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."

28 of 531 comments (clear)

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

    Dear Matthew,

    No.

    Roger Frizzell
    CEO, Carnival Corp.

    1. 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.

    2. 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...
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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
  2. 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 WaterDamage · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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!
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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).

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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