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."

50 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 __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

    2. 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.

    3. 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

    4. 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...
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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.

  2. 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: 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."

    2. 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!
    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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 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.

  5. 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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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).

  16. 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.
  17. 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?

  18. 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

  19. 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.