What's Happening As The University of California Tries To Outsource IT Jobs To India (pressreader.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader Nova Express shares an epic column by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzik. It details what's happening now as the University of California tries to outsources dozens of IT jobs -- about 20% of their IT workforce -- by February 28th. Some of the highlights:

• The CEO of UCSF's Medical Center says he expects their security to be at least as good as it is now, but acknowledges "there are no guarantees."
• Nine workers have filed a complaint with the state's Department of Fair Employment and Housing arguing they're facing discrimination.
• California Senator Feinstein is already complaining that the university is tapping $8.5 billion in federal funding "to replace Californian IT workers with foreign workers or labor performed abroad."
• Representative Zoe Lofgren (from a district in Silicon Valley) is arguing that the university "is training software engineers at the same time they're outsourcing their own software engineers. What message are they sending their own students?"
• 57-year-old sys-admin Kurt Ho says his replacement spent just two days with him, then "told me he would go back to India and train his team, and would be sending me emails with questions."
• The university's actions will ultimately lower their annual $5.83 billion budget by just 0.1%.

Comments

This is a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Universities have never been more than a bottom-line for-profit business that uses cult-like recruiting tactics and has absolutely no shame or loyalty to anything or anyone but themselves.

I hope this is becoming a bit clearer to everyone now, as in the past I've been ridiculed for blasting universities as money-driven cults.

They provide very little value in the modern world and should be used sparingly.

Re:This is a surprise?

[__aaclcg7560]

A University of California IT employee whose job is being outsourced to India recently wrote Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for help. Feinstein's office sent back a letter ... and offered the worker no assistance.

If you send a letter to the Washington, D.C., office, you will get back a form letter. If you send a letter to the local or state office, you will get personal response (most of the time). If you want to be effective in politics, it starts at the grassroots.

Re:This is a surprise?

[Goldsmith]

I wouldn't be as... caustic in my critique of universities as the OP, but I can definitely understand the sentiment.

I think the problem is that many people think that universities should all act like non-profit educational institutions. In reality, the "best" universities act like (for-profit) partnerships performing professional research services, and they are very, very good at this. Certainly, this is where the majority of UC funding comes from.

If you paid for an undergrad degree at a research institution, and didn't understand that you should have been working in some famous professor's lab to actually get your education, you're going to be pretty upset when you get out.

Re:This is a surprise?

[Bongo]

If you paid for an undergrad degree at a research institution, and didn't understand that you should have been working in some famous professor's lab to actually get your education, you're going to be pretty upset when you get out.

And didn't understand... because someone should have taught you that when you were 14, so this basically blames the schools for not properly educating kids about the ways of the world. Fair enough.

I'd suggest it goes a little further though. The left has a bias or belief that problems are the fault of society, whereas the right tends to bias to the belief that problems are the fault of the individual. Now, the problem is that, the left tends to be more associated with education (because if society and its institutions are the problem, then those are the institutions which need to be improved, and education needs to be improved). So the left is more idealistic about the role of education. See it is implicit. But what you're saying is, from more of a right wing point of view, hey nobody should be an idiot, or ignorant, to the fact that the world is competitive and selfish place, and that individuals have to learn to handle this, mostly via self control and character building and smarts (so don't come crying when you become a victim).

And that, I think, is fair enough, as there is no real difference between the "individual" and "society", as ideological categories, because we are always both, we are all individuals and we all live in society and are part of social institutions. Individuals have agency. Groups have communion. And we always act and function in both. So the problems are often found in both places. (A way forward for politics is to become both left and right wing).

So I would just add that, I agree in the sense that, our society needs to spend more time acclimatising kids to "how the world works", as by nature, humans are both competitive and cooperative. And we need to be educated to understand when and where each one is the dominant driver. So I do agree, it is right to tell people that they need to wise up about American universities. But I wouldn't blame kids for not knowing that already, if they haven't been taught.

Re:This is a surprise?

[execthis]

Universities have never been more than a bottom-line for-profit business that uses cult-like recruiting tactics and has absolutely no shame or loyalty to anything or anyone but themselves.

Not all. I take courses at an urban community college and these classes are inexpensive and high quality. The college offers 2-year associate degrees to many people who would otherwise find it difficult to get any degree, as well as offering numerous certificates and types of training, not to mention cultural and artistic enrichment which are also very important.

They are always struggling financially but they serve a vital function in the community.

Re:Automatic.

[AuMatar]

More than that- this is a state university. Not a private one like Harvard. Its basically owned by the government. So its the government outsourcing these jobs.

Will lower their budget? Nope

[maugle]

The university's actions will ultimately lower their annual $5.83 billion budget by just 0.1%.

It doesn't take a fortune teller to see how this will end. Anyone with experience with low-cost offshore replacements knows that after the painful transition and a slow degradation of IT performance (with all the slowness, bugs, and embarrassing security breaches that come with it), the fallout of the university's decision will ultimately cost a hell of a lot more to fix than what is saved up front.

Re:Automatic.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to be an H1B, and this is indeed inexcusable. It's not even just about jobs lost, but what happened to matters such as national pride and the associated symbolism? If the universities of the country - the institutions that educate and train workers for its industries - are refusing to hire those very workers to perform jobs that the universities need, that says a lot about either the usefulness of the degrees that they teach, or the quality of their education. If they're claiming that Indian workers (with Indian degrees) are really "good enough", why even bother with expensive American education? And make no mistake, it's not just a message for the citizens; people abroad will notice as well.

No way security is as good

[SuperKendall]

How can they say with a straight face that security will be "as good as it is now" when they have just introduced a massive attack vector into the system?

Along with the factor of "Oh network traffic from India is just fine, let that all pass right on through".

Glad I"m not on their payroll or enrolled as a student (to be more specific glad they don't have my SSN).

Pot Outsource Kettle

[orin]

Slashdot on manufacturing jobs being sent offshore: "Suck it up and smell the future. You are just like the buggy whip manufacturers!"
Slashdot on IT jobs being sent offshore: "This Is An Outrage!!!!!"

Re:Automatic.

[orlanz]

As you can see from the responses you have gotten, most people can't explain it. Even if it is "obvious" to them, they should be adult enough to realize that there might be many visitors to this site that seriously have your question even if they believe you don't. They could have used this as an opportunity to explain their side, but instead did such a huge disservice by their replies.

Anyway, I personally don't have anything against hiring the most cost effective solution. Although I doubt it will be as good or ok as the business case suggests. In the end, the university will survive and move on.

What I DO have a problem with is the abuse of the H1-B system. A system that was designed to allow our companies to hire abroad when they can't find the talent locally. It isn't a system designed to drive costs down. I have rarely seen H1-B positions that I felt didn't have local talent. Probably 1/5. In this case, clearly, if the current employees have to train their replacements, then there is no question that there is a more suitable local talent than foreign.

If I had it my way, I wouldn't tie the H1-B visa to the company. 2 years in, the H1-B should belong to the employee to go where ever he feels his talent is most appreciated. If the company fires him after 11 months, the visa still belongs to them. The US could still limit the number of visas issued, and actively maintained. The employee would still need to maintain their visa by having employment 6 out of the last 12 months. I also don't think the permanent residency process be tied to the company. Companies shouldn't be allowed to petition that. Only the individual with backing from a US citizen should be able to.

Fix the H1-B system and we can talk about a fair playing field. Thou, I doubt many companies would be as enthusiastic about it.

Re:Automatic.

[swb]

From a capitalist perspective, they are selling a product ("an education") in which the very promise is vocational advancement. Yet their own actions demonstrate they are selling a product which doesn't actually do what it claims.

State Universities also exist outside the realm of profit and loss and were established to accomplish a specific social goal -- advancing the practical arts and sciences outside the realm of the traditional liberal arts education. By pushing their own jobs overseas they seem to be undermining that as well.

If they need to save money to meet their operating costs and income, then why not cut costs elsewhere? So many have huge investments in athletics which kind of appear to be paid for by a handful of top tier revenue sports, but at my local University the athletics facilities (a block-sized tennis facility) seem to exceed what could be considered reasonable spending associated with those sports and also fails to take into account for most state Universities' ability to use their quasi-government status for bonding to obtain money for athletic facilities average students will never use.

Plus you can't tell me that any state University in the US couldn't cut a whole laundry list of internal "programs" that mostly exist to create internal empires. And that's without even asking many political questions as to which of these programs are really advocacy programs designed to push ideological agendas.