to Google USA?

      Normally I'd refrain from your choice of terminolgoy, but "In conclusion, you are another cunt who spouts off at the mouth whilst knowing NOTHING."

    55. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they are. A loophole is a legalised scam. A scam is a loophole not yet legalised.

    56. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run my company in as moral a fashion as I possibly can. (And no, I'm not religious, I'm an atheist).
      I collect no data beyond what is absolutely necessary to function, none is ever shared beyond what is absolutely imperative. None is ever sold. EVER EVER EVER. And I'm very profitable.

      OK, we get it. You're either a pimp or a drug dealer.

    57. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not that difficult when you remember the golden rule of business decisions: Will this move allow the company to externalize costs in the short term? If the cost of living is drastically lower in some country, but you find qualified employees there, then you can bet your ass you can externalize some costs by hiring those workers - that country probably has poor health care or substandard living conditions. In the long run that means your employees will have shorter lifespans, or will eventually suffer from political persecution, but hey, the company saved a few bucks!

      So if you have a poorly developed sense of ethics, outsourcing is fantastic. And if someone says they are both conservative and Christian, well it shouldn't be too difficult to point out the places where they should probably look to their Christian ethics for help in understanding what is wrong with particular aspects of globalization.

    58. Re:Dear Matthew by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      You might want to look up the definition of "sorry".

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    59. Re:Dear Matthew by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Globalization is a race to the bottom. As long as there are no consequences for my business, and only communities must bear the burden, we'll likely see an acceleration of this practice.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    60. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is chewing its own feet off.

    61. Re:Dear Matthew by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Nobody is perfect.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    62. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a study made by Nokia that compared Indian and Finnish software development. While price per hour was 1/3, the actual cost was higher because of large amount of bugs.

    63. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they make over about $80,000 and only the difference between what they paid locally and what they would have paid in the USA.

    64. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sorry that 30% of your business depends on US............i wonder how are you going to manage with only 70% of your income from now on...

    65. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who's your employer, because I have some great news to tell them about some cheap 3rd world labor that you are willing to train for a few months then willingly vacate your position to them.

      The good news is there are new janitor positions opening up, and they're perfect for your college educated children with their STEM degrees.

    66. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they have won then the reality is that the Dems still hold the executive branch.

    67. Re:Dear Matthew by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Tax laws elsewhere are going to have to start taking worldwide revenues into account, otherwise it's too easy to game the system. Here's one example used by a major corporation that's probably familiar to all Slashdot readers:

      The company sets up a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands, or some other tax haven. They sell their trademark to this subsidiary for $1. They then license the trademark back for a huge amount to each of their profit-making divisions. They now no longer make a profit, because the huge cost of the trademark license conveniently offsets it. No profits, no tax, lots of money funnelled into the subsidiary in the tax haven.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    68. Re:Dear Matthew by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The problem with markets in general is that you're relying on emergent properties of a complex system to give you a desired response. Markets will always optimise for some utility function, but that might not be the one that you're aiming for. In particular, each of the actors in a market is going to optimise locally: it is obviously better for a company to reduce its costs. The down side of this for the entire market is that the newly unemployed workers are now not able to afford the products of the company. That's fine for one company, because the its former workers are a negligible fraction of the total workforce and so their efficiency gains outweigh the losses from a small reduction in potential customers. It's a big problem when a lot of companies do the same. In a global market, it actually might not be bad for the overall market, because people in the countries to which the jobs moved are now potential customers, but it is bad for the nation that is no longer making things and can't afford imports.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    69. Re: Dear Matthew by LanceMcGrath · · Score: 1

      More directly, the board can be voted out by the shareholders.

    70. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does the story say anything about H1Bs?

    71. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when are costs of living in France are significantly lower than in the US??

    72. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much market forces but the fact that someone living in poverty in some third world shithole will always work for less.

    73. Re:Dear Matthew by Cederic · · Score: 2

      The cruise company are not using H1B workers, so those aspects of the law do not apply to them.

      Cap Gemini clearly recognise that skilled workers are available in the US, as they're offering them a job for a minimum of six months. So at this stage it doesn't look like they're falling foul of the H1B worker laws either.

      H1B abuse is a bad thing but you really do need to better identify when it's actually happening. Not all outsourcing counts.

    74. Re: Dear Matthew by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Outsourcing rarely saves money. The headline figures look great, so some cunt gets a nice bonus for signing the deal, but over time the costs don't work out at all.

      The big outsourcing deals of the 80s and 90s all ended up reverting back in-house. These days many global companies just open offices in lower cost locations - Asia, South America, even Eastern Europe.

    75. Re:Dear Matthew by superwiz · · Score: 1

      the last sentence of the summary

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    76. Re:Dear Matthew by armanox · · Score: 1

      We aren't taxing the transaction/sale. That's what sales tax is. We are taxing the company's profits (which occur where the company is located, regardless of where the sale took place).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    77. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear Hear! And Happy Festivus to you, fellow heathen.

    78. Re:Dear Matthew by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to inform you that free markets are a human invention.

      The belief that one should enforce the use of a human invention, without any attempt at improvement even when it leads to undesirable outcomes, strikes me as a rather shallow form of "thinking".

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    79. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well said, thank you.

    80. Re:Dear Matthew by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Ok you like moral; some like immoral.. why you think you must win?

    81. Re:Dear Matthew by mjm1231 · · Score: 1

      I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in China and sold in France.

      I am baffled why Americans believe that corporations have a "right" to a lower tax rate than individuals. After all, the Supreme Court has decided that they are persons, a position most corporations have supported.

      --
      Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
    82. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great post and thanks for explaining...

      until the part where you got self indulgent... you became a dipshit from that point.

    83. Re: Dear Matthew by jcr · · Score: 0

      I see the snowflakes are modding you down.. They really don't like it when someone calls them on their bullshit.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    84. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear, oh dear.
      You have no clue, have you? Most of Capgemi employees have never seen France. They are Indian.

    85. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morality is a delusion and people claiming to be "moral" are liars, buffoons or simpletons. Sometimes a combination of the three. So, what are you?

    86. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny the sentence you think explain why they are the same actually explain why they are not.

    87. Re:Dear Matthew by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      I am sorry that...

      No. You are not, so let's dispense with the bullshit. M'kay? You are flat fucking delighted that technology has reached a point where you can ship work to places where labor is cheaper, thus increasing profit and, of course, your bonus. You don't give a shit that your actions suck all those wages straight out of the domestic economy, and you're happy as hell that there are no regulations prohibiting it.

    88. Re:Dear Matthew by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Yup. That seems fair.

      I saw an insightful sign in my sons elementary school:

      Fair is not everyone getting the same thing
      Fair is everyone getting what they need to succeed

      It reminded me that everyone has a very warped view of fair, and that ultimately, our system of economy is inherently unfair, as Capitalism gives to those who can take what they want, and screws those that can't. Socialism gives to all in equal measure (Theoretically). Both are fundamentally unfair, but at opposite extremes. It seems like there should be something in the middle that can satisfy this enlightened definition of fair.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    89. Re: Dear Matthew by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Dear Matthew,

      You're fired.

      Ftfy

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    90. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He also doesn't like H1B. This is evidenced by his hiring of straight up illegal immigrants to work his construction crews. Your donald is a lie.

    91. Re:Dear Matthew by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      It is equally infuriating to me when American companies use loopholes in our ridiculously complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign tax shelters to avoid paying taxes

      So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the politicians that put them there? Fury doesn't help unless it is properly directed. Does your fury influence who you vote for?

      You state this question as if politicians and companies have arrived at this current system without influence from each other. They are both responsible for the current system. Voting is irrelevant when both party's representatives are a) known to lie completely about what they stand for when running for election, b) never held accountable for their campaign promises by their own party and their voters, and c) known to put business interests first ahead of the voters. They instead rely on the media spin machine, propaganda mouthpieces in the partisan babble spaces, and outright voter ignorance to pick up the slack between reality and their oft misstated intentions.

      Are you from a country other than the US? It appears that way, as you have no idea about how doggedly fascist leaning our government and business intertwining is, despite overt appearances of regulated divisions. Also, you seem to have have a woefully overoptimistic (or overly simplistic) viewpoint of our electorate's ability to directly influence policies through elections. A friend of mine likes to joke: There are two parties in the US. The corporatist party and the corporatist party. This whole article and the repercussions of the policies we have, an how they got to be in the law in the first place, are examples of the above.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    92. Re:Dear Matthew by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Except, it's Capgemini CEO who should send a reply.

      To say what? We're sorry for your boss hiring us?

      The CEO of Carnival made the decision to hire Capgemini. Stop trying to pin this reply where it clearly does not belong.

    93. Re:Dear Matthew by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in China and sold in France.

      It is only baffling if you look at the situation superficially.

      Specifically, when a highly profitable subsidiary company is created in France that sells products built in China based entirely on key technology invented in the US by a US company, where was the bulk of value for that company created? The US gov't gets told that it happened in France and China. The French gov't gets told it happened in the US and China. The Chinese gov't gets told it happened in the US and France. Or maybe they all get told it happened in the Bahamas and Ireland.

      Under that kind of creative gaming of the system, it makes perfect sense to tell Apple, no, it all happened in the US because all your many answers make less sense than that one.

      If these American companies were paying big taxes to France and China, then, yes, Americans asking for another piece of the pie is probably wrong. But that is not what we are talking about. The subsidiary in France is literally telling the French gov't whoppers like "Oh, I paid $2 billion to a company in the West Indies for the rights to the intellectual property, plus $1 billion in local expenses, so I have exactly profits on that $3 billion in sales."

    94. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd put a tax on Holidays snaps!

    95. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, customer support for the accunting department?

    96. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He can't. The US is an oligarchy, and the opinion of the ordinary voters has almost no bearing on legislation.

    97. Re:Dear Matthew by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 1

      Correction: The subsidiary in France is literally telling the French gov't whoppers like "Oh, I paid $2 billion to a company in the West Indies for the rights to the intellectual property, plus $1 billion in local expenses, so I have exactly zero profits on that $3 billion in sales."

    98. Re:Dear Matthew by geekmux · · Score: 1

      All it does is exist to "force" Google USA to pay huge sums of money to itself (via a subsidiary) that exists outside the USA thus "legally" shifting said income outside the border.

      There is no fucking way this is what politicians intended when the law was written. Even I'm not that cynical. I have no doubt it was to legitimately shield actual profits earned outside the US (and thus not using our infrastructure) from being taxed where they were not earned. I can't imagine anyone could forsee that at some point some fucking company would be licensing shit to ITSELF to shift profits.

      In conclusion, you are another cunt who spouts off at the mouth whilst knowing NOTHING.

      While you're busy bashing the shit out of everyone else for knowing NOTHING about this, let me correct your utter bullshit.

      I have no fucking doubt whatsoever the politicians had every fucking intent for the laws to operate in the manner you deny, because they passed these laws and created these loopholes based on the companies who fucking lobbied for it.

      And yes, politicians did this for themselves in order to gain the financial and political (read: party donations) support from the very companies they helped to shield from the US tax system. If you need even more proof of this, understand that if "there is no fucking way this is what politicians intended", then you would think there would be a shitload of politicians looking to change it. No one is changing a fucking thing, further validating the real intent of these laws and loopholes, and why they're not going to end. Ever.

      Wake the fuck up and understand what actually motivates politicians. You act like they're beholden to their representatives because they might not get paid next week if they don't act morally or ethically. Give me a fucking break.

    99. Re:Dear Matthew by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That's an idiotic definition of fair. Some will never succeed, should they get 'everything' in the futile process?

      The definition you propose is even dumber than the standard commie one. It gives everything (or almost everything) to those who will do nothing with it and nothing to those that will produce a return. Guarantee that next generation, there will be nothing to divide.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    100. Re:Dear Matthew by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, that's only if you reside in Canada. The US does the same, but it's worse, they tax you on worldwide income regardless of if you reside in the US or not.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    101. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the politicians that put them there?

      Why make the distinction between those as if they're two unrelated groups and only one of them is deserving of our scorn? They are the hand and the glove. When lobbyists and ex-legislators are counted, these two groups merge via the figurative "revolving door."

    102. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reply:

      I'm regret that the bottom line is ultimately what affected your decision to deny my request, despite the continual internal & external propaganda that explains why your company truly cares about it's employees and communities.

    103. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way to fix this is to have the US corporate tax rate be competitive with foreign tax rates. This would reduce/eliminate the benefit to expatriating money to other countries. US consumers essentially have to pay these taxes, but the current tax policy makes it worse by allowing this tax-shopping to move potentially taxable income to more tax friendly countries.

    104. Re:Dear Matthew by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that I could be easily replaced by a foreign CEO at who would do the job at 1/20th of my salary but only you are getting screwed. But see me and my rich buddies on the board protect each other.

      I'm sorry that I'm going to increase my prices and profits as I pump wealth out of your local economy straight into foreign economies even tho I have lower labor costs. I'm sorry that none of the income tax (and none of the corporate tax) will go to pay for the local roads, court systems, and police forces that I depend on to extract my money from you.

      I'll be REALLY sorry when one of you guys robs me, or kidnaps and kills my children, or burns down my local sales points of presence as has happened in other countries around the world. I'm just hoping I can move to monico and keep my wealth while having you suckers pay for my military defense.

      I'm really sorry to be part of a democracy where you guys can make it illegal to do what I'm doing so I'm trying to do it quickly before it becomes illegal.

      Oh heck.. I'm not sorry! Screw you suckers!

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    105. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The overly simple explanation on the US right to tax income generated overseas depends on where the company is registered. If a corporations head quarters are in the US they are accountable for all of their revenue no matter where it is generated. The complicated answer is that there are so many loop holes I doubt anyone understands them and that include those who actually made the laws.

      And keep in mind the most powerful government agency is the IRS. They make the NSA and the CIA look like amateurs. The IRS has collected and stored more information on US citizens than any of the national or domestic security agencies combined. The IRS does not need a warrant to access and act on the data. If you were looking to find someone in the US the fastest way to do so would be to contact the IRS. Even those filing individual tax returns provide enough data to see what you have been doing since you filed your first tax return. If they wanted to go back further they could find your parents tax filing history. Individuals and Companies both large and small can be subjected to an IRS audit without the slightest hint of probable cause.
      If they think they do have evidence of wrong doing they can freeze and sometimes outright confiscate assets before any official legal proceedings even take place. They can garnish wages to enforce the payment of back taxes and any associated penalties. They can send people to prison and there are some well known people who have went to prison for tax fraud. Individuals and companies of all sizes are equally vulnerable and it is expensive and usually fruitless taking on the IRS in court.

    106. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could always go back to owning brown people, I mean, you don't seem worth much but maybe you can pick cotton.

    107. Re:Dear Matthew by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      This is true when innovation is occurring, but is it when you truly have a commodity function you wish to outsource?

    108. Re: Dear Matthew by zaphirplane · · Score: 1

      I read a while ago that the Australian worker's union is pushing for a minimum wage raise because "families can't afford to go on a holiday"
      What counts in the cost of living seems the vary, in some places its food and housing in others it in includes buying the house and so on as the optionals become someone's essientials

    109. Re:Dear Matthew by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      employees are forced to take cuts in salary and benefits while CEOs continue to get obscenely huge salaries, benefits, and separation packages

      Sounds fair to me. Quality CEO adds much more to the company's bottom line than Culver does, even if he's an amazing IT guy. Also harder to outsource a CEO, so they can demand more.

    110. Re:Dear Matthew by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      ... someone living in poverty in some third world shithole will always work for less

      Because of...(wait for it)...market forces.

    111. Re:Dear Matthew by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The whole issue is stupid, just forget corporate income taxes, put a 17% exit tax on dividends paid to non-taxayers and tax revenues would increase and corporations would put more resources in being productive and less in accounting sleight of hand.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    112. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way to fix this is to have the US corporate tax rate be competitive with foreign tax rates.

      How about no? This is the same logic that results in countries/states giving tax incentives to setup a business in an area. The result? They'll constantly shop around for a better deal and the local/state economy is generally worse off. More generally, it creates the problem that the tax revenue that is necessary for services is then shifted onto other people. The people least capable of moving are the most heavily targeted (the middle/lower classes that have just enough investment that to leave would incur substantial wealth loss) for these greater taxes. The rich, meanwhile, don't see a tax rise because they can just move (or threaten to move).

      How about instead of all this, we just start charging the accounts and CEOs that approve fraudulent charges to misrepresent income with fraud and start locking them up. And then we put a tax bill based on their actual income (minus whatever taxes the've already paid in other countries) which we will extract with a lien against the company's property, if necessary. You know, the sort of crazy shit they do to every other person in the country that isn't a corporation. None of this bullshit "loophole" crap. None of this "don't really owe". None of this "be competitive with foreign tax rates".

      If Apple or Google or IBM want to do make an income in the US, then they should pay a tax on that income just like every other person or company.

    113. Re:Dear Matthew by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      It is equally infuriating to me when American companies use loopholes in our ridiculously complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign tax shelters to avoid paying taxes

      So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the politicians that put them there? Fury doesn't help unless it is properly directed. Does your fury influence who you vote for?

      You state this question as if politicians and companies have arrived at this current system without influence from each other. They are both responsible for the current system. Voting is irrelevant when both party's representatives are a) known to lie completely about what they stand for when running for election, b) never held accountable for their campaign promises by their own party and their voters, and c) known to put business interests first ahead of the voters. They instead rely on the media spin machine, propaganda mouthpieces in the partisan babble spaces, and outright voter ignorance to pick up the slack between reality and their oft misstated intentions.

      Are you from a country other than the US? It appears that way, as you have no idea about how doggedly fascist leaning our government and business intertwining is, despite overt appearances of regulated divisions. Also, you seem to have have a woefully overoptimistic (or overly simplistic) viewpoint of our electorate's ability to directly influence policies through elections. A friend of mine likes to joke: There are two parties in the US. The corporatist party and the corporatist party. This whole article and the repercussions of the policies we have, an how they got to be in the law in the first place, are examples of the above.

      Just because you didn't vote for Bernie Sanders doesn't mean he wasn't an option.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    114. Re:Dear Matthew by bjwest · · Score: 1

      No. Taxes are only sheltered on income generated overseas, using overseas infrastructure, emergency services, etc. I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in China and sold in France.

      No one is saying they should be subject to sales tax, but income is income, and profits from a U.S. based company should be subject to U.S. taxes just as the foreign income of a U.S. citizen is subject to U.S income taxes. Any and all foreign taxes should be 100% deductible, but all profits after that should be subject to full U.S. taxes rates.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    115. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically, wealthy people pay nothing in tax, ever?

      Because I will keep the cash in my shell company account, and take out a secured loan against those funds.

      Bam, I have the cash and it's a loan not income, so I pay no taxes. Maybe I can get a deduction for the interest I pay myself, I mean my company.

    116. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people don't support it. We want more services for less taxes and will believe any racist idiot that says he can do that.

      We should tax wealth, not income.
      Set it at 5-10% or whatever low number has the equivalent gross revenue of the income tax.

      Allow IP owners to declare the value of their portfolios, and let it be taxed as property. Allow anyone to buy it at that valuation too, to discourage "$1" valuations.

      If leeches want to take their money and move. Fine. We can do with out those parasites. Good luck keeping your wealth intact without government support.

    117. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is trying it now. Ask us again in four years.

    118. Re: Dear Matthew by kenh · · Score: 1

      The reality is that the current, highly-paid US worker has valuable skills and talents the foreign worker does not, that is why the US employer needs them to train their replacement.

      When workers realize the only leverage they have is their exclusive posession of those unique skills and talents, the only answer is to immediately threaten to leave the employer without training their replacement - this whole abuse of H1B worker programs is based on the willingness of US workers to train their replacement for a few months more pay.

      Other than that, I agree with the points raised in the parent post ("I'm sorry...").

      --
      Ken
    119. Re: Dear Matthew by kenh · · Score: 1

      He also doesn't like H1B. This is evidenced by his hiring of straight up illegal immigrants to work his construction crews.

      You seriously imagine The Trump Organization directly hires construction workers? Seriously? Any significant construction project includes a general contractor and any number of subcontractors, each of whom are responsible for the workers they hire, not the client.

      --
      Ken
    120. Re:Dear Matthew by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      If only Bernie would have been elected! No need to rub it in now, as we know his political demise was arranged not by his enemies, but by his own support group.

      Fucking non-transitive election preferences! Terribly disappointing that his rock would have beat both her (missing) paper and his (desperately needed) scissors. Sadly his campaign ended up just like the American electorate: he never had a chance.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    121. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the politicians that put them there? Fury doesn't help unless it is properly directed. Does your fury influence who you vote for?

      Firstly, you are assuming they are different people, they aren't. The corporations pay the politicians to put those loopholes and in many cases actual requirements in place. Secondly, yes, I voted for Trump for this among other reasons.

    122. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it comes from a company founded in the US the existence of that product is a derivative of the US, period.

    123. Re:Dear Matthew by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      I am sorry that you think free trade with nations that use slavery and abusive actions is how capitalism should be conducted. Sorry, you're wrong.

      We should ONLY have FREE TRADE with nations that ensure a similar reasonable level of protections for their citizens.

    124. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd tax Racquel Welch...and I have a feeling she'd tax me!

    125. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so those aspects of the law do not apply to them.

      Looking forward to the day Trump takes office and starts the purges, slaughtering people like you will make me happy.

    126. Re: Dear Matthew by budgenator · · Score: 1

      So basically, wealthy people pay nothing in tax, ever?

      Because I will keep the cash in my shell company account, and take out a secured loan against those funds.

      Bam, I have the cash and it's a loan not income, so I pay no taxes. Maybe I can get a deduction for the interest I pay myself, I mean my company.

      Wealthy people pay individual income taxes, individual income tax rates are higher than Corporate rates, Corporate income deductions are much more generous than individual income tax deductions.
      " keep the cash in my shell company account, and take out a secured loan against those funds ... the cash and it's a loan not income,"
      1. The cash would be an asset, not an income, getting the cash is income, having cash isn't.
      2. "keep the cash in my shell company account" that would be an investment.
      3. you're right "a loan not income", cash is an asset, a loan is a liability, net effect zero.
      4. the cash you invested should earn interest, the cash you borrowed may earn some interest, the loan has interest added to the payment which is an expense.
      5. You may be able to borrow at a low enough interest rate to reinvest at a profit, but not very often, and those investments always turn into a bubble and burst, timing is critical and you can lose everything playing those games.
      All we have to do is quite using income taxes as Governments social engineering carrot and stick, of course unemployment would go up dramatical as all of the Lawyers and Corporate Accounts hit the streets.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    127. Re:Dear Matthew by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Bender: Evil, good...they are both fine choices.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    128. Re:Dear Matthew by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In fact: ((1 - corporate tax rate) * (1 - capital gains tax rate) * average return) is a globally competitive number. That is the number that attracts capital to your nation's economy, (average return is noisy as fuck though and 'past performance is no guarantee...') Confounded by corporate growth strategies and income tax laws regarding short term holdings, so not really that simple, but close to it.

      Shifting the deck chairs around between corporate tax rate and capital gains tax rate wouldn't change the bottom line. But I'm with you and don't trust the bastards. They want to raise the corporate tax rate but leave capital gains the same, in the process, fucking us royally (with crunch ghost pepper flavored peanut butter as lube).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    129. Re:Dear Matthew by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Harsh fact of life: ((1 - corp tax rate) * (1 - cap gains tax rate) * average growth) must be globally competitive. Perhaps with a (1 - graft tax rate) term (that would include any 50% local 'partners' shares, night shift bootlegging and other similar shenanigans.) Your nation also competes globally for investment capital.

      Confounding facts of life:
      Average growth is noisy and meaningless when discussing individual investments, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
      Actual 'Graft tax rates' are hard to estimate.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    130. Re:Dear Matthew by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You realize the Rs where voting for the commie, just as the Ds were voting for Trump?

      Had he won the nomination, then the videos of him saying 'I support Fidel' would have been in full time circulation.

      The fact is viable candidates for the D nomination stayed away as 'it was her turn', the only one to turn up, wasn't even a democrat. Just like the winner of the R nomination wasn't even a R. Hillarys people set it all up and it blew up in their faces.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    131. Re: Dear Matthew by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How often does that happen? Currently, the majority of my stock holdings are indirect, in mutual funds and the like. Those shares will almost certainly be voted as the board recommends. As far as I can tell, I have very little ability to get together with other shareholders (assuming I can get in contact with them) and get anything done.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    132. Re:Dear Matthew by Agripa · · Score: 1

      There is no fucking way this is what politicians intended when the law was written. Even I'm not that cynical.

      But I am that cynical. This is exactly what the politicians intended and if it was not, then it is what they intend now.

    133. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two laws that say a company cannot act morally.
      The first is called Competition and applies to all companies.
      The second applies to corporations in the US which can be sued if they don't do the utmost to maximize profits for shareholders.

    134. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you enjoy big black cocks. Faggot...

    135. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia used to have the social contract, between the government, the companies, and the unions.
      I believe it was mostly there to prevent the communist ideas from spreading over the land.
      And one of the obligations of the contract meant that the Aussie companies would
      pay Aussie workers wages that cover "decent" living.

      What is "decent" used to be a matter of agreement: e.g. 1 lb of butter and 3 eggs per day per memeber of family etc.
      Home staying wife used to be in the mix. And holidays, too. Though, the social contract is largely abandoned nowadays.

    136. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eat shit and die.

    137. Re:Dear Matthew by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the politicians that put them there?

      Both. They are entangled. The businesses support those who put them there, and the politicians pay back the businesses who pay them.

    138. Re:Dear Matthew by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I also love all you assholes who point out that this is LEGAL. Who cares? LEGAL AND MORAL ARE NOT EQUAL. There is no law that prevents a company from acting in a moral manner. That B.S. half of you shills spout about a company having to maximize profits is a LIE. No such law exists.

      There are a lot of devotees of Ayn Rand here on Slashdot. The Randians believe that the one and only moral thing is rational self-interest. They will favor doing whatever it takes to get ahead.

    139. Re:Dear Matthew by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The way to fix this is to have the US corporate tax rate be competitive with foreign tax rates.

      Yay, a race to the bottom! Then everyone can be third world together!

    140. Re:Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rand based her philosophy in part on Nietzsche's idea of the Überman - certain few people are exceptional and deserve to be rewarded for their genius efforts. Everyone else doesn't deserve a pot to piss in, no matter how much work they contribute to support those industry giants who are "the motor of the world."

    141. Re: Dear Matthew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also bear in mind that the IRS has a minimum loan interest rate. Anything rate lower than that is a "gift" and (the principal?) is taxed under the gift tax laws.

  2. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile Trump employs TFW's at Mar'a'Largo because he can't find Americans to work at his crazy low wage offer. Labour is a market. TFW's should not be allowed for low paid and seasonal jobs. Employers should be required to raise benefits and wages until they can fill all the spots with local workers. No TFW's to begin with.

    Yes it is hard to find people willing to work for $10/hour for 6 months of the year. Because
    a) $10/hour is not really a liveable wage to begin with
    b) what are they going to live off for the rest of they year?

    The result is seasonal positions should pay more than full time positions as seasonal positions require a person to be available for the seasonal work someone how and live for the full year.

    Also in general outsourcing is a nice bean counter solution but generally leads to more headaches and inefficiencies that don't show up on the bean counter spread sheets.

    1. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm saving my condescending remarks for about 3 years from now when nothing's changed. I'm hoping you all have a lot of really good excuses.

      Of course, I have no confidence the DNC will have its shit together by then.

    2. Re:Meanwhile by unixisc · · Score: 0

      Americans may be willing to put up w/ low paid jobs (depending on where they are in their career), but not seasonal jobs, where it'll end in a few months. In fact, that is one of the few places where H2Bs are justified - just like the agricultural sector where people have a tough time finding employees to pluck crops (to the extent that robotic tractors can't do that already).

    3. Re: Meanwhile by haruchai · · Score: 2

      "I'm saving my condescending remarks for about 3 years from now when nothing's changed"

      While I did win several bets that Trump would beat Clinton - I'll be enjoying free lunches at the expense of several colleagues for all of January 2017 - I don't claim to have a crystal ball on how this will play out, but nothing I'm hearing or seeing from Trump so far fills me with hope.
      That said, I'll be very surprised if you have to wait 3 years and even more shocked if it's "nothing's changed"; I expect things to be worse overall but it's not something I'm wishing for.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL... how'd the hopey changey thing work for you over the last eight years?

    5. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you accept shitty conditions and unreasonable demands, you'll probably accept seasonal stints too. Especially if we take away all your jobs. Who'd want to risk having you when you don't even take decent healthcare?

    6. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a cycle of shit that just repeats itself. They've figured that out. We haven't. Put up with our shit until you get tired, then put up with the other sides shit until you get tired. Rinse, wash, repeat. A person starts with good intentions. They quickly get told that good intentions don't make money. It's either play ball or end up like Kennedy. The only winning move is to not play.

    7. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Democrats had two years to do stuff effectively, during which they did, in fact, do some things. After that, the Republicans had the house. Two years ago, they got the senate as well.

      It's not reasonable to hold up the lack of change as something that is just Obama's fault- the voters stopped him by putting in a conservative house, and later a conservative senate. Elections have consequences, as Obama himself said. And he mostly acted in accordance with this belief.

    8. Re: Meanwhile by dbIII · · Score: 0

      Good idea to hold off.
      I called it perfectly, said "I told you so - King Trump" and got kneed in my crystal balls.

    9. Re: Meanwhile by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      I claimed "Hindsight is 2020"

    10. Re: Meanwhile by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      LOL... how'd the hopey changey thing work for you over the last eight years?

      After eights of failed Republican economic policies, I was out of work for two years (2009-10), underemployed for six months (working 20 hours per month), and filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy in 2011. Now I'm back to where I was prior to the Great Recession. Thanks, Obama!

    11. Re: Meanwhile by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Elections have consequences, as Obama himself said. And he mostly acted in accordance with this belief.

      Obama is the first president since Eisenhower to win consecutive elections with 51% of the vote.

    12. Re:Meanwhile by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      If you accept shitty conditions and unreasonable demands, you'll probably accept seasonal stints too.

      When Alabama ran off the all migrant farmworkers out of the state in 2011, farmers were hardpressed to find anyone to do the work and crops rotted in the field. Poor blacks and poor whites are unwilling to do the backbreaking work that the poor browns from other countries are willing to do all day long for Almighty Dollar.

    13. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you meant to say was "farmers were unwilling to pay a market rate for labor"

      Maybe we shouldn't be growing food if it's not economical to do so?

    14. Re: Meanwhile by kenh · · Score: 1

      It's not reasonable to hold up the lack of change as something that is just Obama's fault- the voters stopped him by putting in a conservative house, and later a conservative senate.

      Your somewhat astute analysis ignores the reasons the voters put in a conservative House and then Senate the reason was growing dissatisfaction with Democrats. Obama's reelection numbers in 2012 were lower than his 2008 election numbers because of a growing sense of dissatisfaction with 'Hope & Change' across the electorate.

      --
      Ken
    15. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you could do seasonal work and get paid the same as somebody would in a full year, why on earth would anybody ever work full-time? Seasonal positions are generally meant to be supplementary income or for people like high school kids or bored retirees. Man, I wish I could work only 6mo out of the year and still make my annual salary. I'd have enough time to work on my own projects and maybe eventually make it big on my own! But alas, that is not the world we live in, and I'm stuck working five days a week for the next 30 years.

    16. Re: Meanwhile by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Not fantastic, but it was certainly far better than the previous eight years, that's for sure.

  3. I don't care wtf... by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is awesome. Hey Trump, you've talked a pretty big game, here is a chance to walk the walk. Accept this dudes contract on behalf of Capgemini and be the champ you promised to be.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    1. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you babbling about? Trump needs to personally employ anyone who loses their job for some reason?

    2. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-elect-trump-hold-public-events-election-win/story?id=43896199

      "Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences," he said to workers at the Carrier plant. "These companies aren't going to be leaving anymore. They aren't going to be taking people's hearts out."

    3. Re: I don't care wtf... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Talk is cheap. As a businessman, Trump is even more aware oft this than the average politician...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he really meant it in this case, all it would take is an executive order on Jan 21st stating all Carnival Cruise ships are to be denied all docking at US ports, and no ships within US waters shall board or supply Carnival ships, until they cease using TFWs.

    5. Re: I don't care wtf... by Pharmboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You idiots do understand that he isn't even in office yet, and you are already bitching about the job he is doing? How retarded is that?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re: I don't care wtf... by ArylAkamov · · Score: 0

      Anything to complain.

    7. Re: I don't care wtf... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You idiots do understand that he isn't even in office yet, and you are already bitching about the job he is doing? How retarded is that?

      The same kind of retarded Republicans were doing before President Obama took office eight years ago. All we heard for weeks was him being a socialist and how he was going to drive this country into the ground (conveniently ignoring the driving into the ground Bush did to the country), how he would wreck the economy (again, ignoring how Bush destroyed the economy), how he would do this or that, all before he had taken office.

      But please, tell us again how it's only those idiots who are bitching before someone takes office.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    8. Re: I don't care wtf... by Rob+Y. · · Score: 0

      Because he's actively gaslighting the public with contradictory statements - and appointments that would seem to contradict everything that got him votes in the election. If he'd just shut up until he actually is in office, maybe people would stop bitching about the 'job' he is doing, but currently the only job he's doing is keeping the public - including his own voters - off balance about the job he intends to do.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    9. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that Obama did run his mouth every chance he got before he was inaugurated.

      Trump can't stop tweeting. And not just tweeting, the guy made a whole production out of going to Indiana and "saving" those jobs at carrier (and then throwing a tantrum when it was revealed he had lied about hundreds of jobs that he didn't "save.")

      Criticism of Trump before his inauguration isn't idiotic because he's been acting like he's already in office. The guy took a call from Netanyahoo and then leaned on General Sissy to pull a UN resolution for chrissakes!

    10. Re: I don't care wtf... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      President Elect Obama spent quite a bit of time lecturing us from his "Office of The President Elect" podium, as well as telling Congress what it should do. And that continued into his "elections have consequences - I won" and "they can get in the back of the bus" rhetoric early in his first term. And he has pretty much wrecked the economy, unemployment (if you calculate it as it was pre-2008) is still around 9%, we just ran another $1.4 TRILLION deficit (our debt from Oct 1, 2015 to Sept 30, 2016 increased by $1.4 trillion), and inflation is wildly understated (closer to 8%, not 2%) resulting an actual negative GDP if it was accurately reported...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re: I don't care wtf... by guruevi · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't seem to be aware that the income taxes alone in the first year cover the tax break given to Carrier over the next 10y not to speak about the load a few hundred unemployed would set on the social system.

      The rest of your comment is off topic yet it doesn't seem like North Korea or Russia are stopping to build up their arsenal, in the mean time the US nuclear arsenal is ran by 5.25" floppies and a hope and a prayer.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    12. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the same shit you hear at the welfare office. Seems like /. has been invaded by the welfare girls.

    13. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I would love to hear you four (or eight) years hence redefining unemployment and deficit to paint Trump in a favorable light. Magically I bet you will think pre-2008 unemployment calculations don't paint an "accurate" picture and that having debt is a healthy thing, inflation is wildly overstated.

      You do realize that it is Congress that appropriates money, right? so any deficit is really more a Congressional fault than a President's, and last time I checked the Republicans were in power in one or both chambers for most of Obama's time.

      Assuming mid-terms dont change the balance, we'll see what you feel after a Republican president and Congress has a chance to work their magic.

    14. Re: I don't care wtf... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      My comment is only offtopic if Pharmboy's parent post is - please point that out to him when you have a moment; thanks in advance.

      And your point about the net benefit is irrelevant even if correct which I'm not sure it is. Whatever the outcome, this is a government handout - from an administration that promised to "drain the swamp". Not exactly a shining start even if they've not yet taken control of the government.

      Leaving aside the apparent hypocrisy, how many times can this be replicated to protect jobs? Does Carrier only merit this because they're the 1st to attract the incoming administration's notice?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    15. Re: I don't care wtf... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Carrier got $7M in tax benefits over the next 10 years in return for them investing $16M into upgrading the plant and keeping 300 jobs.

      300 jobs * 40k median salary = 12M with an effective tax rate of ~25% = 3M/y between state and federal through income taxes, not talking about the sales taxes when those salaries get spent. Spending $700k/y to gain $3M/y seems a reasonable business deal for a government to take. Even if you just focus on state taxes, you're at least going to break even.

      If you can replicate this model 10x, then yes, that is a good thing.

      It's what governments have been doing all along and it's what has been promised for the short term, changes to the business climate in the US will take at least 3 presidency cycles if not longer, regardless of what any candidate promises, you can't just change all that is wrong that quickly nor efficiently.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    16. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A socialist muslim who wasn't even born in America! Watch this youtube video that proves his birth certificate is fake!

    17. Re: I don't care wtf... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "It's what governments have been doing all along and it's what has been promised for the short term, changes to the business climate in the US will take at least 3 presidency cycles if not longer, regardless of what any candidate promises, you can't just change all that is wrong that quickly nor efficiently"

      I'm glad you recognize that but let's face it, that's NOT what got Trump elected so harsh criticism is more than fair.
      Also the deal was initially supposed to save ~1,000 jobs but now it's only 300?
      I haven't read The Art of the Deal but this seems like the braggart got played for a chump. A most inauspicious pre-game warmup for one of America's most famous self-promoters.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    18. Re: I don't care wtf... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with him?

      Do you want a list?
      This one at least gets started on a few important bits:
      http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/11/13/donald-trump-ticks-all-14-boxes-in-umberto-ecos-list-of-what-makes-a-fascist-a-fascist/

    19. Re: I don't care wtf... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      in the mean time the US nuclear arsenal is ran by 5.25" floppies and a hope and a prayer

      Wrong. Baby Bush increased the funding and Obama didn't cut it down from that level. It's run today at a higher level of funding in real terms than under Daddy Bush and Clinton.

    20. Re: I don't care wtf... by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The GP is wrong, but mainly because it uses 8" floppy disks , not 5.25". Those are way too modern for our nuclear arsenal.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    21. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is different from the idiots who voted for him, praising every other tweet he shits out, along with the job he is doing when he isn't even in office yet. It is clear that it is exactly that retarded.

    22. Re: I don't care wtf... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      If he hadn't chosen Sling Blade as his VP, we might feel a little differently...

    23. Re: I don't care wtf... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Carrier got $7M in tax benefits over the next 10 years in return for them investing $16M into upgrading the plant and keeping 300 jobs.

      300 jobs * 40k median salary = 12M with an effective tax rate of ~25% = 3M/y between state and federal through income taxes

      Your figures aren't accurate for a number of different reasons.

      1. Why do you count federal tax? This money was a state tax deal (Trump does not yet have the power to make deals for the federal government), this deal was done on the authority of Pence as the Governor of Indiana. If the feds aren't giving any money for the deal, why do you count money that they receive as offsetting the cost of the deal?

      2. You assume that if the deal doesn't happen, that the state won't receive any revenue from the employees in the next 10 years. Most or all of the employees are likely to be employed again and paying taxes to the state.

      3. Why do you think the effective tax rate of someone that makes $40k is 25%? A single person who grosses $40k and has no deductions has an AGI of under $30,000 after a personal exemption of $4,050 and a standard deduction of $6,300. On an AGI of $30,000 the federal income tax is $4036 (13.5%) and the Indiana state income tax is $990 (3.3%). We should really only be counting the second one (see point 1) so for your 300 employees Indiana is paying Carrier $700k per year and they are getting back $297k in tax revenue, as well as providing state services for those employees and the company. Of course, if they are married, have children, or have other deductions that tax rate is likely to be even lower but let's use the best-case scenario.

      Spending $700k/y to gain $3M/y seems a reasonable business deal for a government to take. Even if you just focus on state taxes, you're at least going to break even.

      Spending $700k a year to get $297k in revenue is not a good deal. The alternative is to spend $0 and get somewhere in the neighborhood of $297k (perhaps some of the laid off workers don't get as good of a job or don't get a job at all in the next 10 years). It's not a good deal for the state even if you do break even, the citizen pays $1 in taxes and the government then gives that $1 to the company that employs the citizen - how does that benefit the state? Take it to the extreme, say every company in Indiana has this deal, so every time a citizen pays his taxes the government gives those tax dollars back to the company that employs him. How does the government pay for any services, how does it build roads or hire police or feed hungry kids? If only some of the companies get the deal, then the employees of the companies that don't get the deal end up paying for everything. I thought the government picking winners and losers was supposed to be a bad thing according to free-market conservatives, when did that change?

      If you can replicate this model 10x, then yes, that is a good thing.

      No, if you replicate this deal 10x you have 10x the loss. So instead of losing $403k a year on the deal you can lose $4 million.

      To sum up, it's a horrible deal for Indiana, it's a slightly good deal for the economy as a whole and it's a great deal for Carrier. You can't prevent offshoring manufacturing by bribing the companies with tax dollars, you need to make structural changes -- not that it matters, robots and AI will only get better and manufacturing jobs will continue to fall worldwide.

      --

      Enigma

    24. Re: I don't care wtf... by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you seriously saying inflation is 8%?

      As in 2012 dollar is now worth $0.73 and if your pay hasn't gone up 36% over that time you've fallen backwards?

      As someone who's pay hasn't gone up even close to that much, I'm calling bullshit.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    25. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is those guys are as dumb as us ?

      Great work sir. You're a fucking moron.

    26. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't stop you're camp's idiots from doing the same. Heck, they've even blamed Obama for things that happened two years before the end of the Bush administration.

      And if you're going to tell us to back off on the President elect, because he's not in office, and he's not yet doing the job, then stop that buffoon from making press releases about how he just "saved" someone's job over at company X. If he's claiming he's doing the job of stopping jobs from leaving and advertising he's doing that job now, then I don't understand your "he's not even doing the job yet" argument.

    27. Re: I don't care wtf... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It is somewhere between 6% and 9% depending upon the criteria you use. Much like being employed used to mean at least 20 hours of work per week, but now means just 1 hour of work per week. Change the criteria, you can improve the reported numbers.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    28. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carrier got $7M in tax benefits over the next 10 years in return for them investing $16M into upgrading the plant and keeping 300 jobs.

      300 jobs * 40k median salary = 12M with an effective tax rate of ~25% = 3M/y between state and federal through income taxes, not talking about the sales taxes when those salaries get spent. Spending $700k/y to gain $3M/y seems a reasonable business deal for a government to take. Even if you just focus on state taxes, you're at least going to break even.

      Your math theory looks nice. However, are you trying to sell me a bridge? You assume that those carriers would actually use the money to keep their employees' jobs? Really? Have you EVER LEARNED from what had happened so many times from different companies/corporations in the past 10-20 years? Oh, maybe you weren't born yet, so you could not REMEMBER or KNOW about it. Oh wait, people always rationalize and have selected memory in order to confirm/convince themselves that their decision is correct. Thus, they never want to admit that they are wrong.

    29. Re: I don't care wtf... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm using the criteria of my purchasing power, which makes as much sense as any.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    30. Re: I don't care wtf... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So anecdotal over calcuations. Inflation typically tracks lots of things, and it's been raging pretty strongly (for instance, try to find a half gallon of ice cream any more; sizes have dropped as prices have increased, but the CPI is now based on "package price" rather than ounce/gram of food, so it's a free way to cut inflation). If we calculated inflation now, as it was back in 1990, we'd be around 6.5%. And that would put us right back into the 2008 recession (which we probably never actually exited).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    31. Re: I don't care wtf... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did read his book, when it was new(ish). I got it for like a dollar at a BN clearance. It taught me to NEVER do a deal with Trump or anyone like him. He basically bragged about suckering his "partners" with lies to pad his own pocket. And he thinks that's "good business".

      Yeah, and setting your house on fire to keep warm works well in the short term too.

    32. Re: I don't care wtf... by kenh · · Score: 1

      "Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences," he said to workers at the Carrier plant. "These companies aren't going to be leaving anymore. They aren't going to be taking people's hearts out."

      You do understand the fundamental difference between closing down a factory and moving the work overseas (Carrier) and bringing in foreign workers to work in America, keeping the jobs here (Carnival) - right?

      --
      Ken
    33. Re: I don't care wtf... by kenh · · Score: 1

      Carrier got $7M in tax benefits over the next 10 years in return for them investing $16M into upgrading the plant and keeping 300 jobs.

      Yeah, NO.

      $7M in tax benefits, yes, but at $700K/year over the next ten years.

      That $700K/year for ten years keeps almost 1,000 (not 300) jobs in Indiana.

      Carrier had a $68M payroll at that plant, and after improving the plant will keep north of $50M of that payroll in Indiana for the next ten years... $700K in concessions to keep $50M in the Indiana economy for ten years? That's a bargain.

      --
      Ken
    34. Re: I don't care wtf... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Except Shadow Stats doesn't make a compelling case for why they're accurate, and flies in the face of observation.

      I'm not trying to say Official CPI is the perfect stat, but the 6-9% is so obviously wrong on the face of it.

      We can take rent and utilities

      Rent approximately 2.3 % (2010-2014 sourced here, using the most recent 4 year total increase then dividing by 4, so slightly high, even using 2005-2008 gets 4.3% on rent).

      Utilities are 2% average since 2008 (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20372, using electricity as a proxy, not including heating oil which would drop the number.

      Median household income is $55,000, or 3,000/month after taxes (55000*.66 divided by 12)

      with rent at $934, utilities at maybe $150 (low end) that's over 1/3 of income at 2% over the 2010-2014 time frame.

      I see no compelling evidence that the other 2/3 are up 9%/year to get a 6.5% average

      I could break out other large expenses and tighten it up even more (for example auto insurance isn't up 30% over 4 years, neither are new or used cars).

      So though you linked to a page with math, it's obviously complete and utter bullshit, and it's not just my anecdote that proves this (though the fact that an individual seems completely immune to this extreme inflation is compelling evidence against it).

      Why is it you think banks are giving loans under the value of inflation? wouldn't it make more sense for them to invest that money into commodities if inflation is so high (unsecured loans are available under 5% with good enough credit and income).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    35. Re: I don't care wtf... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Another idiot among many here. I never said I voted for him, I said he isn't in office. He has no power to do anything. That is the point, yet you and half the crowd here are more focused on "Trump sucks" rather than the reality: He isn't in office yet.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  4. Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want better workplace conditions, better wages, and better treatment then the best way to get it is to unionize. It puts you in a stronger bargaining position so you have more leverage against ultimatums like "either agree to take a job with the contractor or leave without severance".

    1. Re: Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This place is unprofitable and we are closing it down"

    2. Re:Pointless by WaterDamage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      doesn't work if the entire dept is getting sacked. Nice try AC

    3. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure it does. From the article:

      "This business model requires employees to train foreign replacements for it to be successful," she said.

      There's your leverage. If only one or two employees argue against it, the argument is ineffectual and their bargaining power is weak. If, however, there's an organized, unified position against it from all employees then you've got some clout. Once you're organized you've got a stronger bargaining position and can get better outcomes.

    4. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question then will loom heavy - do you really want to continue to work (hard) for a company that makes this financial decision? If it's not full cuts now, it'll just be depressing to work there and the good will leave. Lived it and do not want to live it again, but it's always there now. IT will not ever be what it was again, change or be cut. That's how it rolls.

    5. Re: Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This argument crops up every time, but people with money want to make more money. They can't keep closing down. Without a business, there is no return on investment.

    6. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually in IT a far better solution is to have exceptional communication skills and keep your skills up to date with in-demand technology. You'll get far better working conditions/salary than any union jobs on offer...

      I have no idea what this guy was thinking with his "counter offer" I'm not sure what he has to offer the CEO in terms of increasing the IT operational efficiency or reducing the IT costs of the company, or what benefits he is bringing that the outsourced will not be able to provide.

      Time and time again I've seen IT people whine about their teams being outsourced or offshored, but most times when I look at these teams they are outdated, incredibly inefficient, doing a lot of expensive work for little business value. For example they fear automation due to the threat of making their job unnecessary, but at the same time by not automating, they make it much easier for those who do automate win the business of managing that environment.

    7. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what he has to offer the CEO

      It's a two way street. What's the CEO got to offer them? And if the CEO's offer is not good enough, then why shouldn't they unionize to get a better offer?

    8. Re: Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His goal was to say something ridiculous to keep the story relevant. Carnival announced this two weeks ago, this guy repeatedly tried to get Trump to comment but he didn't, them it faded.

      The "offer" is a Hail Mary to keep this story in the news.

    9. Re:Pointless by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, if they had a strong union they could collectively refuse to do any knowledge transfer. Without that the company won't last 3 months.

      Maybe a bunch of them could all quit immediately and set up a consulting firm, charging $5k/day/person. If the company wants knowledge transfer, they can pay for it at a rate that will set them up for any periods of unemployment they need to cover.

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

      Actually, the better response is to start your own company. Unions just put different hands on your leash.

      --
      Greg Raven
      As long as there's any left, I'll take mine first.
    11. Re:Pointless by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what he has to offer the CEO

      It's a two way street. What's the CEO got to offer them? And if the CEO's offer is not good enough, then why shouldn't they unionize to get a better offer?

      Ok either hire us back or WE ALL QUIT! ...ceo: Uhm wait? Aren't you all leaving anyway? Is that not what I agreed? There is the door. I can have Pnjaab tomorrow who can pick up where you left off and he can have his team in Bangalore up to speed withing a few days. Thanks .... oh and no asshole no severance check for you and your team and a unrehirable status from HR as a result.

      Lousy entitled cost centers pfft

    12. Re:Pointless by guruevi · · Score: 1

      No it puts you at the behest of a guy that takes $100 out of your paycheck and then still manages to bargain your job away. Carrier and GM was run by unions, neither of them prevented (and according to many it actually accelerated) the run to cheaper countries.

      What 'prevents' these kinds of runs is for people to just hand in their resignation the minute they hear about a 'knowledge transfer'.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    13. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually in IT a far better solution is to have exceptional communication skills and keep your skills up to date with in-demand technology.

      I know, right! I make sure to synergize the market window while keeping client-focused on the cutting edge of constantly modern end to end turnkey solutions. The upside to maintaining impactful, user-friendly conversations is being the first to market with non-traditional management and integrated networking.

    14. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh and no asshole no severance check for you and your team and a unrehirable status from HR as a result

      Your learned helplessness is amusing. It's a serf mentality. Both self-defeating and undignified.

    15. Re:Pointless by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Or you agree on a reasonable contract before you start working there.

      - Put in a contract that you write all code under your own name and license it to them in exchange for wages and only release it when terms are agreed upon.
      - Put in a contract that you need at least 4 weeks notice and you're not going to be required to train your replacement or get a severance package in lieu of the notice

      It's fairly simple once you work your way out of a helpdesk. If your position can be taken on by just about anyone with a week training, you're a glorified helpdesk jockey, not a seasoned IT person.

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

      The thing is, she's wrong. I have yet to see an IT outsourcing deal where anyone involved in the decision making process gives a shit whether there are any functional IT services once they're done.

      See, it's going to take most IT systems a couple of years to completely fall apart, even with the bare minimum done. Most outsourcing deals tend to simply be a trade on the accrual of technological debt off the books, while the outsourcing firms are experts at balancing outright contract breaches with legal capacity, empty promises and talking shit. The idea isn't to be 'successful', the idea is to cash in on the deal and dump the contract on whoever feels like bidding on the wreckage next time the contract's up for grabs. Until someone decides to insource again if they see a buisness case for more functional IT.

      Any 'training replacements' is a bonus - no real cooperation beyond refraining from actual sabotage is needed.

    17. Re:Pointless by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      It's reality. The CEO wants the workers to leave and already has a replacement ready to go. No point other than a no rehireable status from HR.

      What bargaining is there when someone else is ready to do the job for much cheaper and walking out will have zero impact. For this to work India needs to unionize too which isn't going to happen

    18. Re:Pointless by superwiz · · Score: 1

      The difference between partnerships and unions is actually very murky. I don't know why IT workers don't elect to organize in partnerships (akin to lawyers, doctors and other professionals). Certainly, management works in a single-purpose fashion. So would partnerships providing IT services. It would still allow for non-partners to be employed by the partnerships if they are just getting their feet wet and are not yet certain to provide long-term benefit to the other partners. But why work for the management if it's clearly ran by people who have no understanding of your skills? Why not organize in units ran by individuals who actually know what your work entails and understand its ins and outs better than you would for the next 5 years and better than those who would benefit from your skills? The same goes for start ups. I don't get why people want "stock options" instead of partnerships or partnership-track positions. Shares in a company equity don't entitle anyone to much (really, just voting rights which when more than 50% of the company is retained by the founders). Is it to sell the shares to the "bigger fool"? Well, partnership agreements would ensure that company profits benefit you for as long as the partnership is profitable. There would be no need to hope that the "bigger fools" come along someday.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    19. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's reality.

      No, it's your reality. That's what learned helplessness is all about.

    20. Re: Pointless by dohzer · · Score: 0

      people with money want to make more money.

      Not always. For instance, just look at Trump. He's not being president just to make more money. Nope. Uh huh!

    21. Re:Pointless by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I actually work in a union shop (as a SCCM Admin) - the irony is that during the migration from SCCM 2007 to 2012 they sent me to training, and one of the guys who was there as well was Carnival's SCCM admin - he described a rather unique and complex environment. I can't a imagine a bunch of consultants - even with training taking that over - plus I've never met a consultant who knew anything about the dark arts of client management (I know they exist obviously but they are rare flowers).

      Anyhow union jobs don't necessarily guarantee better wages etc (that said - I've always got 5-7% year after year, where some of my colleagues have got nothing), but they do offer collective bargaining and an actual contract that defines the terms of employment, and severance - if the company were all of the sudden wanting to outsource everything. There's nothing in the cards that would force us to train our replacements - and not get a check.

      In other-words - you're no long at will - you have a contact, and if they don't uphold that - you (or your union) can do something about it. In years prior to this - I never had a contract as it were - and my employers could fire me under the same guises that Carnival is. Worth mentioning too - these CEO's don't start work without well defined contacts, but so many of us have and are.

    22. Re:Pointless by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      I've yet to see a job made by an Indian team that was not utterly incompetent.
      But yes, given the geniuses that want lower-cost-per-employee, a strategy is to hire a few experts and a bunch of Indians. The first group works on the project, the second group generates crap on an isolated versioning system. In the end, the cost-per-head is lower and the project made by the experts is ready.

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    23. Re:Pointless by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      the best way to get it is to unionize

      The company has announced they intend to replace all the workers. Unionising will only result in you getting let off earlier.

      Unionising solves single issues when you're in a position of power. If one person is being let go you're in a position of power. If there are minor staff cuts, you're in a position of power. If the entire IT department is being shown the door you have equal power as a unionised group as you do as an individual e.g. fuck all.

    24. Re:Pointless by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      If they're depending on you to train your replacements, and they know that one out means all out, they still have power.

    25. Re:Pointless by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A company that is "depending" on people to train replacements would have imploded under their own competence anyway. Training replacements would make it easier, but no union could save these jobs if they can't be replaced with generic people off the street. That reeks of a culture of storing business critical information in people's heads and that has never gone well for any company.

      More likely the company is trying to avoid a minor inefficiency by getting the workers to train their replacements, something which they happily ride through in a few months.

    26. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obviously, you create the bargaining unit during times of plenty, and not when things are going down the shitter. Sort of like the huge arguments we were having about creating a technical guild or union back in the late 90's. You may recall that we were all thinking that 1.) we were special snowflakes with mad un-replaceable skillz and 2.) our benevolent employers, who were at the time throwing bonuses around along with 10 x 4 scheduling and installing foosball tables to show how much they wanted to keep us, would never let us go and 3.) IT work would never go offshore in any significant way.

      There was never a better time or opportunity to organize, and we missed it. Screwed ourselves right out of being able to bargain in any useful way. This story proves that.

    27. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have shitty union representation, then do something about it! The union is the membership, and the officials work for YOU. My spouse belongs to AFSME. When those officials start dicking them around, they threaten to leave the union and start their own. They also have effective shop stewards, everyone knows the contract and doesn't let management try to get around it ever. And believe me, they try. Mostly on things like required number of staffing for events, where that is dictated by health and safety concerns, or trying to get people to work off the clock, or for straight pay when overtime has been agreed upon. It takes effort by the members.

      NOT EVERY UNION IS THE UAW!!

    28. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This worked AWESOME for the UAW. Detroit's doing just swell, huh?

      No. If you want better workplace conditions you have to be competitive. If you all you can do is stuff is stuff that a third world person can do for a fraction of your cost why should companies be forced to pay you extra? Because you live where you live? Well, if they can't give your job to a H1B1 person, they'll just move it overseas.

      This is capitalism at work, you can't stop it. Your boat is sinking while people in third world countries' rise. Eventually a common level will be found Until then be rich or be in pain.

    29. Re:Pointless by hey! · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is who you're contracting with: the public as a whole or a single employer who can more efficiently exercise a divide-and-conquer strategy to force concessions from people doing the work.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    30. Re:Pointless by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      A few points...

      I was at a company that bought a startup/product, let the original guys go, and sent it to India. They tried the "one smart guy who runs the India team". That didn't work, and when they were in jeopardy of being in breach of contract to the tune of several million dollars, they then had to hire a local American team to fix what the Indian team had done.

      The thing is, the Indian team didn't cost *that* much less. They could have had a smaller American team from the start for about the same amount of money and they would have avoided the crap that the India engineers wrote. It was like watching a high school kid write code (and the hardware they designed wasn't any better).

      But, you know, it probably gets the CEO a bonus at the end of the year because he made the bottom line look briefly better.

      Back when Japan was the big competitor that everybody worried about, I was at a startup that didn't make it, and they arranged for the technology group to be sold off to a Japanese company (basically so that engineers would keep their jobs - really good E staff at our company). The point though, is that the Japanese company could articulate their plans not for the next quarter or next year, but for years ahead. They were playing for long term, not short term. Saving a few bucks a quarter so the CEO can give himself a bigger bonus is not the long term way to succeed, but CEOs aren't playing for the company, they're (mostly) in it for themselves. They have no more loyalty for the company than they have for the employees they screw over.

      What message does it send when a company like Carnival pulls a dick move like this? They'll have all this great HR stuff about how much they value their employees, but after watching what happens to the IT staff, everybody else realizes what the score really is. And guess what? The remaining people end up with absolutely no loyalty for the company, doing the minimum required to get by, and screw the company. When the employee has to make a decision that might be good for him, but bad for the company... guess which way the decision will go? And the company will absolutely deserve it! If it's everybody for themselves then don't be surprised when the employees goals aren't the same as yours!

      There was a local company in the Boston area (Digital Equipment Corporation) who had an amazing CEO. Talk to people who worked for this company and they'll all tell you stories about Ken Olsen. How much he cared about the employees and basically "doing the right thing". Now, hey, they're out of business... but same thing happened to a bunch of their competitors - basically the PC killed them. But the point is, people knew that Ken cared about the little guy. Example: he noticed in one building that all the managers had grabbed the window offices and all the rest of the staff were stuck in the middle with no outside view from their cubicles. At most companies people would have said "yeah, managers are more senior, of course they get the better offices". Instead Ken issued an edict that there would be NO window offices, that only corridors could be next to windows, so that *everybody* could leave their cubicle and look outside for a couple minutes during their workday. Cost the company nothing, but got a lot of goodwill from the employees. There were a ton of stories like that about the guy.

      Many modern CEOs don't get how important that is. I worked my butt off when I was at that company and one of the reasons was that I knew Ken Olsen cared about me, a lowly engineer, and so I damn well cared about him and his company and I did my best to make them succeed (which they did while I was there!).

    31. Re: Pointless by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is a myth -- there are plenty large unionized companies that compete successfully in the market. The reason is simple: the union might not have the shareholders' interests at heart, but success of their product in the marketplace is in their own interest.

      Yes, you can point to instances where companies are saddled with bad union contracts -- GM notably. But GM was also notable for unimaginative, lazy management. The bad union contracts were a overall symptom of bad management.

      Bad managers love to blame unions for their problems. Hostess Bakeries, for example. From the post WW2 period to the early 90s if an American bought bread, there is as a high chance it was Hostess's "Wonder Bread". We did it without thinking and taught our children to do the same. Then in the mid 90s new management decided to change the formula of Wonder Bread to extend its shelf life. The problem (as the company's unionized bakers pointed out) is that it changed Wonder Bread's signature light and airy texture, making it wet and gluey. Sales of the new-and-nasty Wonder Bread tanked, and the company's stock lost 82% of its value within just three years of introducing the new formula.

      And keep in mind they did this just a five years after the entire "New Coke" fisaco. Why, with that cautionary example, would they mess with a profitable product that so many people bought without thinking? Especially as there was no "shelf life" problem -- Wonder Bread flew off the shelves. Management wanted even longer shelf life so they could close down local, unionized bakeries and consolidate operations in union-hostile states.

      So this was management trying to kill the unions. They killed the company instead. So who did they blame? The unions. With a straight face they said the problem were union rules that didn't allow delivery truck drivers to help with loading the trucks -- which admittedly might be a ridiculous rule, but where is that on the absurdity scale compared to killing the company's 70 year-old cash cow?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    32. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?? What real world experience do you have that makes you think this is a good idea?

    33. Re:Pointless by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Here is what happened

      Did you all know what the MBA program was invented for? Not financial accountants, but engineers. Yep, it was for engineers who designed the products and moved up, but lacked a solid business understanding to take charge at the top levels.

      In the old days people like THomas Edison or even colonel Sanders made the products that people wanted. No really people bought shit from great products or services, not thought leaders. So they sold stuff and wanted to lead their companies by making great things to obtain marketshare and learn the management and business with an MBA to lead. 2 things changed in the 1980s
      1. Shareholders won over the CEO's on who owns the companies. That is Wall Street
      2. The share price value increase became the goal. Not increase sales or make more money or increase product quality.
      3. The result is Wall Street took over the board of directors and valued accountants with no product sense or cares to increase the share price at all costs.

      So now the MBA program is for young folks who want a career in financial engineering to make spreadsheets read by computer programs to make their Wall Street brokers rich. WHere does IT fit in this? It doesn't. Just keep what we have up and give the bonuses to the finance guys for thinking of new plans to raise the price each quarter etc.

    34. Re:Pointless by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      For companies like Carnival, IT is just overhead.

      'IT is overhead' companies will never treat their IT workers as anything other than cost centers and cogs. Because that's what they are.

      Just as competent peddlers go to companies that reward peddling, competent tech people go to companies the reward tech work. Carnival get's the leftovers, who will complain when poked. There are very few talented people working there for long. Look at insurance company IT staff, good for catching flies.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    35. Re:Pointless by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I guarantee that any commercial reservation service (used by the airlines) could take over Carnival's scheduling system in 3 months. I'd be amazed if it wasn't already outsourced along with all the challenging stuff (such as they have challenges in the first place).

      They don't really have unique problems. Hotel like supply chain management, airline like scheduling, regular office support.

      The problem is Canival sells more or less commodity stuff, never work in IT for companies that 'move' commodities. In those places you ARE JUST A REPLACEABLE COG by design.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've yet to see a job made by an Indian team that was not utterly incompetent.
      But yes, given the geniuses that want lower-cost-per-employee, a strategy is to hire a few experts and a bunch of Indians. The first group works on the project, the second group generates crap on an isolated versioning system. In the end, the cost-per-head is lower and the project made by the experts is ready.

      Who cares if they are competent or not. Do they work? Carnival in the minds of the shareholders needs to focus on getting people on ships. Not running legacy pieces of equipment as that is not their strength. Do they manage the company cafeteria too? Of course not. An outsourced company can do that for cheaper and better.

      IF they suck well who cares. Save the money and give it back to the shareholders.

    37. Re: Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they said the problem were union rules that didn't allow delivery truck drivers to help with loading the trucks -- which admittedly might be a ridiculous rule

      The reason truck driver's want that rule is because otherwise they can be made to wait while the recipient stalls rather than pay for a loading/unloading crew.

      If a trucker waits, he is not making money and may lose his job for tardiness. Shipping companies know this and use it to put pressure on drivers to make them work as unpaid loaders. That's bad for the driver and the loaders.

      It also means back injuries and pain meds for the people that drive 40,000# trucks, while over tired and maybe on the same road as you.

      So yeah, that's not a ridiculous rule.

      I had a tech interview once where they asked if I would clean the bathroom if it was dirty. I was surprised because it seemed like a poor use of labor. Maybe they thought it was some team spirit bullshit. I took it as s sign that they didn't have their act together and declined.

    38. Re:Pointless by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      Carnival get's the leftovers, who will complain when poked. There are very few talented people working there for long.

      Well, that may be true, but I wonder whether it's because of the qualifications of the staff, or whether the environment sucks so bad that the good people leave after a short stay. If so, that's the company selecting for poor employees.

      I'm not IT, but any modern company who treats it as mere overhead does so at their own peril. Remember back in June when SouthWest had computer issues? "Flight delays across our network have resulted in 600-700 canceled and delayed flights". That cost the airline a lot of money and hassle.

      Then you think about companies being hacked... you can literally bankrupt the company if you are hacked big time.

      Does every IT department need to be all A-Team people? No, and in fact people like that might end up being bored in some shops. But a good solid team that can be depended on for reliable uptime and quick reaction when stuff does go wrong? Seems pretty important to me.

      And offshoring like Carnival is doing? Why would you want to put the fate of the company in some external company that you have no control over day-to-day? Yeah, great, you can fire them when a major IT problem hurts you, and you might even be able to recover some of the losses in a lawsuit, but me, I'd much rather put together a solid team of people who have loyalty to the company and can be depended upon to do a good solid job.

    39. Re:Pointless by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's the company selecting for cheap and 'manageable' employees. If technically competent, than psychologically beyond help (or they would leave). Managers it such places will make effort to convince them 'it's like this everywhere', but there are huge downsides to being staffed by those with 'learned helplessness'.

      In practice, the managers of these places know they can't keep A people. To them it's a waste of time to try, they will suck the life out of kids right out of school (who didn't have the wit and opportunity to avoid them) but those kids move along soon, leaving behind yet more technical debt. The line managers don't usually own much stock, so don't really care if the place crashes and burns, anymore than the overloaded C- people they have constantly putting out fires really care. The long timers at such places are _all_ working just hard enough not to get fired, for most, death will be sweet relief.

      Yahoo has already lost a billion in valuation over similar practices. They should lose the rest ASAP (leave them worth _less_ than their Alibaba holdings), but I don't think any single example is going to be enough. Publicly traded companies are going to have to be held to IT security standard practices, just as they are held to accounting standards. A role comparable to comptroller will have to be defined.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    40. Re:Pointless by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How many companies do you think will agree to those contract terms? I believe the technical term for people who insist on those is "unemployed".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Innovate or lose your job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Carnival IT maintains systems, they don't innovate. Naturally the bean counters figure they're prime to get replaced by cheap workers.

    Will Trump stop this? I doubt it. Get a job where you can't hand someone an instruction manual.

    Alternatively, if the IT staff would all say "No, we aren't training anyone", Carnival might be fucked. But there's always enough people living check to check that they'll train their replacements.

    1. Re: Innovate or lose your job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People living cheque to cheque who are looking for a job are unreliable employees that typically steal, don't show up and lie about their qualifications.

      Why? They are flat broke and desperate.

    2. Re:Innovate or lose your job by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Will Trump stop this? I doubt it. Get a job where you can't hand someone an instruction manual.

      Actually, he very much can if he sticks to his proposed plan. Carnival (as all cruise ships) is most likely registered as a foreign corporation. If Trump sticks to his promise that exporting US jobs overseas will result in immediate 35% tariff on its products, that would mean an immediate 35% tariff on the sale of all tickets to Carnival cruise lines (because they are all foreign products). How long do you think they can stay competitive with a 35% tariff slapped on them? Do you think the savings in IT costs will justify the loss of business?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re: Innovate or lose your job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a simple fix for the h-1b visa issue. Make them not tax deductible for companies.

    4. Re: Innovate or lose your job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might keep jobs here, but no company outside of America would ever risk hiring Americans, knowing that if they replaced just one of them they might have a 35% tariff.

      It's actually an easy problem to solve, fix the H1B problem...by enforcing the laws that are already there. I doubt Trump will do this because all the large tech companies like things the way they are, and I can see him going back on fixing this mess to make them happy, just like how Hillary was in favor of it.

      I hope I'm wrong, but let's not forget that corporations are ultimately the ones in charge, and they love H1Bs.

    5. Re: Innovate or lose your job by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The tariff need only apply if an American is replaced by an H1B worker, not if he's replaced by another American

    6. Re: Innovate or lose your job by Cederic · · Score: 1

      And when someone in our Colorado office quits and we decide to hire his replacement in South Africa because Johannesburg has a good pool of skilled people available at half the cost, that justifies a 35% tariff?

      Better to not open the Colorado office in the first place.

    7. Re: Innovate or lose your job by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Sure, and don't operate in the US at all in the first place. Operate in South Africa

    8. Re:Innovate or lose your job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the cost is justified because their marketing will claim they had to fire the workers because of the tax and that the tax is killing their business so we should all complain against Trump's killing of American businesses. They will completely sweep under the rug the fact they're getting taxed because of the layoffs and people barely read past article headlines so they won't realize.

      Marketing spin will be getting more people to sign up for travel because we need to protect this American company Trump is trying to kill.

  6. sense of entitlement by ooloorie · · Score: 0

    Carnival is a dual US/British company operating largely outside the US (being a cruise line). In what way is he entitled to this job?

    1. Re:sense of entitlement by cahuenga · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not entitlement, incentive.

      There was a time that working toward making a company successful was an incentive as it ensured further employment. Not anymore.

    2. Re:sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is true. Employees in many industries have basically no incentive to stay loyal. Many workers are held back by a lack of self-confidence, or an utterly misguided since of moral responsibility (there is nothing moral about making rich people richer). This is very unfortunate.

      Want to make money? Do a modicum of market research and make a list of skills that few people are able to do, or that few people want to do. Those are the skills that pay. Pick one, and master it. Your destiny is in your hands.

    3. Re:sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what way is the CEO entitled to the cheapest labor?

    4. Re:sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the one. As I see they are a travel agency not developers so probably there are only sysadmins there. Probably they are moving their whole IT to some cloud provider. Then it doesn't matter who pushes the buttons. You can be from Los angeles, Paris or Bangladesh.

    5. Re: sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was a good time and it's coming back.

    6. Re:sense of entitlement by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was a time that working toward making a company successful was an incentive as it ensured further employment. Not anymore.

      That hasn't changed. If you have specialized skills that are important to a company, they'll keep you. IT services don't fall into that category.

    7. Re:sense of entitlement by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      He's not - he's entitled to the cheapest he can get hold of for the required skill level.

    8. Re:sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why doesn't he find someone capable of doing his job for less?

    9. Re:sense of entitlement by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Carnival gets protection of safe sea passage ensured by the security maintained by the US Navy. Its customers are largely US residents. Why shouldn't they be charged a tariff to recoup the costs of benefiting from the US protection? Why shouldn't the US citizens taking Carnival cruises pay an extra fee (in the form of a tariff) to benefit from the international protections which they receive due to the dominance of US Navy overseas?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    10. Re:sense of entitlement by Sebby · · Score: 1

      Then why doesn't he find someone capable of doing his job for less?

      Zing!

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    11. Re:sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carnival is a dual US/British company operating largely outside the US (being a cruise line). In what way is he entitled to this job?

      Why do you think he feels entitled to that job?

      Looks to me the only thing anyone feels entitled to is that the company follow US and UK law, which they are planning to not do in a week. Nor do I think that is unreasonable or unfair to feel entitled to.

      It is actually in the best interests of the company to have the law in existence, after all that is the only thing keeping everyone else from killing the owners and board members, and taking/burning everything that is company property.

      Since the company has only announced their intent to break the law in the near future, this person is only providing an offer back to the company to not break the law and be reported for those crimes.

      Well OK, yes he is demanding some money, but that isn't likely to go anywhere at all.
      But it is certainly telling that he isn't demanding that money in exchange for not reporting their crime (which itself would be a crime to do, aka blackmail), but is only demanding they stop their plans to commit a crime, in which case there is no crime to have to report.

    12. Re:sense of entitlement by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't they be charged a tariff to recoup the costs of benefiting from the US protection?

      You're right: such special job protections are like an extra tariff. Now think about what happens with that money. Tax payers pay for the protection, but the benefits from that protection go to a small group of already highly paid employees. Thanks for illustrating government corruption and special interest lobbying so nicely.

    13. Re:sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've missed the part where modern business design principles include ensuring as much as possible that no particular position can be occupied by anyone that is not replaceable. You're approach can only work where the company is not being run properly and as such is really only relevant based upon pure chance.

    14. Re:sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very few people have truly specialized skills with machine automation and AI that is coming.

    15. Re:sense of entitlement by non0score · · Score: 1

      Really? Then by your logic, I'm guessing that Carnival doesn't really need him, or the whole IT department, to transfer his/their knowledge then. But since Carnival does, so I guess knowledge of existing infrastructure/software/practices/setup is pretty much a "specialized skill."

    16. Re:sense of entitlement by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Well, you're thinking along the correct lines: Culver has certain skills and knowledge, and that is of a certain value to Carnival. You can tell how much by looking at how much they offered him, which is not much.

      (I would guess that they have made much more attractive offers to a few other employees; they don't need many in order to ensure that "knowledge of the existing infrastructure/software/practices/setup" is not lost.)

    17. Re:sense of entitlement by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Since the company has only announced their intent to break the law in the near future, this person is only providing an offer back to the company to not break the law and be reported for those crimes.

      Which crime do you believe Carnival is committing?

    18. Re:sense of entitlement by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Then by your logic, I'm guessing that Carnival doesn't really need him, or the whole IT department, to transfer his/their knowledge then.

      Needing something, and being more efficient with something are two different things. If there was no knowledge transfer then a company with a good system in place should be fine. A company who keeps their knowledge in the heads of the employees is utterly stupid anyway.

      Defend your company against employees being hit by busses.

    19. Re:sense of entitlement by Cederic · · Score: 1

      As I see they are a travel agency not developers so probably there are only sysadmins there

      So they don't use financial systems to track forecasts, budgets, cash and to prepare the financial reports?
      They don't have a payroll system?
      They don't use HR systems to recruit, train and support managing employees?
      They don't have any systems for things like legal, facilities, compliance or an intranet?

      Of course, being a travel company they wouldn't have a website, a booking system or any complex logistics systems tracking the myriad of consumables, maintenance and fuel used by their ships.

      Nope, not at all. Just sysadmins.

    20. Re:sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No employee should be irreplaceable, though. What happens to your business if your "specialized leet guy" gets run over by a bus?

      Yeah that.

      Capgemini implemented poor managment practices. Employees should document their work. Employees should not be in a position where they can withhold knowledge. A software company's assets is knowledge. Will there be a lesson learnt?

    21. Re:sense of entitlement by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When they make an AI that can clutch at it's pearls about the coming AI revolution...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're so important and so unique that 6 months of training a replacement isn't enough, then your existence is actually a massive risk that the company might see fit to mitigate by replacing you anyways, just over a slightly longer time-frame.

    23. Re:sense of entitlement by phorm · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. There are plenty of IT jobs that require specialised skills - and more importantly knowledge - the gotchya is that management rarely recognises them until they fire the wrong person and then shit blows up.

      In cases like this the skills/knowledge are obviously somewhat important, otherwise what it there to teach your "replacement" or offer in the "contact firm"

    24. Re:sense of entitlement by non0score · · Score: 1

      I think you're assuming that management always know who's the best at what, and their offers reflect that. In reality, their accuracy is hit or miss. And given it's Carnival, I'd be much more willing to place my bets on "miss."

    25. Re:sense of entitlement by non0score · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty safe to assume that these companies have non-trivial amounts of IT infrastructure (that needs maintenance, migrations, upgrades, etc...). Any such system that doesn't require knowledge transfer must satisfy at least one of the below:

      1) You have an oracle stashed somewhere.
      2) You have volumes of documentation.
      3) Retaining key people that actually do know the system.
      4) You don't ever plan on upgrading/migrating and are content with the current system for perpetuity (I'll even throw in that it's trivial to re-image a computer when its predecessor breaks down).

      We know 1 doesn't exist, or at least, no offshore company has one that they can assign to Carnival.

      2 requires a team of engineers that pore over those volumes of documentation, make sense of it all, not fuck up any future plans with their 0 experience of the Carnival systems, all the while sticking around long enough such that said team can maintain the system, return a profit for the IT company for real services rendered, and learn enough to plan out/implement whatever upgrades/roadmap they decide to do.

      Good luck with 3. I rarely see management being able to retain the right talent, even when it's not pressured by offshoring schedule and with relevant leads still in place. That and human nature to retain your friends.

      So that leaves us with what? 2. Which means Carnival will never improve, and for sure I won't want to go on their cruise now. Or maybe you can come up with 5/6/7 etc..., which I'm all ears.

    26. Re:sense of entitlement by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No number 2 does not require anything of the sort. It should exist and get created as people work as a matter of course. If it doesn't already exist maybe the best thing for the company is to get rid of all the people in IT, and their management and processes at the same time and we can replace them with someone competent.

    27. Re:sense of entitlement by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      In cases like this the skills/knowledge are obviously somewhat important, otherwise what it there to teach your "replacement" or offer in the "contact firm"

      Carnival probably offered high retention offers to a few key employees. For the rest, like this guy, they couldn't care less whether he stays, which is why they didn't make him a big offer.

    28. Re:sense of entitlement by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I think you're assuming that management always know who's the best at what, and their offers reflect that.

      No, I'm merely assuming that it is the responsibility of management to determine how much employee retention is worth to the company. They may get it wrong, but it's still their choice to make.

    29. Re: sense of entitlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was a good time and it's coming back.

      Make America Great Again!

    30. Re:sense of entitlement by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You can bet carnival long ago outsourced their reservation and ticketing system to one of the majors, just to make the flight connections easy.

      The rest is typical hotel supply chain management. So they likely own a SAP pigfuck (or worse, Oracle apps), but it too, could already be outsourced.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Leverage by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    What leverage does this guy have? He hasn't threatened to sue. You need to back up your 'offer' with something substantial.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re: Leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such as stalking from cubicle to cubicle with an AR-15 and an extended clip.

    2. Re: Leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worker bees can leave.
      Even drones can fly away.
      The Queen is their slave.

    3. Re:Leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You need to back up your 'offer' with something substantial.

      I agree. They should unionize and adopt a collective bargaining position. Then the counteroffer will carry some weight.

    4. Re:Leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to explain how that works and what protection mechanisms exist when the contracts were signed and the deal is sealed?

    5. Re:Leverage by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      The leverage is that what the company doing is a federal offense, and they're trying to thinly veil it as not one.

      In short, you could sue the company for personal damages for losing your job because they tried to replace you with illegal labor, and therefore they owe you for all of the salary they would have had to pay you.

    6. Re:Leverage by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Which offence is that? Why is the replacement labour illegal?

      You're making some interesting assumptions here. Are you saying that Cap Gemini are breaking the law? Might want to lawyer up.

    7. Re: Leverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um no. More and more unions are being broken today by companies doing this type of sourcing to other companies or even countries that are not unionized. Unions can be good but are not the end all be all of success. There are a number (not a majority) that are corrupt and do nothing for their members except further diminish their paycheck under the guise of providing their members security, "should" they be fired or go on strike. The reality is that those jobs are gone and without congressional and presidential commitment to deter these actions as well as significantly reducing the use of H1B visas this will continue as it has until our quality of life has been decimated (at least for all except the 1 percenters).
      What's really sad is that the majority reason for diminished return of IT is because of crappy management that does not invest but instead only looks to "cut costs" within their cost center that gives those managers a raise, but in reality costs the company MORE money because of the impact of those short sighted, self serving, "cost saving" measures.

  8. Why not spin off their own company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They could spin off their own outsourcing IT company and ask Carnival to hire them as consultants.

    1. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by WaterDamage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As funny as it sounds, it's true. They could start a price war to underbid Capgemini causing Capgemini large loses should Capgemini bid lower.

    2. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      it's true, but it would take someone with the experience and capability to start up that kind of company, and the know-how to start a price war. My guess is that in the ~200 people who are getting laid off, there isn't anyone who knows how to do that. It's not normal expertise among IT people.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by WaterDamage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not rocket science, all it takes is for this guy to write a letter to Carnival and tell them that he and the 200 others will do the work for less than what Capgemini is charging since Capgemini like any other contracting firm needs overhead to maintain profitability and they would do it at cost. Capgemini will not be able to outbid them. Once back at their old job, it's the ultimate Fuck You chance to create massive budget cost overruns that were never forecast or predicted. This shit happens in government bids all the time and wouldn't surprise me if Capgemini wouldn't have created the same situation for Carnival. Suing them will be useless and will only blacklist him from future employers as he will be looked at as a huge liability even if he's a rock-star engineer.

    4. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As funny as it sounds, it's true. They could start a price war to underbid Capgemini causing Capgemini large loses should Capgemini bid lower.

      No, they couldn't. The deal is done.

      And outsourcing an entire department is a whole different ball of wax compared to being a single contractor for your old employer. And frankly, most of you guys who contract for your old employer are getting ripped off.

    5. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Based on the title I thought that they did create their own company and then undercut Capgemini but all he did was send a rant to the CEO.

    6. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      all it takes is for this guy to write a letter to Carnival and tell them that he and the 200 others will do the work for less than what Capgemini is charging since

      No that's not all, it also has to be credible.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      it's true, but it would take someone with the experience and capability to start up that kind of company, and the know-how to start a price war. My guess is that in the ~200 people who are getting laid off, there isn't anyone who knows how to do that. It's not normal expertise among IT people.

      It's not that hard and I'm sure they find a few managerial types, unemployed or not, to help them.
      Plus CarnivalIT has a HUGE advantage - they know the systems inside and out, history of upgrades & outages, and more importantly, the USERS, who has to have their hands held, spoonfed, who the smart ones are, who're quickest to escalate, who can be handled by e-mail, etc - assuming the support desk isn't outsourced.
      I've been through 3 IT support transitions in my career, one where I was part of the incoming support, taking over the Western hemisphere and English-speaking global IT operations for an oil company, and one where I was part of the group facilitating the transition between managed services providers for a healthcare conglomerate with 4 large hospitals, 10 affiliates, and dozens of clinics for a rough total of 20,000 users.
      Based on my experience, it's a *minimum* of 2 years for a large & complex organization - and the money you need to spend to make it happen that quickly & smoothly is staggering. More than 50 of just the internal people involved were working 25+ hrs overtime for a year.

      There's no way Carnival is going to get save money in the face of resistance. They would be better off offering to help setup the IT department as a separate consultancy with a contract of say 5 years, with the understanding that is the way forward and with agreements for enabling a future transition to another company.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    8. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are already doing the work numbnuts. Of course the claim that they can do the work is credible.

    9. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was referring in the sense that someone has a track record in running a consulting company. I don't care if you charge me half the money, if I have little confidence that you get the job completed. Talent unfortunately will only take you so far.

      What's with the name-calling? You should learn to take it easy and accept a different point of view.

    10. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      How are they going to do it for a lower cost? Just fire the 50% of the team that is chaff? Take a pay cut?

      You basically need a process that reduces the amount of support staff and time that are required... or you need to approach the problem differently.

    11. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly this. The odds of the people being laid off having the skills/knowledge/eligibility to form a company capable of doing staffing in the amount of time it would take to be considered would be darn near impossible.

    12. Re: Why not spin off their own company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this guy going to get all 200 to agree to strike? The articles about this have workers admitting they'll take the deal because they have families to support.

      He's got a shot if they all strike...but I doubt he can pull it off. The fact that it hasn't happened already (this was announced weeks ago) means he failed.

    13. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by lusid1 · · Score: 1

      The sharp ones will end up as consultants anyway. It's not a terribly talent rich region, and there aren't a lot of corporate locations with significant IT footprint. Most of the folks with talent in South florida either go into consulting or end up in IT departments with single digit headcounts. The rest will either have to leave the business or leave the area.

    14. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT's easy, without a point hair boss and the need to commute, just to be under the thumb of the point haired boss, to expensive office space most of the costs vanish. Work from home with people you value and respect and cut the rest. Profit.

    15. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Better not to start a race to the bottom. Just consult at 10x your normal salaried rate for 6 months to do the "knowledge transfer". The company has no choice, they need that knowledge and if all 200 of you do it they will have to pay. And during that time you can pay someone else to find new jobs for everyone, set up interviews, start new companies etc.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely true. I would be willing to bet that Capgemini will be paid a lot more per consultant then each one of them gets as a salary. This is the case because of the total compensation package. By outsourcing the positions, Carnival no longer has to worry about all the benefits and payroll taxes. Since they would all own the company, they could also pay themselves dividends which are taxed at a lower rate. In the end, I think there is a good chance they'd be able to do this w/o taking a pay cut.

    17. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      heheh... reminds me of the startup I was at... they brought in a jerk who didn't do his research and started making hasty decisions. As soon as he showed up I started looking, so luckily was gone by the time he sacked the guy in charge of all the servers. (not really IT, but close enough). Too bad they forgot to get the passwords from him before they sacked him.

      Then they tried to go back to the guy and get the passwords - don't remember if they offered him money or not, but to his credit he gave them a nice big "fuck you".

      Ah, fond memories!

    18. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be surprised how easy that would be. CapGemini and other consulting firms require at least a 40% margin to get a 10% net profit due to their huge overhead.

    19. Re:Why not spin off their own company? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an admin that needed firing. If the admin is the only one who knows the passwords, the company is in real trouble if anything happens to him. The company should always have access to the passwords, and a good admin would make sure there was a way for the company to access them in case of his death, disability, or departure.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. That's not really a counter offer. by waspleg · · Score: 2

    That's just an an entirely reasonable demand. Guess whose fiscal year ends 12/31? I'm willing to bet theirs does. Fuck the families right?

    1. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Providing for your family is your responsibility, not mine. In today's economy, your primary asset is your adaptability. After that is your frugality.

      Have you been dragging your feet on these? If so, you have nobody but yourself to blame.

      Your family includes two working parents, right? If not, why the hell not? Do you feel entitled to the ability to provide your spouse with an employment-free life for 18 years while also fully bankrolling the kids? Ridiculous. If this what you bit off, you should have made preparations looooong ago to make sure you could keep chewing.

      Or maybe you got divorced and are a single parent? Who's fault was that? If you decide to breed, you need to make darn sure you vet your potential partners before committing to them, and get seriously focused on those attributes that are going to keep the family afloat. Did you just get drawn in by sexual attraction and throw everything else to the wind? That is your damn fault, not mine, and you should bear the consequences, not me!

      Once in a blue moon a person who seems the perfect match does a full 180 once the knot is tied...but the scores of single parents cannot possibly all be victims of this. Much more likely they are victims of their own lack of wisdom, planning, and devotion.

      Maybe you got knocked up without ever getting married in the first place? Cry me a river! A little self-respect might have served you well. Now you sleep in the bed you made.

    2. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound so bitter.

    3. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like an absolute cunt. I hope you feel failure to an extent where I can turn my nose up at you as you beg for money in the street you worthless parasite.

    4. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Falos · · Score: 1

      "I've got mine screw you."

    5. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just maybe one person makes $80,000/year while the other makes $15,000 working part time while taking care of the kids.

      If that $80k goes poof and you don't get rehired for 6 months, then you have a few problems:
          car gets reposessed
          house gets foreclosed
          credit rating drops causing future employers to see you as "untrustworthy"

      Programmers vs non-programmers creates quite an unequal financial burden in a marriage.
      Not everyone is an engineer, doctor, or lawyer.

      Also, childcare is $125 per week per child minimum.
      Have 2 kids? There goes $13,000 of after-tax money ($17.3k before-tax @ 25%).

    6. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot, now get off my lawn and dont touch my social security.

      Still, we are approaching the true singularity of everyone caring only for himself. Honestly I dont think it could be worse than the half-assed let's say we care about social problems but not really do anything about it if it costs money.

    7. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the parasite?

      I work a full time job delivering superior value to my clients. They pay me for it and say thank you! That is pretty much the opposite of being a parasite.

      You, however, seem to feel entitled to financial security without earning it. I am inferring this, of course, and may be wrong. Your post is quite short on anything but vain insult. But given the vehemence with which you reacted to my insistence that you take responsibility for your own life, rather than me doing that for you, I can only infer that you feel entitled to my money simply because you have bills that you cannot afford to pay.

      That would clearly make YOU the parasite.

      A man builds. A parasite says, "where's mine?"

    8. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All the jobs that pay are unpleasant, I don't want to do those! And my preferred level of luxury is expensive! I want to work a fun but low-paying job and still have expensive luxuries! Any rich person who doesn't want to bankroll me on this is obviously a selfish asshole who just wants to screw over the rest of the world!"

    9. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitter for...what....advocating frugality and self-restraint?

      It is not reasonable to expect that one can recklessly sleep around, indulge in an expensive lifestyle, not work a job that people are willing to pay real money for, and just receive free money from the government to pay for it all.

      People should plan ahead, abstain from profligate behaviors, and manage their finances wisely. There is nothing bitter about advocating this, nor is there anything bitter about wanting to enjoy my rewards for having done this (without the government taking my money that I earned away from me, and giving it to a bunch of people that couldn't stop cranking out babies and wasting money on fancy garbage).

      People should not accept life crushing debt to get a degree in a jobless field and then blame rich people for their problems!

      Maybe I am a bit bitter. When people shout "I deserve free money! From you!" I get bitter.
       

    10. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So....with a net income of 95 grand a year, you can't afford to put money in savings? Maybe you should scale back that level of luxury a bit. Get rid of one car and use public transportation. Maybe a 1 story house instead of two. Maybe fewer expensive vacations. Maybe a little further from downtown. Maybe you should find a partner that can make more than 15,000 a year, to make sure you can afford your plans together.

      It might not be convenient. But that's the sacrifice you must make if you want to raise kids, and haven't laid, in advance, a foundation that would pull higher or more reliable income.

      Or, of course, you could just complain, and insist that your desired level of luxury should be someone else's financial burden. That makes sense.

    11. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phrase "caring about others" here means "giving free money to people who are too lazy or stupid to manage their own lives."

      There are many countries in the world where the poor are completely trapped. They have zero opportunity for education, zero jobs that offer any kind of advancement, the work that is available doesn't quite cover their basic needs, and they have no insurance to speak of so every disaster wipes them out.

      In America, however, the poor have no excuse. All the education you need to get ahead is available, for fucking free at public libraries. There is plenty of work available, that pays very well, to people who are willing to get their hands dirty.

      The problem here isn't that the economy is bereft of profit-making opportunities, but that people don't want to do hard work. They only want to do fun work, and they want to get paid as if they were doing hard work. And on top of that they want to live way beyond their means.

      When that all falls apart, they have the audacity to blame everyone but themselves, and to say that any rich person who doesn't want to give them free money "only cares about himself."

      Bullshit.

      Your dire straits are your own damn fault.

    12. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "I've got mine screw you."

      Or "you should be responsible for your actions and not expect a bail out."

    13. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You forgot, now get off my lawn and dont touch my social security.

      Social Security is something you actually pay into. It's YOUR money, so it would indeed be theft to cut it off.

    14. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me know when you shut down the entire insurance industry's racket.

    15. Re:That's not really a counter offer. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Insurance is an agreement you enter into and pay for, and if you get into an accident that is your fault, your rates go up.
      Health insurance is a pretty bad racket, and the entire method of how we handle health care needs a redesign. Obamacare's biggest sin is that this is not something it addressed.

  10. En-titties-ment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not offer severance to the people not accepting the role in the contractor as a part of a reasonable employment contract, while guaranteeing at least the same pay for those switching employer with the condition of moving to France maybe not optional?

    1. Re:En-titties-ment by WaterDamage · · Score: 1

      Because they likely already PAID Capgemini to hire the workers therefore Carnival is absolved from liability for dumping them. Capgemini will likely retain those employees until those funds run out.

  11. Labor relations in the Age of Trump by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Dave Moss: I don't gotta sit here and listen to this shit.

    Blake: You certainly don't pal, 'cause the good news is - you're fired. The bad news is - you've got, all of you've got just one week to regain your jobs starting with tonight. Starting with tonight's sit. Oh? Have I got your attention now? Good. "Cause we're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. Get the picture? You laughing now? You got leads. Mitch and Murray paid good money, get their names to sell them, you can't close the leads you're given you can't close shit. You ARE shit. Hit the bricks, pal, and beat it 'cause you are going OUT.

    Shelley: The leads are weak.

    Blake: The leads are weak? Fucking leads are weak. You're weak. I've been in this business 15 years...

    Dave: What's your name?

    Blake: Fuck you. That's my name. You know why, mister? You drove a Hyundai to get here. I drove an eighty-thousand dollar BMW. THAT'S my name. And your name is you're wanting. You can't play in the man's game, you can't close them - go home and tell your wife your troubles. Because only one thing counts in this life: Get them to sign on the line which is dotted. You hear me, you fucking faggots? A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Closing. Always be closing. ALWAYS BE CLOSING.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Labor relations in the Age of Trump by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Have you been attending Insurance sales pep rallies?

    2. Re:Labor relations in the Age of Trump by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Since it's Xmas, I prefer to Always Be Cobbling - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      PUT THAT COCOA DOWN!!

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:Labor relations in the Age of Trump by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      How original. Did you come up with this all by yourself?

    4. Re:Labor relations in the Age of Trump by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      How original. Did you come up with this all by yourself?

      No, son. It's from the movie version of David Mamet's play Glengarry Glen Ross. which is about the corrosive effect of late-stage capitalism.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Labor relations in the Age of Trump by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I don't know.. it's a cute scene, and it's well acted, but otherwise GGR really is the case study in how NOT to operate a company and treat employees. I feel that most people who quote this scene are totally on board with Blake here and treat it as a capitalistic fantasy to look up to.

    6. Re:Labor relations in the Age of Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Santa: "Coffee is for nice boys and girls, not naughty. You think I'm fuckin' with you? I am not fuckin' with you."

    7. Re:Labor relations in the Age of Trump by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know. Everyone knows.

  12. This explains a lot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they must have seen this coming for a few months, because... hrmmm, can't spout inside information... But this all makes sense to me now!

  13. Facing Layoff, Employee Chooses Unemployment by StealthyRoid · · Score: 1

    Unless you're crying about all the unemployed farriers out there, hush.

  14. sending data overseas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wish these advocacy groups would just stick to jobs and not also claim our data us sent overseas too. data is located in data centers. Those dont get moved overseas. Data migrates to the cloud. the advocacy lawyers are alarmists or dont get technology. i hope they win their lawsuits but are they really able to represent tech workers?

    1. Re: sending data overseas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to miss the point man. Other than that how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?

  15. counter counter offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No job, no severance, antidefamation lawsuit , RICO lawsuit and SLAPP lawsuit. America is a capitalist country, don't like it move to China. We fought and beat unions to protect hard working Americans from exactly this kind of anti-capitalist left wing bullshit brought here.

  16. keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe just avoid companies which persue such practices. FOr me, Carnival Corp would keep my feet off any Carnival cruise ship. Yes these are strong forces of globalization but the least they could have done is would be to give the employees a decent severance package and some time regardless whether they train their cheaper replacements. Such stories do good to motivate kids to pursue any STEM area.

    1. Re:keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by WaterDamage · · Score: 1

      WTF, are you even talking about, no one was let go, they ALL were offered jobs at another employer. Where's the fucking injustice you speak of?

    2. Re:keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no worries, knowing this I wont set foot on any of their cruise ships whatever brands they own.
      If you want my business, buy my product.

    3. Re:keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      They were offered six months positions in which to train their replacements, after which they'll obviously be fired.

    4. Re:keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is giving them a job for six months minimum not better than severance!!?

    5. Re:keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      These days, I've started getting robocalls telling me that I 'qualify for a paid cruise to Florida'. The call starts by a female voice apologizing, telling me that she was talking to her husband, and then she starts off about how I qualify for.... I try to interrupt 'her' and convince her that I'm not remotely interested, but she just goes on, at which point I know it's a robocall. That's the point where I cut the call

    6. Re:keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Maybe just avoid companies which persue such practices

      Please define the exact practice that should upset me. Otherwise if I had to avoid any company where the recommendation from Slashdot was to boycot I'd be sitting in a cave somewhere bashing rocks together trying to make fire to keep me warm.

      I'd ad Carnival Corp to the list, but the last version of MS Excel that Slashdot has approved for use was 2000 and that only supports 65536 rows which are already full.

    7. Re:keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. In the UK one way of outsourcing is to tell the whole IT department that they now work for another company (e.g. Cap Gemini). UK law has a thing called TUPE so the terms of employment legally can't change for a period of time.

      After that though you find that most of the employees get retained. They often do the same job working for the company that they just left, just from a different office. Over time their employment contract starts to normalise to the standard terms of their new employer.

      It allows a very gradual transition, nobody is forced to leave (unless they do the things that'll get you removed from any position) and the original company gets all the benefits of outsourcing (i.e. no control over their IT systems, terrible requirements management, horrific enterprise debt and sizeable long term costs). The employees get to continue working, but with the health of the IT industry they can choose to move on too.

    8. Re:keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "STEM" is not a field, you fucking moron.

    9. Re:keep feet off any Carnival cruise ship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boycott is certainly called for. A lot of geeks do cruises, but I will never, ever do Carnival.

  17. Want to think you're powerless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have to try to stand up.
    The easiest thing for the ultrawealthy is to make you think you're powerless and to admit defeat without a battle.

    The best thing to do is to not train the replacements.
    The best thing to do is to fight it, even if it turns out ugly.

    1. Re:Want to think you're powerless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The best thing to do is to not train the replacements.
      The best thing to do is to fight it, even if it turns out ugly.

      How about training them exactly how to do everything in Microsoft Excel and MS Access using VB macros with kernel hooks for "automation"?

    2. Re:Want to think you're powerless by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 2

      I believe that's against the Geneva Convention.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    3. Re:Want to think you're powerless by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You can use Excel to OLE automate Access.application which in turn can implement hooks into the mouse driver to drive Excel. That will do the needful...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  18. Counteroffer for what??? by WaterDamage · · Score: 1

    "After receiving his offer letter from Capgemini, he sent a counteroffer. It asked for $500,000...and apology letters to all the affected families," This part is puzzling to me. Why did he ask for $500k? What was the message he was trying to convey with that? In my opinion, no one is obligated to give him jack shit. In Florida the employer has every right to fire anyone for any reason at-will.

    1. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it as more as Hush money and this makes a lot more sense.

      Before this whole thing went public it was just about replacing US workers with Capgemini workers (who are often H1Bs). Carnival and the guy both know that if someone was to actually drag this to court then it would cost Carnival more than $500k to defend as lawyers are quite costly. Not to mention the cost of being drag through the mud.

      Carnival basicly said "Our name is already shit, so sign or don't sigh, we really dont give a shit because we really really dont even understand what you guys do in IT but this contract says it will cost us less to do it with this outsourcing company"

      Thus this goes public, including the hush money demand.

    2. Re: Counteroffer for what??? by orlanz · · Score: 1

      I thought it was fairly obvious that he was just countering a silly offer with another silly offer. He was rejecting their offer and countering with something he knew would be rejected. It's kind of came off as a nice way of saying FU. The alternative was just leaving... might as well have a little fun.

    3. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by WaterDamage · · Score: 1

      Makes some sense. But kind of hard to extort money from a business when you really have no dirt on them. LOL

    4. Re: Counteroffer for what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had enough dirt to make sure I'll never buy their products. I'm sure there are others in the same boat .....it might end up costing more than the salaries of those 200 workers.

    5. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Sill haven't heard Trump's plan, have you? Any company which moves US jobs overseas will face a 35% tariff on all goods it tries to sell in the US which are manufactured outside of the US. For a cruise ship company, that would be all of their goods. Hope that bad rep plus the 35% increase in you ticket prices (which go into Uncle Sam's coffers and you never get to see) still justify your cost cuts.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may depend on how well-documented the systems are that the current workers are supporting, and how much daily support they provide that is dependent on their specific skills and system knowledge. How indispensable are the current IT workers? Who's holding which keys to Carnival's IT kingdom?

    7. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're kidding, right? First of all, you can't make a law that just targets a specific person or company. That's a bill of attainder, and the Constitution outlaws it (not that Trump has ever read the Constitution or cares about its contents), so it's going to be damn hard to even figure out how to charge such a tariff.

      And second, that 35% is an import duty. Carnival doesn't import anything, so there's nothing to tax.

      If it was something like cars or air conditioners, Customs could charge a duty when they cross the border, and those costs would then be passed on to customer. In this case, there are no goods crossing the border.

      Of course it's still bullshit, which is why Mike Pence paid Carrier several million dollars to keep a few hundred jobs in Indiana (at least until they can be replaced by automation), while still allowing several hundred more to move to Mexico. And Carrier is going to add several hundered more new jobs in Mexico because they know it's bullshit.

      dom

    8. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are really gullible if you think that tariff is at all enforceable. Any medium sized company can easily play shell games with corporate structures to protect themselves.

      When Carnival transfers the jobs to another company it's no longer their responsibility to ensure the jobs stay in the US.

      Anyone familiar with Trump and his numerous bankruptcies should find the tariff's enforcement laughable.

    9. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop thinking with your emotions. There is no offshoring being done by the company. They're hiring a local contractor and that contractor does the offshoring since there aren't any locals who fit their company culture. The contractor has no tangible products, there aren't any goods coming in to be taxed. The policy you described will have no impact on these companies nor everyone else who is using the system this way (which is everyone).

    10. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no offshoring being done by the company. They're hiring a local contractor and that contractor does the offshoring

      And Al Capone never killed anyone. It's just people who worked for Al who did!

    11. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure I know about Trump's plan. It requires Congress to implement, and it's stupid. Trade wars will benefit no country.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      so it's going to be damn hard to even figure out how to charge such a tariff.

      We do have a Department of State which has some jurisdiction over regulating borders. They can dedicate resources to making such a determination at a President's behest. The law would not be targeting a company. It would be targeting a category of companies. Which is perfectly legal. The State Department (maybe together with Labor Department?) would only be making determination which companies meet the criteria.

      And second, that 35% is an import duty.

      Not true. Their bill of sale of services is generated in the US and it is for a product manufactured abroad (almost all cruise ships are not registered in the US).

      In this case, there are no goods crossing the border.

      No tangible goods. But it's an offer of services to be performed. And since the ships are not registered in the US, the services are performed abroad.

      Of course it's still bullshit

      You may very well be right. But given how extensive the regulatory powers have become, it would be hard to fathom that the executive branch can't carve out this power given a willing legislature.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    13. Re:Counteroffer for what??? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Any medium sized company can easily play shell games

      As long as no one is looking into it, it can. But entering into a contract solely with the purpose of side-stepping the law can be made illegal (and in many cases it is already illegal). Just as IRS gets to decide on whether tax dodging schemes are a go or no go, other departments can be empowered to regulate trade policy. We've had a long period of time of attempting as loose a trade policy as possible, but if regulatory mandate changes, that may no longer be the case.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  19. The employees should take this by unixisc · · Score: 1

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-elect-trump-hold-public-events-election-win/story?id=43896199

    "Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences," he said to workers at the Carrier plant. "These companies aren't going to be leaving anymore. They aren't going to be taking people's hearts out."

    That's what Carnival/Cap seem to have factored in. Which is why they are offering their IT staff the chance to join Capgemini. I'd say that's a lot better than what Disney or other companies have done in the recent past: firing the workers and offering them severance only if they train their replacements.

    I think the workers should take this, and then look out at the competitors - Accenture, Deloitte, KPMG, et al. It has the potential of making them more portable employees in the market

    1. Re: The employees should take this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's at will work for 6 months, with a chance at full employment. Chance, of course, meaning no chance. And that 6 months depends on how much you have to teach. If you're an ineffective teacher or your job is taught within a month, you're done.

    2. Re: The employees should take this by unixisc · · Score: 1

      But those 6 months are a good window for job hunting, and their prospects would be better, since they're currently employed, and working on a project in that vertical that would attract them to the top outsourcing companies for that vertical. They can bail the moment they get a good offer, or even an offer.

    3. Re: The employees should take this by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There is always more to teach...yes just push the backup tape back into the drive when it asks for tape #2 and 3.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  20. (cough)Obama is currently President(cough) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Obama/Hillary/Bernie bots are amazing... you spent 8 years of Obama blaming everything on Bush and now are switching to blame everything on Trump.

    I guess that's an admission that Obama really was an incredibly inconsequential and impotent punk with a self-admitted drug habit and no real resume. Even his most ardent supporters cannot fathom the idea that he is a responsible adult.

    1. Re:(cough)Obama is currently President(cough) by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      You Obama/Hillary/Bernie bots are amazing... you spent 8 years of Obama blaming everything on Bush and now are switching to blame everything on Trump.

      I guess Russians never saw Glengarry Glen Ross.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  21. Capitalism done right by cloud.pt · · Score: 2

    How do you solve the problem of seniority in a democratic state? You use legal means of breaking seniority. And why were these passed as law in the first place? Because democracy, as it is implemented, is nothing more than a technocratic elite making decisions for everyone, i.e. for themselves. How can you allow staffers to replace permanent workers with the sole purpose of the company remaining profitable for the owners? Or in other words, how can you allow small-time individuals' long-term plans to be destroyed immediately just because the top guys need a new summer house. Capitalism has triumphed in ways everyone else predicted but nobody cared about - an american dream of sorts, but really ubiquitous, even in Europe. "I would rather be exploited my entire life than be denied the chance to exploit everyone else to be uber rich". We allowed such things and we are reaping what those before us seow. Never before has the People been so powerless against established governing bodies as today, not even in the Ancient Egypt - you have a vote all right, but there are those who play dirty with the votes of everyone else. Control of statistics, the media and even of communication platforms have become much more powerful than a royal bloodline as a claim for power. Lobbying is a tool made for companies, and the individual rights have eroded deeper than the Grand Canyon. In the US people will claim they still got the 2nd. Tell that to the Malheur guys. Or better - they're en route to being dominated by one of the greatest capitalists there is, who is seriously gonna ignore all individual rights for the needy, and I see no militia forming in any way.

    This guy's letter - nothing but a swan song to a time where the human being took precedence over inhuman greed.

  22. His work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IF the offer isn't acceptable, the CEO can just go find another job. That's what you expect the workers to do, isn't it? So what happens when there's a counter offer and the CEO doesn't like it? CEOs don't produce anything, so he needs workers, and he isn't much of a CEO with no workers to be executive over. So rather redundant.

    But, hey, he can just continue with the current contract.

    1. Re:His work. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      IF the offer isn't acceptable, the CEO can just go find another job. That's what you expect the workers to do, isn't it? So what happens when there's a counter offer and the CEO doesn't like it? CEOs don't produce anything, so he needs workers, and he isn't much of a CEO with no workers to be executive over. So rather redundant.

      But, hey, he can just continue with the current contract.

      First off the CEO is only accountable to the board of directors. Not to tech workers. No IT labor? Great that is what the CEO wants and India is here to give them what they want. IF they walk out then Phnjaab flies on a plane to quickly take the lead and get his team in Bangalore up to speed within a day or 2.

      Everything will be back to normal and the IT guys forgotten either way.

      How can you bargain when someone else is ready to jump right in for pennies on the dollar ready to tackle where your team has left off? The board of directors only cares about raising the share price for the next quarter so they can get their bonuses. This means cutting costs while increasing revenue from people going on cruises. Not from overpaying guys to do tape backups and fixing pcs.

    2. Re:His work. by superwiz · · Score: 2

      First off the CEO is only accountable to the board of directors. Not to tech workers. No IT labor?

      Hmm. A cruise ship company constantly relies on the blanket protection of the US coastal guard and the US Navy. They want to move US jobs overseas and keep selling their products in the US (the tickets to their cruises is their products)? Well, according to Trump's plan that would mean they have to pay a 35% tariff. Those naval boats cost money, too, you know.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:His work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amusing to me that you think a group of Indians can hop on a plane and get up to speed on an entire IT department in "a day or 2" without some kind of knowledge transfer. Heck, even with knowledge transfer it's going to take more than a couple days. And Indians are notorious for cheating to get their degrees/certifications, so unless they've been heavily vetted then there's no way to ensure you're not replacing qualified IT staff with a bunch of clueless liars that barely speak or understand your language. I hope this cruise line gets the Indian shaft.

  23. Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's just an an entirely reasonable demand. Guess whose fiscal year ends 12/31? I'm willing to bet theirs does. Fuck the families right?

    That's Capitalism. And many times individuals and their families get hurt for the good of the economy.

    We have this social group-think-myth-religion that it's all get rich if you work hard enough but the fact is, some take it in the ass regardless of how hard they work or how creative they are.

    Creative destruction sounds great on paper but when you're on the receiving end of the destruction, it's not so good. And when you're told to get "retraining" when you're middle aged well, that's just a trite piece of bullshit. (No one hires a middle-aged entry level person)

    We do not have the flexible economic system that we all think we do. We are as rigid as the old English Class system. I am living it.

    Get that burger flipping job to make ends meet while you look for that next development job to make the mortgage payment ? Well, guess what, you are now a burger flipper and your development career is over. You are your last job.

    Go and take out a student loan(s) to get a masters? Well, you went to school because you couldn't get a job - NOT that you wanted to better yourself.

    Employers are just retarded. They blame the EEOC, ADA and other regulations,but they are full of shit. All they have to do is just say "you don't have the skills" and it's a get out of a lawsuit free card. And IF you do sue, you are black balled forever and IF you win, you get a years salary less lawyers fees - IOWs, it's not worth suing. So all of you managers who are afraid of being sued under the ADA, EEOC or whatever, you are idiots.

    Summary of slightly Christmas drunken rant: The job market is dysfunctional.

    1. Re:Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's Capitalism. And many times individuals and their families get hurt for the good of the economy.

      Capitalism is a rigged game. It's "trickle-up" by design, enabling those with money to accumulate even more until the wealth disparity reaches the breaking point. It takes money to make money, and the average working stiff doesn't have much to invest.

      It's not "for the good of the economy" when most people have stagnating wages, and can't afford to buy much. Capitalism is about markets, and when the working class are tapped, markets dry up.

      The only thing this game is good for is corporate profits.

      You want to fix the economy? Get rid of big business. 99% of our needs can be provided for by small businesses, there's no need for global mega-corporations to exist except to serve the 0.1%.

  24. Bold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping "bold" meant they banded together to start their own company and offered their present employer a better deal than the outsourcing firm.

    1. Re:Bold by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

      At Christmas with the $2000 VISA bill coming due "the company" has the "at will employees" over a barrel since this information was not known prior.

      It is time for IT to unionize. It is time for IT-USA to setup a trust-fund so that when this kind of misbehavior happens, the entire IT organization can walk and have a buffer to negotiate with "the company" or find new jobs.

      With IT, it is symbiotic relationship between "the company" and the IT workers. Today data is the company and IT needs to make that data flow. If all of IT quits or bands together en mass in a work stoppage, the data will only flow for so long. The senior managers in the company are typically clueless as to how things operate at a day-to-day level.

      So let's look at this and see what it would cost.

      200 employees at $1000/week as stay afloat money = $200,000/week

      So, if a fund existed with approximately $1,000,000 it could easily provide a buffer for either severance or negotiation. In order for this to work all the employees would have to band together and sign an agreement to quit and not offer any assistance to the company until they negotiated an offer that the majority of the employees agreed upon. At-will employment goes both ways.

      The company would probably try to offer key players large sums to return and maintain operations but everyone would have to stand together.

      Could this work if this fund existed or would it denigrate into "Lord of the Flies?"

      On a side note, it is an overall longterm benefit to the USA, USA economy, and "the company" not to do things like this. The quarter-to-quarter "create shareholder value" mantra drives these myopic decisions. Sure would could continue to destroy every job and breakup and sell off parts of every company for a short-term profit, but long term it hurts all the players in an economy. How do we handle this?

      Do we let the invisible hand of the market work?

      Actually, scratch that, the invisible hand is dead as we saw in the financial crisis. The invisible hand was poised to wipe out most of the banking/mortgage industry and the government stopped the invisible hand by giving it piles and piles of cash.

      So what is the new system?

      How do we build a nation that has sustainability and offers good jobs?

    2. Re: Bold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen commie, money doesn't grow on trees. That million dollars gets taken from employee paychecks and then mainly goes to pay union boss wages. Come strike time, there's only $9,000 left in the strike fund. So two days later the strike is over, the work gets outsourced, and the only ones that come out ahead are the commie union management. Trump's going to fix this when he makes America great again.

    3. Re:Bold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't. No nation has withstood the test of time. China's dynasty eras were probably the longest running but even that failed eventually. Peasant overthrow.

    4. Re: Bold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and Genghis Khan.

  25. Google does the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call for support on a paid business account for mail. Need help, you talk to India. Shit support (online docs better than calling).

  26. Bold is so yesterday, today is about courageous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he wanted to be with the times, he should have insisted they remove all headphone jacks on the cruise ships!

  27. The very definition of insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You guys who keep pushing the union thing are like a broken record. It worked really well for Detroit, right?

    The big unions really only made the mob rich and empowered corrupt and self-serving union bosses.

    Just look at that vile union boss at the Carrier plant. Faced with the loss of ALL the Carrier plant jobs, Obama and Hillary said nothing could be done. Trump said he'd fight to stop those job losses. Obama actually made fun of this and exclaimed that Trump could do nothing and asked if Trump had a magic wand! Even before taking office, Trump cuts a deal to save most of those jobs, and within HOURS the scummy union boss goes on national TV and whines that Trump did not save EVERY job and calls Trump names. Just what was that union boss's heap of insults toward Hillary and Obama for never even trying to save even ONE job????? CRICKETS!

    Union bosses are in it for themselves. The UAW bosses did quite nicely for themselves as the auto industry fled Detroit. Trumpka and his buddies have been doing just FINE as he travels to foreign countries speaking in favor of open borders (which push down wages and benefits for his American workers), global socialism, and more imported immigrant labor (which would compete directly with his current members, but which he sees as HIS personal future since it's the agenda of HIS political allies).

    Unions are NOT the solution, an end to global corporations pushing open borders, global "free trade", and treaties like TPP (which gives almost unlimited power to corporations and frees them from oversight/limitation by nations) are what is needed. Global mega corps and billionaires running communications companies like Google and Facebook are the problem; they want a world where they can move themselves, their money, and their labor anywhere at any time to maximize their profits and their leverage over the lowly workers while dodging any oversight or laws imposed by any pesky sovereign nation. They want a world where only the super-rich can compete because only the super rich have the money to relocate as needed to maximize profits and any little upstart can never gain traction - GLOBAL cronyism on steroids. In that environment, unions are a JOKE and the union bosses only end up pretending to fight for their members while actually aligning with those very super-rich forces.

    Human nature does not change just because some dude is a union boss and claims to be "for the workers". If you have a skeptical view of corporate barons (as you should), then you should also have a skeptical eye towards politicians and union bosses; they're all human, fallible, corruptible, and not to be trusted with too much power.

    1. Re:The very definition of insanity by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are some universal problems with unions, but most of the ones in the US stem from the fact that US union laws are awful. If you tried to design something more easily coopted into a political machine, you would be hard-pressed to do so.

    2. Re:The very definition of insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignoring the blatantly false character assassination attempt of the union guy in the recent Carrier thing - the statement you made that sums up your position:
      > Union bosses are in it for themselves
      should be seen as no different from "Republicans are in it for themselves" or any other gross stereo typing of a group.

      I don't believe *all* republicans are anti-science anymore than I believe *all* union leaders are mob bosses and I've personally known numerous examples of both that don't fit either statement.
      Why should anybody read anything else you have to say?
      The KKK dude down the road might have something useful to say about the weather but I'm not going to go talk to him and if I do have to hear him anything he *does say I'm probably not going to be actually processing.

    3. Re:The very definition of insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unionization is not the end all, be all. It provides labor a seat at the table. These days, we can't even get near the dining hall, to extend that metaphor.

      Just because it is not a complete solution doesn't mean it isn't PART of a solution. As I like to say: the big fat cats in any company have THEIR work contract, why shouldn't everyone else?

    4. Re:The very definition of insanity by nnappe · · Score: 1

      Unions are NOT the solution, an end to global corporations pushing open borders, global "free trade", and treaties like TPP (which gives almost unlimited power to corporations and frees them from oversight/limitation by nations) are what is needed

      And in the rest of the world, the most effective resistance against such public measures was by ... the Unions. Unions are not just for salary discussions, but they are political actors in themselves. Of course, there are some very corrupt unions, just as there are some very corrupt political parties. But you would not recommend to win an election with *no* party at all, would you? Same thing with unions.

    5. Re:The very definition of insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with unions is that for a sufficiently large corporation in the modern world, it's not /that/ hard to transfer a part of your base of operations from point A to point B. If workers at location A unionize and cost you more (because their combined leverage finally gets a fair share of the profits), then you set up shop at location B where there's no union and cheaper labor. Sometimes this means going across state borders, sometimes it means national borders. You often can get your new location to write you some nifty tax benefits for your move there so that you pick their place and increase their economy with new jobs. If the cost to move is lower than the cost to remain over a sufficiently short timeline after accounting for potential negative press, relocation costs, and savings from lower operating cost, you move. Now, this doesn't work if you're too small such that the cost to move is too high, or you're in an industry where you can't relocate, like, say, garbage pickup or retail sales or... schools. Which is why teachers are one of the more unionized groups.

      As far as Trump, he was only able to do anything at all because his running mate was governor of that state, so he knew he could make some good PR by giving them a bundle of money to not relocate (for now). But in 5 years or whenever the tax break runs out? Why is Carrier going to stay a second time?

      As far as the union boss, it's his /job/ to look out for people in his union. If half of them are getting fired, /of course/ he's going to complain. As for why he didn't complain about it before, why would he complain to a presidential candidate when the same sort of relocation is happening in 100 other cases across the country. It's not going to do much good.

      The only reason anything happened here is Trump leveraged Pence's governorship to make a PR stunt for himself while failing to save half the jobs he said he was going to save - a bailout move he had condemned in the past with TARP, despite TARP saving far more jobs and due to the way it was structured as a loan, actually producing a net revenue for the government now.

    6. Re:The very definition of insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys who keep pushing the union thing are like a broken record. It worked really well for Detroit, right?

      It worked incredibly well in Detroit, for decades.
      Even with unions, the big three made enormous profits. The workers had great careers, with great pay, benefits and retirement. That allowed them to buy homes, and live the American dream.
      Prior to unions, workers in the auto industry were terribly abused and exploited.

    7. Re:The very definition of insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at that vile union boss at the Carrier plant. Faced with the loss of ALL the Carrier plant jobs,

      As reported, only 2,300 of the 2,600 jobs were going to be lost.

      ... Obama and Hillary said nothing could be done. Trump said he'd fight to stop those job losses. Obama actually made fun of this and exclaimed that Trump could do nothing and asked if Trump had a magic wand! Even before taking office, Trump cuts a deal to save most of those jobs,

      And as reported, of the 2,300 jobs that were to be lost, instead it's 1231 (ie, not "most"). Further, another 150 are to be laid odd.

      and within HOURS the scummy union boss goes on national TV and whines that Trump did not save EVERY job and calls Trump names. Just what was that union boss's heap of insults toward Hillary and Obama for never even trying to save even ONE job????? CRICKETS!

      And all it cost is $7 million in "tax incentives". Which doesn't add up given that Carrier was going to move those 2,300 jobs to save $65 million. Clearly this deal makes no sense. So, I can readily imagine in 6 months they'll try to push for an even better deal given, again, they'll save a lot of money moving to Mexico.

      Unions are NOT the solution, an end to global corporations pushing open borders, global "free trade", and treaties like TPP (which gives almost unlimited power to corporations and frees them from oversight/limitation by nations) are what is needed

      Before global corporations were a major thing for a lot of workers, local companies were fucking over their workers. Honestly, this notion that somehow magically closing the US's borders will fix things is absurd. If Carrier is so ready to fuck over US workers now, that won't change suddenly with closed borders. You'd have to impose tariffs greater than $65 million for Carrier to not move (or maybe $7 million, for a time). And then what? If the situation improves in the US, keep raising tariffs indefinitely?

      Meanwhile, they can keep pushing for shittier wages, buy Congress to make sure their imports are mostly exempt from the more costly tariffs (but not their competitors goods), etc. I mean, Congressmen are cheap. It's pretty cheap to buy laws towards your own ends if you're a company invested with billions of dollars.

    8. Re:The very definition of insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TRUMP cuts a deal in which a few hundred jobs are saved in exchange for major tax breaks in Mike Pence's state. Sounds like sound policy making to me.

      Unions *are* a pretty good idea, because most individual workers have almost zero leverage in an encounter with an employer. But there are alternatives to unions which might give better results. The key is to giver more leverage to workers, so that workers don't have to take the first job offer they get (without losing everything they've got), and so they can practically negotiate contracts (without paying up the whazoo in legal fees).

      The technical freedom that free-market capitalism gives to workers to make choices, is almost always a mirage; practical freedom == real economic security.

    9. Re:The very definition of insanity by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Unions are NOT the solution, an end to global corporations pushing open borders, global "free trade", and treaties like TPP (which gives almost unlimited power to corporations and frees them from oversight/limitation by nations) are what is needed.

      I'm not about to defend the TPP, but global free trade is an effective way to increase the total wealth of the world. Countries that embrace it will do significantly better than countries that don't. It's pretty much inevitable.

      Lots of people see problems with global free trade because of disruption to large numbers of workers, but that isn't a necessary part of it. That happens because we allow the financially elite to claim most of the benefits for themselves. If we had a strong political movement representing those workers, we'd find ways to benefit from global free trade without hurting many millions of people.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:The very definition of insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions were the only ones fighting globalism, duh. Detroit was not even killed by unions. The union rank and file was arguing with management for years to leave the past behind in their products. Plain mismanagement killed Detroit. Unions were destroyed nationwide *before* Detroit fell. Why do people who know nothing always get +5? Why do people who have zero union experience talk so much about the union experience? No one bothers to ask what other people think, who might have a more direct experience. It is all noise. Stop being part of the noise. You are just chatter. You are adding zero to the discussion. Talk only about what you have actually experienced.

    11. Re:The very definition of insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying "golden parachutes" to get rid of bad management out of union pensions is what happened to Detroit.

      Get your history straight.

      AC - Former GMS

  28. Re:CEO losing his job by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    That seems to something for the company board of directors to decide.

  29. did the CEO see Speed 2? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    IF they did they should of learned not to F* with the IT staff.

  30. The business model by bhepple · · Score: 5, Informative
    tl;dr; = short term gain, long term pain and shareholders should beware - it's not cost cutting, it's cutting off your right hand

    capgemini, accenture etc etc all have a similar outdated business model. They offer to replace a $100k first world engineer with a third world engineer for $50k. In the short term this looks good for the CEO - he's a bottom-line hero, just saved the company $50k x # engineers per year.

    Long term, it's a mess.

    The outsourcing company only pays the third world engineer $10k and pockets the $40k. This was fine a few years ago as there was a huge number of talented engineers in eg India, Philippines etc who really could do the job. Today it's not so easy. The cream of them have already emigrated to the first world on the back of their talents. The local job market has risen so that really talented people can't be found for $10k any more, so the bottoms landing on the empty chairs are attached to increasingly mediocre talent. The better ones move on quickly.

    Add to that the difficulties of working with the time zone difference, the language problems, the cultural disconnect and the profound impossibility of communicating the intricacies of a mature IT infrastructure - and you get a project that is quickly going nowhere.

    My direct experience of these changes (I've seen a few) is that the organisation keeps going on momentum alone for a few years - the existing old IT systems soldier on with only minor maintenance work being done, just enough to lurch from week to week.

    No major development is possible because the talent that put the system together has been sacrificed - so the company fails to respond to new challenges and does not innovate. Unless the enterprise's business is completely unchanging, it's a slow glide path to oblivion - but the ground is just as hard for all that.

    Now the really important thing is that by the time the shareholders realise the dirty deed they've been dealt, the genius CEO who gave them that short term gain has moved on to more triumphs elsewhere, no doubt at ever higher remunerations.

    1. Re: The business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too have experience in this area. And you're exactly right. Shareholders and or board of directors demand the company make more money, and IT is one of the 'cost saving initiatives' that lands on the table every time. There are no visas involved in this deal - the only way to compete in this market is to have the vast majority of the work done overseas. If your company doesn't bid that way, you have no chance in hell of winning the contract because the client wants everything as cheap as possible and someone else will deliver. It sucks.

    2. Re:The business model by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Actually Cap Gemini charges ~$120k for a $80k (US-based) engineer to the company, then goes and gives the contract to an oversees contractor.

      The 'benefits' for a company that wants to outsource are not wages, those are typically higher, it's the regulations and taxes they avoid. If you pay an employee, you pay employer's taxes, you have to buy into social security, unemployment, provide vacation time, sick time, pensions, 401k and it gets really bad if your employee breaks his neck in a ski accident and now needs to be on disability for the rest of his life. With Obamacare now your insurance rates as an employer have doubled recently, you're paying 70% of the wages for those 3 people that never have to show up to work due to disability, you may even have to deal with a number of lawsuits because someone thought they were being discriminated when they didn't get the job they weren't qualified for and your city inspector's office found out your space between the elevator and the door is 2cm too narrow for the 'convenient passage' of a wheelchair.

      An outsourced engineer is an 'asset' on the other hand. It's similar to the computer you buy, an expense, a commodity, you have lowered your head counts (which is beneficial for all sorts of regulatory reasons, pretty much every agency in the government bases fees and regulation on how many people you employ from SEC to FDA) and your expenses, unlike 'real people' affect your tax deductible in a major way. Your contractor company deals with all the headaches, HR isn't your primary business anyway and who cares what they do with it, it's just running a computer system, my computer runs fine and something always changes when we upgrade it, so fuck it.

      Outsourcing thus makes sense to large companies for a variety of reasons, it doesn't work well until you have a few hundred to thousands of employees.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:The business model by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Ok, compete against them. Figure out a way to simplify the systems and cut costs and improve "outcomes" that way.

    4. Re:The business model by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Your numbers look likely to me and I know that your explanation about the hidden costs of employees is more or less accurate. However, that does not in any way mean that the gist of what the poster you responded to said. I am going to bring up a couple of other problems with outsourcing (and it doesn't matter if you are outsourcing to domestic workers or foreign workers for most of these) that upper management rarely factors in. First, employee turnover is expensive in lost productivity. When your workers are outsourced, you have no way to manage turnover. For that matter, you probably are not even aware of the fact that it is high (and with outsourced workers it usually is). Second, you are paying some other company to extract data about your company leaving them free to profit from it...and you unable to do so. Outsourcing is sort of like Xerox PARC, except it would be as if Xerox set it up intending that they would not profit from it and someone else would.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:The business model by swb · · Score: 1

      The problem with employee turnover as an expense is only really a problem to the extent that you consider lost internal productivity to be a burden.

      I think in a lot of companies they see internal IT users the way any monopoly sees its customers -- people who are going to buy whatever fucking shit product you put out at whatever high price you want to charge because they have no other choice. It's the same crappy service they deliver to their actual customers when they have the market cornered.

      I'm not arguing that you're wrong, that the quality of service suffers or that turnover has costs or that it may have broader business impacts, but that they don't care because it's the same ripoff monopolist mindset applied to a different single-sourced seller/customer relationship that you see everywhere (eg cable TV).

      Why provide a better product -- internal IT -- when the same customer base will pay the same price for a shittier product in light of any alternative? Even if the users hate it, their managers won't gripe about it either if the chargebacks are less for them, and even if they do gripe they'll be told that the organization benefits because IT costs are lower.

    6. Re:The business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod delete

    7. Re:The business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not wrong. In fact, you're exactly right. But investors and shareholders only see one thing: "Fuck the US workers, they make too much!" - they invest on emotion and short-term gain. The stock bump they get for stiffing their own consumer-base, makes them look good in the market. That's all you need in the Wall Street Casino. I remember back in the mid-1990's when everyone said PE ratios didn't matter anymore because: "new economy". Then they all got their asses handed to them when the tech bubble burst. This market has not been based on rationality or sanity for a long time.

    8. Re:The business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most of the first world engineers don't get $100k.

    9. Re:The business model by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      This is why business in the USA desperately needs to push for single-payer state healthcare.

      You're spending 17% of your GDP when systems with comparable or better outcomes spend 10-12%, or even as little as 7% in the case of the UK NHS. Most of the difference is profiteering and insurance admin overheads.

    10. Re:The business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA ain't gonna accept any of that socialst commie crap.

      Those were the words of a Mayor of a town in the American West when I talked to him about US Healthcare.
      Ok, just don't get seriously ill then. Then watch your premiums rocket. I couldn't get US Health Insurance as I have Leukaemia yet I get treatment whenever it is needed on the NHS. Yes I pay for it through my taxes but IMHO that is a far better solution than individual premiums but that is far too socialist for most americans.

    11. Re:The business model by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. We have the worst of all worlds: we're paying top dollar for mediocre care. We should just look around, see how other countries are doing it, and pick one to copy. I don't care if it's Canada, UK, Germany, Japan, Sweden; just pick one that seems to be working and emulate it. 'Cause the system we have sure as heck isn't working for most people (and as you say - even for businesses except for the healthcare companies).

    12. Re:The business model by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      No major development is possible because the talent that put the system together has been sacrificed - so the company fails to respond to new challenges and does not innovate. Unless the enterprise's business is completely unchanging, it's a slow glide path to oblivion - but the ground is just as hard for all that.

      At which point Capgemini will sell them high-priced consulting services for their new IT infrastructure.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:The business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never quite understood that POV. When management organizes against labor, it's capitalism. When labor organizes against management, it's socialism?

      The best solution, IMHO, is employee-owned companies. Make management labor and labor management.

  31. Just delete everything. by RyanRife8866 · · Score: 0

    Just delete everything on the way out, what are they going to do, fire you?

    1. Re:Just delete everything. by WaterDamage · · Score: 1

      Worse, not only will you be fired but sued for destroying company assets. You'll send you life savings on lawyers to defend yourself. There might even be a criminal case too if the company decides to file a criminal complaint.

    2. Re: Just delete everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck. "My boss said to delete those files." Or even better: "What files?"

  32. Unionize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya, if you want to drive your company out of business and lose your job, while the union bosses collect $, go right ahead.

    And if they are closing up shop, in effect, your union representation is ineffective even if it wasn't a scam.

  33. Seems reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not quite as good as what I negotiated from my last layoff, but in the ballpark. People need to be prepared to hardball rather than be walked over.

  34. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should only those who have the privilege to start a business be afforded that freedom?

    I'll gladly choose the leash of a union over the noose of your fuckwitted market worship.

    1. Re: No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, anybody can start a business and it's really not that difficult to do so. No privilege required. Growing it is a different discussion, but still doable.

  35. Unions: Phbbbt! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idiotic and an Idiot. Unions == Protectionism wherein seniority overrides illegal/incomptent/inept behavior.
    I worked in a Union Shop; the Union Steward was arrested for having an illegal.unregistered handgun at work. No surprise, due to it being a Union shop, he kept his job. Really? What a load of crud. Unions also gave the US enormously uncompetitive labor costs for the automotive industry.
    Bunch of Eff-Wits.

  36. Boycott Carnival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So easy to do. They're fucked now.

  37. Actually, if they DID unionize... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    CapGemini would be in a world of shit. Think about it...They were/are banking on a majority of the existing IT workers to do "knowledge transfer" in order to be successful in fulfilling their contract. If the existing IT workers COLLECTIVELY said NO, there is no way that CG could assume the contract and not get sued for utter failure. No KT, no success. Together, we can win - separately, we are at their mercy (of which they demonstrably have none).

    1. Re:Actually, if they DID unionize... by whoda · · Score: 1

      It would take them longer to unionize than their 6 month contract.

    2. Re:Actually, if they DID unionize... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      How so? I don't mean "unionize" in the traditional sense, but just group together and "just say no". Follow that with: "If you think that CG can actually do this work without our knowledge, then go ahead. If not, and you want this to succeed, here's our counter-offer." It doesn't have to be $500K, etc., but - hey! - this is basic negotiation which they understand very well. They're not used to it in this context, but they can count - trust me.

    3. Re:Actually, if they DID unionize... by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." -- Ben Franklin, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 1776.

    4. Re:Actually, if they DID unionize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one way to get the knowledge transfer done quickly.

      Pay six months salary after the replacement can be verified against clearly defined acceptance criteria to do the job.
      If it takes 1 week to transfer the skills, so be it.

    5. Re:Actually, if they DID unionize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no they wouldnt. not a chance. Every contract has contingencies and the kt is a super obvious one. If the KT wasnt going to happen then either Cap would walk away or they would get PAID MORE to deal with it. either way they are not hurting at all.

    6. Re:Actually, if they DID unionize... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      So, if Cap walks away, their jobs stay. If Cap gets PAID MORE to "deal with it", then the workers get PAID MORE for getting fucked over. Wassa problem again?

    7. Re:Actually, if they DID unionize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be great to have no knowledge transfer, and see Capgemini and Carnival both in a world of hurt.

    8. Re:Actually, if they DID unionize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CapGemini would be in a world of shit. Think about it...They were/are banking on a majority of the existing IT workers to do "knowledge transfer" in order to be successful in fulfilling their contract. If the existing IT workers COLLECTIVELY said NO, there is no way that CG could assume the contract and not get sued for utter failure. No KT, no success. Together, we can win - separately, we are at their mercy (of which they demonstrably have none).

      No KT, no success ??

      Have seen many contracts where so called KT never happened and new guys have been forced to understand the code/application on their own and it worked quite well!

    9. Re:Actually, if they DID unionize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it would just take a reply-to-all email from the senior guy being outsourced saying "don't train your replacements until we get a better deal, I've got your back" - because that's what a good leader does.

  38. Get your H1Bs now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is considering an executive order under the Act to suspend all H1Bs until they can be "extreme vetted".

  39. Welcome to the US way of managment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The offending party in this story is the company subcontracting. Not the subcontractor. But that story is, like, way common for corporation not located in US and managed by US CEO.

    So... no sympathy.

  40. Re:they already did a Spin-off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you've had a bit too much egg nog. I've no idea what you're trying to say.

  41. Re:CEO losing his job by haruchai · · Score: 1

    That seems to something for the company board of directors to decide.

    I guess that decision has already been made. In all my years in the workforce, I have never worked for a company, directly or otherwise whose board has ever opposed or overturned a significant decision by the CEO.
    I suppose it does happen but not in my experience.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  42. It can happen to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just boycott these fuckheads.

    Signed,
    Pissed off IT Professional

  43. Go Back Home... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to india maybe?

  44. More than experience by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it would take capital. And where are a bunch of guys who just lost their jobs going to get that. 3 decades of bad tech economy don't lend themselves to wealth building...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:More than experience by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Three decades of bad tech economy? Are you shitting me? Have you seen how many millionaires have made their cash from IT? Let alone the millions of gainfully employed people in the industry earning substantially over average wages?

      Three decades of continual growth tech economy.

  45. The details by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    $500, 000 in small unmarked bills

    apology letter to these families affected.

    Gold plated iphone case (Trump image optional)

    On second thought, just the $500,000 and I'll go quietly.

    Your ex-employee

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  46. Re:Clueless by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    You can't compete with cheaper countries! They have weak regulations, poor enforcement, LOWER wages, exchange rates, desperate workers, and more factors which are all in their favor! You have to lower the US further towards 3rd world status in order to compete.... or start using TARIFFS again. You know, a trade related tax which USED to be employed patriotically before propaganda and corruption removed that protection and re-framing it from the multinational corporation's perspective.

    The holiday season is when Americans run up their most debt for the year. It completely makes sense to offer money to help the man who screwed you over; since their whole scheme is to find workers they can exploit more because they have even less power. Exploitation is the main goal taught to MBAs... it's euphemistically called "cost externalization."

  47. Did he vote for Trump? by shanen · · Score: 1

    No one seems to have asked the obvious question: Did this guy vote for Trump? Did he buy the promise "Vote for me and I'll solve ALL your problems"? Hey, the scam might work if Trump wants to try to play the same game with EVERY company that can be bribed with a bit of tax money.

    Reminds me of a funny story about so-called Republican politics. I was working for AMD in 1988 and the owner was a good buddy of Poppy Bush. Lots of rumors flying around that the company was in trouble, but they kept telling us not to worry. After the election, it turned out the rumors were true and the layoffs were announced. The owner didn't want to make Bush look bad before the election.

    Anyway, your AC comment about unions was insightful enough to get modded to visibility. Of course the real insight is that you were too afraid to put your name on it. These days everyone knows unions are totally communist, socialist, liberal, and they cause bad breath, too.

    Inhuman companies are not assured of profits by becoming evil. However being a nice company has become a guarantee of failure. I'm still fishing for good examples beyond NetScape, Palm, Sun, and Nokia.

    Of course my main disappointment is the lack of funny comments. Only one so modded so far, and it wasn't so much.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Did he vote for Trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one seems to have asked the obvious question: Did this guy vote for Trump?

      Who the fuck cares?! Your Trump rage and obsessions precede you. You should shut the fuck up about him. Your Hillary is no better.

      Of course my main disappointment is the lack of funny comments.

      Your comment history reveals yours as the "funniest", if not plain psychotic.

    2. Re:Did he vote for Trump? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Hey, the scam might work if Trump wants to try to play the same game with EVERY company that can be bribed with a bit of tax money.

      Who got bribed with tax money? I thought Carrier was allowed to keep their own money as incentive.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Did he vote for Trump? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory, and quite valid if you live by yourself in the jungle without any benefit of civilization. Congratulations on manufacturing your own computer.

      If not, then I think you benefit from the human society that taxes make possible and therefore are a hypocrite of some sort.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    4. Re:Did he vote for Trump? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      All humans are hypocrites.

      Now, in this particular situation, Carrier was not given taxes paid by other people, right? This wasn't a situation like a city paying to build a stadium for a sports team, where the taxes come from others, and are essentially given to the corporation. Carrier was just allowed to keep their own money, by not having to pay certain taxes.

      Do you think those taxes belonged to the state? I'm just trying to figure out how you claim Carrier got "bribed with tax money."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:Did he vote for Trump? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Taxes pay for services required by EVERYONE, including corporate persons such as Carrier and little-old you. If Carrier doesn't pay for the social costs covered by its corporate taxes, then someone else pays. That's how society works.

      If you have no substantive defense of your so-called position, then I must regard this discussion as pointless and closed.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  48. I'd avoid all ocean cruiseliners - health reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're floating Petri dishes for contagion experiments.

  49. Shoe on other foot by orin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's interesting that on Slashdot, when it's anyone else's non-IT job getting outsourced or automated, there is a lot of chortling and discussion of buggy whip manufacturers and how non-IT workers should just suck it up. There was a story about automated truck drivers in the last month that was full of comments denigrating these workers and that it was good for society that their job would soon be done by a robot. When it's an IT job getting outsourced, "IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!!!" Doesn't take much insight to realize why this issue will never get political traction. Who wants to stick up for the IT people when the IT people just offered snark for everyone else that was automated/outsourced before them?

    1. Re:Shoe on other foot by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      "First, they came for the Jews...."

    2. Re:Shoe on other foot by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      The thing nobody seems to realize is that while all these jobs are being automated, from making hamburgers to driving trucks to Uber cars to who knows what, an awful lot of jobs are going to be eliminated, especially at the low-skilled end of things. Starter jobs. Mundane jobs. Boring jobs. Dangerous jobs, which are all these people can do in many instances.

      The jobs are going away but the people are not. They will still be here, looking for work, but most likely hungry, out of work, unhappy, angry even. More immigrants will continue to come in as well. The population will soar.

      What are we as a society going to DO with millions or tens of millions of angry and unemployed people with nothing to lose? Some say society does not owe them a job but what the fuck are they supposed to do when they cannot find work? Well I don't know what they should do but what they ARE going to do is riot and burn cities down. They'll take it out on the ones who still have money and jobs. Class warfare will reach a level perhaps never seen before in the US.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    3. Re:Shoe on other foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      automation != outsourcing

    4. Re:Shoe on other foot by DogDude · · Score: 1

      I agree, and it goes even further. How many /.'ers buy everything online, and don't care about their local retail? They are like so many other selfish assholes: they don't care until it personally hurts them. I read this story and shrug my shoulders.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Shoe on other foot by DogDude · · Score: 1

      They won't riot and burn cities down. They'll be slaughtered by the "police". Poor people in the US are *fucked*.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    6. Re:Shoe on other foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh because one is about technological progress and one is about skirting laws to import foreign labor. Apples and oranges bro, honestly if you can't see the difference, put down the ham hoc in your clenched fist and use some soap to clean the ham smear from your eyeglasses.

    7. Re:Shoe on other foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the fuckers didn't let them finish the job.

    8. Re:Shoe on other foot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's all sing the Godwin song...

    9. Re:Shoe on other foot by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      There are over 300 people in the USA for every police officer, and that ratio is only slightly higher in cities (1:250 for New York City).

      There's now more guns than people in the USA, the bulk of them in private hands. In a civil war between the police and the people, I know who I'd back. And that's not even accounting for the fact that the majority of the police signed up because they wanted to protect those people, not mow them down en-masse.

      Until the robot factories are mass producing killdroids, the people still have the edge in terms of power.

    10. Re:Shoe on other foot by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a bunch of untrained bumpkins with shotguns and handguns against a militarized police force. That would work out well.

      The police in this country already murder with impunity.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    11. Re:Shoe on other foot by BostonPilot · · Score: 1

      Until the robot factories are mass producing killdroids, the people still have the edge in terms of power.

      So, say, 6 months from now :-(

      Seriously, we're already pretty far down the road of marginalized citizens, and no major riots yet. As much as I'd like to see people stand up and not take it anymore, I'm not holding my breath.

    12. Re:Shoe on other foot by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They've already voted for Trump, and if things don't change they'll continue to do harm.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Shoe on other foot by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They'll do a large amount of damage before they go down, and police atrocities will be great for the media business. There's no way they can win, but if they're beyond caring about winning they become incredibly dangerous.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:Shoe on other foot by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      A bunch _more_ untrained bumpkins.

      Doesn't matter how well trained you are, you can take out 30 guys, but you're gonna have to change mag and that's when they get you...

  50. What would it take to say, "FU"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the Disney 500 are a good example to pose this question with...
    If they had those 500 people in the room again, when they were telling them "the deal" about training their replacements through the 90-day transition...
    Hindsight being 20/20-ish, what's the one thing that could possibly have saved them?
    One guy with really great speaking skills, speaking clearly at the top of his lungs telling them if they don't band together and refuse the deal en masse, then and there, they lose immediately? I'm envisioning him(or her) being escorted out by security damn fast, but if he had even 30 seconds to dissuade his peers from taking 'the deal' would there have been a number of employees that could have made the difference for the full 499 remaining?

    (Damn, I forgot to feel guilty about going to see Rogue One. )

  51. How about not guaranteeing Carnival ship safety? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Find some provision that allows the US to make it a royal PITA for sea-going firms like Carnival to operate. Time it in the middle of hurricane season so that an exodus of vessels is unsafe and impractical. If they want Coast Guard protection, they pay for it.

    Then offer an olive branch if they commit to remaining in the US, IT and all. Bonus points if they deliver the apology.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  52. Offer them the teaching rate by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    So what I have done in the past is to offer my training hourly rate (which is about 4x my regular hourly rate), as the knowledge and skillset to teach someone else and the value of the transfer to the incoming low wage employee is much greater than my regular working rate. Some companies go for that, others do not. On the companies that don't go for it, they are in for a bumpy ride, because on paper cheap employees look cheaper, but if they don't have a clue how to do the work that can get expensive quite fast. I have had about a 50% rate on employers take me up on training a replacement, and about half of those who turn it down come back later and ask for my help, either to teach the incompetent how to do my job, or to do it myself. This is working as an independent contractor in technology, not IT, so YMMV.

    If I were this guy specifically, I would also remind this CEO that Trump is coming, so bend over if anything is the slightest bit off the letter of the law regarding H1B workers. By all accounts other than the koolaid drinking progressives, the abuse of the H1B program is ending on January 20.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Offer them the teaching rate by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but - to expand...See my post above: if they COLLECTIVELY negotiate, they are in a much better position than trying to negotiate individually. Would you agree?

  53. having recently been on a carnival cruse by Osgeld · · Score: 2

    I can see why they want to move IT out of house

    seriously it was like a time capsule to 2001, hardly anything modern worked as it should, and the "senior IT" lol "engineer" wants a half a mil + apology letters? WTF are you 17?

    The squeaky wheel gets replaced, the sore spot gets mended, take a hint dude

    1. Re:having recently been on a carnival cruse by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      Senior IT guy sounds like a guy who has saved his pennies all of this life and is in a position of FIRE (Financial Independance Retire Early) or has a F U Fund, knows he has mad skills and can get another job easily, and doesn't care what Carnival and India thinks.

      He also knows that he who dares, wins.

    2. Re:having recently been on a carnival cruse by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cause YOU had a shitty cruise (WTF did you expect on a floating, albeit guilded, prison anyway?) then the IT workers (who had fuck-all to do with your cruise quality) should just eat shit and die. Can't wait for a PO'ed customer of YOUR employer to post here....

    3. Re:having recently been on a carnival cruse by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      no the cruise was quite nice, just dont expect anything computer related to work

      oh there's the connection, their IT is shIT do you comprehend now, or do I need to explain that very simple point to your dumbass again?

    4. Re:having recently been on a carnival cruse by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Senior IT guy sounds like a guy who has saved his pennies all of this life and is in a position of FIRE (Financial Independance Retire Early) or has a F U Fund, knows he has mad skills and can get another job easily, and doesn't care what Carnival and India thinks.

      I had end users toward me that they could always get me fired. I've always responded that I can get a new job that pays 40% more. That shuts them up.

  54. Why is Carnival entitled to US protection? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    In what way is he entitled to this job?

    Why is Carnival entitled to offshore without consequences? If anything, this is a case where the business has an unchecked entitlement mentality.

    Time for them to be offered a deal they can't refuse - including the apology. Remind them that the American (US) way of life is nonnegotiable. Remind them that we can always just look the other way when their ships get the Somalia treatment.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Why is Carnival entitled to US protection? by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Why is Carnival entitled to offshore without consequences?

      For the same reason you can choose your barber, your nanny, and your brand of TV: we live in a free society that respects private property and free association.

      Remind them that the American (US) way of life is nonnegotiable.

      It sounds to me that you need to be reminded of that, because you are advocating destroying it.

  55. I hate Capgemini by no1nose · · Score: 1

    I worked with them for two years. I was one of the permanent employees who had to work with their contractors. They leave a lot to be desired. Substandard coding and refusal to honor the warranty period.

    My organization had a bad experience with them - 2/5 stars

  56. They should all quit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't that easy to learn a system if there is no one there to show you the ropes.

  57. I can make it fit the left - even better. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    WTF is wrong with him?

    Do you want a list?
    This one at least gets started on a few important bits:
    http://www.wehuntedthemammoth....

    He doesn't fit, but Trump's enemies sure do.

    Disagreement is treason:
    From silencing conservative opinions on Twitter and Reddit to assaults and threats against Trump supporters, this one fits the left like a glove.

    Fear of difference:
    If you're not expressing the correct virtue signals, you're targeted and destroyed.

    The cult of tradition:
    The left achieves this by replacing old traditions with their own.

    The cult of action for action’s sake:
    Virtue signalling fits here.

    Life is permanent warfare:
    This sounds like the continuous revolution of the left.

    The obsession with a plot, possibly an international one:
    Claims of patriarchy & "good old boys club" fit.

    Machismo:
    Third wave feminism/alphabet soup virtue signalling fits.

    The rejection of modernism:
    This is where the left fits the opposite - where they reject traditions, values, absolute morals, and Natural Law.

    Popular elitism:
    Easily explained by group dynamics - especially In-group/Out-group. The left thinks that it's more "civilized" for silencing dissent.

    The appeal to a frustrated middle class:
    Given that many revolutionaries of the left come from the middle, they definitely fit.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:I can make it fit the left - even better. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I didn't say he was the only one that fit the bill. However if you don't think he fits that list I really think you have missed something and should pay a bit more attention to current events.
      "Interesting" times ahead.

    2. Re:I can make it fit the left - even better. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Also - WTF is a "virtue signal"? I have honestly never heard of that before and since you have used it so often there is no way I can make any sense of your post without knowing. Could we have that again in English please?

    3. Re: I can make it fit the left - even better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding it's similar to humble bragging, the resulting smugness levels are about equal.

      Showing everyone how much better you are than them, without actually doing anything, like wearing those safety pins.

    4. Re:I can make it fit the left - even better. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Disagreement is treason:
      From silencing conservative opinions on Twitter and Reddit to assaults and threats against Trump supporters, this one fits the left like a glove

      The GOP base was doing a great job of smacking down Trump critics doing the primaries. And ask Russell Moore who's been trying to shut him up & cut his Baptist funding.
      Hint: It's not Hillary, the Dems, socialists or feminists
      http://www.redstate.com/sweeti...

      The cult of tradition:
      The left achieves this by replacing old traditions with their own

      So is it Merry Xmas or Io Saturnalia where you live?

      Life is permanent warfare:
      This sounds like the continuous revolution of the left

      This sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. The GOP has been telling us for a long time to be afraid of you-name-it, Russians, Mexicans, gaytheists, black welfare recipients, Muslims, Cubans, the War On Christmas and anything French.

      The obsession with a plot, possibly an international one:
      Claims of patriarchy & "good old boys club" fit.

      Really? More than the many murders supposedly committed by the Clintons, that the Rothschilds sank the Titanic or rule the world (or is that George Soros??), that the ominously named Agenda 21 strip America of its power and make it a vassal state of the UN - or should we be more afraid of Shariah Law replacing the Constitution?

      The appeal to a frustrated middle class:
      Given that many revolutionaries of the left come from the middle, they definitely fit.

      And on the flip side there's rightwing populism and the racist supremacists cockroaches who rebranded themselves as the alt-right. Is that better?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re:I can make it fit the left - even better. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A virtue signal is a statement or position that is intended to make people think that the signaler has some virtue. For example, those who claim to be Christian (the virtue signal) while advocating for hatred and special material benefits.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:I can make it fit the left - even better. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Thank you.
      That rant at least now shows where he is coming from instead of being indecipherable. WTF is it with those angry "alt-right" woman hating gays?

  58. Train them as poorly as possible by RubberDogBone · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For years, the company where I work had an automation product which terrified everybody at the firm. We'd had no training on it. An Executive dropped a lot of money on it before anyone could even see if it would work for us, and directly, it didn't.

    But we had it and had some incentive to use it. And I spent a couple years learning it on my own and mastered that goddamn thing where I could make it do anything I wanted. I was a wizard and magician and chef and used that product to DO the very automation project they said could not be done, which terrified far more talented people than me. I was soo good at it, my team was eliminated except for me. We didn't need all those people because the automation project worked.

    The software was still scary and dangerous to touch but I knew it inside and out. It did not scare me. Among the dangers was that you could right click in the wrong spot and be presented with two different 'delete' options, one of which wiped the entire database rather than just the item you were looking at. The software was apparently designed by an idiot. But I mastered it all anyway. I made that damn thing sing barbershop quartet and fly rings around the moon.

    So all was well until they decided to get rid of me, which was not a surprise to me.

    What they did was hire a woman from Mexico, apparently off the street. I don't know what her skillset was but it wasn't like mine. And they had me do a few hours of instruction over the phone and webex and boom she took over running this program that had slain experienced people before me.

    And that was that. My understanding is that they had a critical issue the next week and they were forbidden from calling me for help. I am sure it went to pieces. It took expertise to run. They hired cheap to replace me, not smart.

    18 months later I am still out of work because a LOT of the comparable IT work has already been outsourced or automated. I failed to pay my rent this month and bills are stacking up For the first time in my life, I am facing no future. Can't find work, I'm broke, and there is no hope. But I automated something that was supposed to be impossible. I will go down in flames proud of what i did.

    --
    Sig for hire.
    1. Re:Train them as poorly as possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, sound like an idiot. If you were 'so talented' you'd have had no problem finding a job. In fact your story smells like such bullshit I had to check my shoes to make sure I didn't walk in anything before I sat down.

    2. Re:Train them as poorly as possible by waveclaw · · Score: 1

      You sir, sound like an idiot. If you were 'so talented' you'd have had no problem finding a job. In fact your story smells like such bullshit I had to check my shoes to make sure I didn't walk in anything before I sat down.

      Then you need to check your eyesight. You missed the cowardly brain matter leaking from you anonymous ears.

      The story is so common and well-known in the United States that it even has a name: hard luck story.

      The skills for doing a job and getting a job are different for everyone but a corporate recruiter.

      Thus RubberDogBone was probably busy doing the job when working and not dedicating large amounts of time to finding the next one. Deep experts tend to be like this by definition. They gave up other time and tasks to dedicate to learning and performing one thing. It's also why going to conferences and user groups in an important part of professional work.

      The skills for doing a job are tied to the application(s) and industry worked in. The skills of getting such a job are those for establishing and maintaining a large network of people. These people get you job referrals and job offers by getting past the HR filter. In instances where you are well known they can create jobs to get your limited skills for themselves. At the least they connect available jobs with available potential employees.

      This is exactly like dating. There is a hidden information problem with lots of questions. Can you do the job? Can you fit in with the existing team or deal with the family? Are you wiling to work for the money available? The tools to resolve the problem are limited to writing about, talking to and meeting people. All of these fall into the trap of trust and reliability. Was this person just lucky at their last job or relationship? Are they bullshitting about their ability? Is this person just a presidential-class conman or con-woman?

      In both cases lots of new tools have been developed to work around the problem. You have dating sites, prostitution and Churches on one side. On the other you have Linked-in, personal consulting and out-sourcing firms like Capgemini.

      However, large layoffs like this are different from just losing a job like RubberDogBone did. In large layoffs the employment vultures circle. The most desirable employees get picked off early. The rest are filtered through so those with the top amount of connections get hired out. Stereo-typically in IT, a lot of employees are going to have limited social networks outside of work. Now those networks are gone. With a sudden glut of potential employees the market saturates in an area for a while. The suddenly unemployed and underemployed won't have the resources to go to conferences or spend time networking with peers. That network is gone so their duration of unemployment will be long as they compete on even ground with every conman and crook in the general labor market to get past HR.

      Company unions aren't the solution to this. They start out fine. But because humans must run them it just devolves into another kind of business you have to get hired into. Unions "solve" the hiring problem with a worse old boys network than the original company. Taken to an extreme you cannot find work in some industries unless you are either already skilled or you are related to someone who does the work. Trade guilds are slightly better - being industry wide - but again depend on corruptible fail-able and limited humans to do the work. Maybe in the future machine run guilds could prevent this but I don't trust the people programming the machines. They are still human.

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    3. Re:Train them as poorly as possible by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Well I really liked your story up until the end. Hope you find something soon man.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  59. Start outsourcing C-levels by Cyberpunk+Reality · · Score: 1

    I'm sure there are some very talented executives in India, Southeast Asia and elsewhere who could do great work for a tiny fraction of what current corporate executives make.

    --
    Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
  60. "Should try reading books instead of burning them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere. "

    "... a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market. "

  61. I asked a question the other day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When we outsourced we transferred 100+ staff as it was important to get the business knowledge transferred as well. Now 10+ years later if you ask how many we would insource if we took the job back, the answer is 2-3. The rest are worthless. And no business understanding or knowledge there.

  62. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.What do Russians have to do with somebody blaming Obama's total failure (and choice to not even TRY) on Trump???

    2. You may be unaware that David Mamet has shifted to the political right. His criticisms in GGR are fine and I don't think he would change that, but with time comes wisdom and he seems to have seen that the left does not have the solutions it pretends to have. He's always been an interesting writer and is even more so now that he seems to have developed the right sort of skepticism towards BOTH sides.

    Is Obama responsible for ANYTHING? I ask, because his supporters seem not to think so, even as they keep telling me he's so very smart and deliberate and thoughtful. Every time his policies fail, it's presented as a totally unintended accident, or the failing of some other person - as though Obama is really just an empty suit.

    1. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't take a joke it seems with this one.

  63. Destroy the network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How effective would Off-Shore services be if the international data/telephony networks were routinely disabled by sabotage? If globalisation, aided by modern technologies, is the source of the problem, the solution is clear. Destroy the weakest link.

  64. It meet the federeal requirement - unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fed requirement is that if X in the US hire H1B it meets the restriction that you mentioned. But it is NOT what clever firm do. The firm X hire a firm Y to do the job they were doing, and coworker of X have to train the people in Y. Yes they are "replacement" in all but names, but because it is another firm, often with contract oversea, the H1B requirement do not apply.

  65. get off your high horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're the ass. unless you are taking zero deductions and claiming zero expenses for your company, you are guilty of the same thing Google is doing. it is not immoral to limit your tax liability, nor is it illegal. it is however immoral to hop on a high horse, berate other companies for doing that which you probably do, and get people worked up against legal and ethical business practices.

    until there is a law that says, you have to pay the most taxes you possibly can, shut up and lead by example.

    you cry baby, parasites always wanting to tax everyone into oblivion make me sick.

    1. Re:get off your high horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're the ass. unless you are taking zero deductions and claiming zero expenses for your company, you are guilty of the same thing Google is doing.

      Congratulations, Mr. Duplicity. It is obviously one thing to follow the deductions meant to tax income on a business and quite another to artificially convert one's income into an expense to avoid paying taxes on that income.

      it is not immoral to limit your tax liability, nor is it illegal.

      Actually, it can be both. It's definitely immoral to advantage from various services that only exist because of government provided services and then to contribute nothing to those services when perfectly capable. And it's quite possible that a conversion of an income into an expense can be fraud even if it's not explicitly spelled out as such. Fraud is, after all, to gain value from deception.

      it is however immoral to hop on a high horse, berate other companies for doing that which you probably do, and get people worked up against legal and ethical business practices.

      And that may or may not be immoral. It would definitely be hypocritical. Too bad GP isn't being hypocritical.

      until there is a law that says, you have to pay the most taxes you possibly can, shut up and lead by example.

      That's not how the tax code is written nor intended. The whole point of taxing income is to tax only the net surplus one receives. But a "most taxes you possibly can" would also tax your wealth, your revenue, etc. Ie, it'd be a 100% tax on all you have. So, again, that's just a duplicitous statement that ignores the point of what an income tax is and its purpose. Your strawman is built on equivoacating.

      you cry baby, parasites always wanting to tax everyone into oblivion make me sick.

      Yes, the person who thinks that if they pay 20% in taxes on income that other, comparable entities should as well is a "parasite". It's not the people who avoid paying that 20% yet still benefit from those government services and the underlying market that exists. And obviously paying 20% on their surplus would "tax [them] into oblivion". Great way to twist your equivocation.

      How about you lead by example, pay no taxes, keep calling everyone else a parasite, then get a lein for failure to pay your taxes?

  66. Countries by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Except that calling, say iOS sales 'generated overseas' when the software was written in the US, using US infrastructure, etc

    I don't know which would be the most appropriate answer in this thread :

    - "I didn't know that New Delhi has been accepted as the 51st state"

    - "And China should ask all the taxes of Cuppertino, and Apple Ireland, on the grounds that the hardware is build in China, using China infrastructues, etc."

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  67. It's all about tuition fees by Doub · · Score: 1

    US engineers got fucked dry by US universities with ridiculous tuitions, and now they're trying to recoup their losses with big salaries industry-wide. But in the meantime engineers in Europe do the same job for half the price, and those in Asia will take even less. Why should US CEOs and the US economy as a whole enable the racket?

    1. Re: It's all about tuition fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMERICA!

  68. quality of life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the quality of life and cost of living were the same around the world, would companies this kind of thing still happen? how does this affect the rest of the world? is it just the default human condition to be a buttfucking retarded nationalist? i mean, why not try to figure out how to make the entire world great again? instead of fighting against maximizing profits, why not fight to accelerate reaching homogeneity?

  69. Re:CEO losing his job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably because the places you've worked were pretty stable or you are not privy to their internal communications. As a consultant, who usually goes in when the shit is about or has hit the fan, I often see a board turn against each and every one.

  70. Kudos and Applause to you, Matthew Culver by CAOgdin · · Score: 1

    So long as the minions that keep posting above abuse you for taking a stance (and, exhibit their essential ignorance of negotiating strategies), corporations will keep using current employees "at will," and then abuse them, "at will." You have taken a bold stance, and while I doubt you'll completely succeed, you may be the "Rosa Parks" of employee rights.

    Salaries need to be negotiated, and if you possess unique skills that are of value to the employer, they should be compensated equitably. While I am retired, I can tell you that as a self-employed consultant for over three decades, my ultimate income was over $1,000/day (in 1990's) because of the VALUE I delivered. If the corporation wanted that value, they expected to pay for the price. But, the return they got was, for example, with one large chemical company, over $400 Million in the first year.

    What US employees have to do is to show their employers (or clients) how much VALUE they create...when you do that, each client is happy to share their success with other potential clients looking for similar value. So long as you "occupy a chair" for a modest salary, you have no-doubt signed an "at will" employment clause that grants the employer all the rights in your relationship.

    Matthew Culver: You are challenging that perverse relationship, and I applaud the attempt. As Inequality.org points out, "...the 1 percent has 35.6 percent of all private wealth, more than the bottom 95 percent combined." And sacking the people that actually CREATED that value, because labor costs can be reduced, producing more margin for the 1% to harvest, is one of the ways they do it. And, even it you don't win, you can be proud of initiating a movement of other employees engaging attorneys seeking out such cases with ever-evolving innovative arguments. And, if that process fails, we all may as well admit we've reintroduced slavery back into Western cultures.

  71. It falls in the pattern, we just caught it early. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    H1B abuse is a bad thing but you really do need to better identify when it's actually happening. Not all outsourcing counts.

    They're just trying to whitewash Carnival by pawning off the worst of it to Capgemini.

    It's going to happen.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  72. Similar story, with a twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A relative of mine encountered a similar situation.

    They were going to offshore all the networking jobs.

    Everyone was going to be able to reapply, but would only be paid the offshore salary if they wanted it.

    Most everyone left.

    Then the H1-B Visas got denied.

  73. I will not apologize for having indoor plumbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will not apologize for having indoor plumbing.
    I will not apologize for having safe drinking water from a faucet **inside** my home.

    America has some issues and we can learn to handle them better, but outsourcing 80% of IT work to 3rd world countries will not solve those issues.

  74. proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start a gofundme. The purpose of it would be to build a warchest for the next company to do a bulk layoff with the intention of shifting to H1-B/offshore. Use the warchest to allow those workers to mass decline the offer. After 2 or 3 migration disasters, one might expect that people will have to adjust the behavior. Just the threat might change the negotiating stance/some offers in some instances.

  75. Hm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had a first-hand opportunities to see how well outsourced IT works and how much training they have. On this note do their cruise ships use computers to steer or stay afloat, because if so, remind me never to get on one ever again.

  76. Re:CEO losing his job by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Yes and since the CEO is on the board of directors for their companies, they all cover each others backs.

    Many of the CEO's and board members went to private school together since they were toddlers.

    How on earth do you think they are going to be impartial when it's in their self interest to protect each other before the corporation?

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  77. INCOMPETANT BUFFOON presume lawful enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are activities and events deemed taxable, and there are thosebof us smart enough to not do such simply by charting and scheduling how to approximately contract through our affairs day and night.

    People like you run rampant amock changing regulations having no basis in law because you think yourself higher opinion not to study law. Go youdr own way, without manipulating people around you: or is voting just another form of rebellion against the existing law and you just prefer voting in pacts of wolves to consume the substance of others around you? Leave the republic and go live in China or Russia you filthy sodomite.

  78. as you sit in Chinese furniture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you complain along with that IT tard about H1B visa workers and their lower cost of living, yet you chose office furniture made in China and computers(Intel) made in Israel and software (Macr$hit Windblowz) made in Ireland.

    used computer worstations of destroyed American companies are affordable now! Try a workstation of DEC Alpha or Sun Sparc or HP PA-Risc or a SGI Irix. You and others turned your backs on American companies, now they are gone, but high quality continues running like Amish furniture.

    Karma is a bitch, and it is your turn to be replaced.

  79. Re: CEO losing his job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? It's not like you could take a bunch of people, give them all blue shirts and badges and guns and they would form a near monolithic block. So why would twenty plus years of association do it...

  80. Re: CEO losing his job by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Exactly...

    So it is up to the rest of society to keep CEO's and Boards honest with proper laws, audits, restrictions, and so on.

    I'm atheist but part of the problem is the loss of shame and kindness associated with religion becoming entangled with politics and the decline of religion in our society generally.

    Doing whats "fair and reasonable" has been replaced with doing "what's legal- even if it's harsh, cruel, and destructive."

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  81. Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that these loopholes have existed for years, we and the politicians have known about them for years, why do you think it is that they have not done anything about them?

    I mean here in the UK there have been specific uproars over companies like Amazon, Google and Costa. Yet not a single politician has actively set out to address the problem. Even after the HMRC (IRS equivalent) negotiated a miserly (£130m) settlement with Google for 11 years of backdated tax.

  82. Boycott! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a simple solution to this nightmare; just boycott Carvnival. Screw them; there are plenty of other cruise lines

  83. Dear Matthew and co, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Form a union and strike. I mean, literally, stand outside and form a freakin' picket line! Put out pr on twitter and facepalm to ask people to boycott the company?

    And this is *exactly* why unions started in the first place, regardless of the libertidiot suckers who think they have "leverage" with the company (they don't).

                  mark

  84. Re: CEO losing his job by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I'm atheist but part of the problem is the loss of shame and kindness associated with religion becoming entangled with politics and the decline of religion in our society generally.

    I really don't see that. Historically, the worst excesses of capitalism happened when Christianity was much more influential than it is today. I can find you any number of Christian politicians and aristocrats who did horrible things. Politicians and business leaders have normally had religious beliefs that allowed them to do whatever they decided.

    Don't confuse being Christian with trying to emulate Jesus, or indeed paying any attention to what he said. I do know Christians who are legitimately trying to live Christ-like lives, and I admire them. Not nearly all Christians do that.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  85. I'm worried about future quality of service by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    I've worked for companies whose core business was not IT, and also for the service providers who "service" businesses who outsource their IT. The one thing I can definitely see happening long term to companies that kill their IT departments is a loss of creative solutions to unique in-house problems. Here's why:

    IT services companies don't care about the business. - I say this as someone who works for one. It's almost impossible to get an employee of a third party to put in more than the minimum required to keep the contract and their jobs. The only ones who seem to succeed in this are services companies that sign long term contracts, keep local people and keep working conditions good enough that people don't quit.

    Services companies will only do standard things, absent minimum 6 figure change orders - An IT services company's goal is to keep the cost of delivering the service as low as possible, otherwise they don't make money. The ways they do that is offshoring of tasks (as we see in this and many other cases,) or charging the customer for every microsecond of effort expended that isn't explicitly spelled out in the contract. Remember, the services company has to come in cheaper than the existing IT department (on paper) and has to generate enough money to pay a lot of non-technical management salaries such as multiple layers of account executives, project managers, change managers, etc. You can't offshore reliably unless the task can be boiled down to a single non-changing script that executes with very little technical staff involvement. This is where we get stuff like ITIL, a weeks-long change management process, etc.

    Everything is slooooowwww. - Any company that outsources their IT can no longer go down the hall and ask someone to help them. Anecdote: The specialized IT services company I work for offshored their tech support but kept some application support guys local. I needed to get access to an internal application controlled by these guys, and was told by the outsourcer they'd be fired if they helped me without a ticket. I actually had to go back to my desk, file a ticket, and show them that it was in the system on the way to them. The change was done right away, but the ticket bounced from a technical router in India to a first level helpdesk in Costa Rica, to the application support guys...it took over a day for that to happen. Forget about actually getting something changed in production -- it takes weeks in the worst organizations I've seen.

    Nothing new or innovative will come out of IT again. - This is actually what worries me the most. IT services companies doing the lowest common denominator work are not going to come up with any brilliant cost-saving strategies other than "buy more services from us" or "buy our Cloud." Companies that do IT right actually do gain benefits from IT proportional to their cost. Over time, relying too hard on offshore IT that can't do anything beyond the basics makes it harder to convince CIOs that they should consider bringing it back in-house.

    Think about it -- ITIL is actively designed to prevent changes to systems. Agile, JIRA and full reliance on frameworks on the dev side is designed to reduce the required skill level of developers. Both of these are championed by offshoring firms because they make it easier to break up the work and send it to the cheapest possible location.

  86. Re:CEO losing his job by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    "Many of the CEO's and board members went to private school together since they were toddlers."

    Are you implying they are loyal to each other because they were in the 3rd grade together?

  87. I hate smart TVs, and so should you by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    I want my display to be a dumb panel. Nothing good has ever come from combining two unrelated items into one package. Buy a printer/scanner/fax? Now you can't scan if you're out of toner. Good tools do one thing and do it well.

    We bought a nice Vizio with a good display. I played with the builtin apps long enough to verify that they were ancient junk that would never not suck. About that time it came out that Vizio was monitoring your content for advertising purposes so that completely ended the experiment. Fun fact, though: there's no way in the Vizio UI to disable a wireless network! I could give it an unroutable static IP, but didn't trust their code not to say "that's not working - let's try DHCP instead!" I ended up setting up my Wi-Fi router's guest network with a weird, random SSID and associating the TV with it. Then I removed the guest network, so the TV is now trying to find an SSID that will never again exist. I don't think it's smart enough to figure its way out of that one.

    BTW, we use Apple TV instead of the weird built-in apps. It was either that or Chromecast, but Google sells you TV boxes cheaply so they can monitor your habits. Apple sells you devices at full price and then doesn't monitor them. I went with the less creepy option.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:I hate smart TVs, and so should you by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Wrong tab, sigh.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  88. When can we start saving some real cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When can we start saving some real cash and outsource US executive boards (hell let's go VP and up) to Asian countries? Just think of what shareholders could save if the board worked out of Bangladesh! Obviously executive mgmt is no harder than IT, it should move out pretty painlessly.

  89. Re: CEO losing his job by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that things were horrible pre world war 2. Not so bad from about 1960 to 1984ish and then they've gone downhill since then. When I try to make arguments for the common good the most frequent response is that businesses should do whatever they want regardless of how badly it hurts society because it's legal and their only duty is to maximize shareholder return on investment.

    As if the rest of society didn't educate employees, provide police, roads, electricity, standards, etc. etc. etc.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.