Slashdot Mirror


University of California IT Workers Replaced By Offshore Outsourcing Firm To File Discrimination Lawsuit (computerworld.com)

The IT workers from the University of California's San Francisco campus who were replaced by an offshore outsourcing firm late last year intend to file a lawsuit challenging their dismissal. "It will allege that the tech workers at the university's San Francisco campus were victims of age and national origin discrimination," reports Computerworld. From the report: The IT employees lost their jobs in February after the university hired India-based IT services firm HCL. Approximately 50 full-time university employees lost their jobs, but another 30 contractor positions were cut as well. "To take a workforce that is overwhelmingly over the age of 40 and replace them with folks who are mainly in their 20s -- early 20s, in fact -- we think is age discrimination," said the IT employees' attorney, Randall Strauss, of Gwilliam Ivary Chiosso Cavalli & Brewer. The national origin discrimination claim is the result of taking a workforce "that reflects the diversity of California" and is summarily let go and is "replaced with people who come from one particular part of the world," said Strauss. The lawsuit will be filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

326 comments

  1. Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're suing because their employer hired younger workers who are foreign. Isn't this lawsuit discriminatory, by opposing the University of California hiring you get workers from other countries?

    1. Re:Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't this lawsuit discriminatory, by opposing the University of California hiring you get workers from other countries?

      What? I'm sure you have some sort of point, but you didn't explain it at all.

      Overall, I would say that their case has merit as far as the age issue, and is certainly interesting in the fact that they fired a diverse group of workers and replaced them with a totally non-diverse group. Interesting, but possibly not in violation of anything.

    2. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope EVERYONE follows suit. File some RICO claims against recruiters too.

    3. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Question: How the fug are they getting away with shit like that? And u koolaid koolaiders continue to wonder why horizontal arrow more of the same Hillary didnt get in. Godzilla would be better than that.

    4. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA: "A free market is great but only if it benefits me. Otherwise I want socialism."

    5. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that how all trains of thought work. I can't imagine any group of people saying I want such and such economic system especially if it hurts me.

      The Indians want a fee market where they can take over the jobs that the native have been doing for years. On the other hand the natives want to keep their jobs. Maybe the natives could buy a bunch of guns, move to India and take over a small village. That would be a win for everyone. The Indians could get the thankless cubicle job working for a white business major. The older IT guys would get tons of hot village pussy and hang out under the shade of a tree all day

    6. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [bquote]"I can't imagine any group of people saying I want such and such economic system especially if it hurts me."[/bquote]

      Walmart and other retailers pressing prices lower and lower, story after story of how this pressure is a race to the bottom when it comes to quality and jobs... are Walmarts sales really hurting?

      People want to pay as little as possible for everything in their lives and want to be paid as much as possible for their labor. The two things are in contradiction.

    7. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by mtmiller100 · · Score: 1

      Very true. Even at the billionaire-level. "Laissez faire man! Get the government out of my multi-billion dollar corporation! Oh wait, there's an economic downturn??? Oh. We demand government stimulus, to help with our profits! We'll gladly lobby to run up the public debt for our private benefit!"

    8. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by mtmiller100 · · Score: 1

      you hit the nail on the head

    9. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Walmart and other retailers pressing prices lower and lower, story after story of how this pressure is a race to the bottom when it comes to quality and jobs... are Walmarts sales really hurting?

      Except stores like walmart pay more and offer more opportunities for growth than the mom and pop shops that they tend to replace:

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ma...

      TL;DR version of it:

      - Mom and pop stores typically only pay minimum wage and rarely dole out pay increases.
      - Mom and pop stores rarely ever issue promotions, except to family members.

    10. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question: How the fug are they getting away with shit like that? And u koolaid koolaiders continue to wonder why horizontal arrow more of the same Hillary didnt get in. Godzilla would be better than that.

      Well, Godzilla definitely has thinner ankles...

      And Godzilla can stand up on his own, he doesn't fall over again and again..

    11. Re:Let me see if I understand this... by hackel · · Score: 1

      It only has merit if the university stipulated that the Indian firm only use employees of a particular age. Coincidences do not count as "discrimination." That is ridiculous. 40 years ago, Indians didn't have the means to go into IT. That's just reality. It's not age discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.

    12. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      People have won lawsuits based solely on the gender or race disparity of their workplace used as evidence of discrimination, when no actual evidence of intentional discrimination was found.

    13. Re:Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only has merit if the university stipulated that the Indian firm only use employees of a particular age. Coincidences do not count as "discrimination." That is ridiculous. 40 years ago, Indians didn't have the means to go into IT. That's just reality. It's not age discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.

      Yes it is, and there is not a jury in the US that would not agree with that

    14. Re: Let me see if I understand this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you if your business model requires my tax dollars to subsidise your workers,Walmart or small business.

  2. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't even use an apostrophe correctly, you ignorant fuck.

    What makes you think anyone should pay attention to your opinion ?

  3. they're going to lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they hired a consulting company. this gives them "clean hands", because they are not the ones hiring indians.

    1. Re:they're going to lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

  4. And yet... by msauve · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's quite obvious that the reason was to lower costs, not because they specifically wanted younger workers from some foreign land. That's not age or national origin discrimination. The only argument to make it so would be if they failed to offer the previous employees an opportunity to keep their jobs, but at pay competitive with the new employees.

    And they almost certainly didn't make that offer, so here's a sincere wish of good luck with the lawsuit.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The great thing about the suit it that it keeps UC in the press in a negative way as it winds through. I expect we'll hear news of a settlement and a confidentiality agreement before long, just like with United.

    2. Re:And yet... by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The interesting thing is that a defense of "lower costs" becomes a problem if the new workers are H1B.

    3. Re:And yet... by msauve · · Score: 1

      Unless the summary is very wrong (and it may well be), "offshore outsourcing" and "plan to move work offshore" in no way implies the workers are coming to the US to do their work. Quite the opposite.

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

      Plus they don't give as much vacation time off. I've worked for the UC system for nearly thirty years, and I haven't had more than a long weekend off. The new workers don't even get that much time off paid. I wasn't even allowed more than a three day weekend off when my parents died in a car accident in southern Georgia. It took me almost five months to settle their affairs, but UC wouldn't give me more than the original day off. I lost nearly sixteens weeks of vacation time that I couldn't take off.

    5. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus less vacation time off. The Americans I've worked with in the past thirty-one years since I got my BS in Comp Sci typically aren't even allowed a long weekend off but the Asians get two to three weeks off contiguous. Yes, I understand their flights home are expensive and take a lot of time to home and back, but it's unfair that they get so much more time off.

    6. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Asians can take two weeks or more time off while we aren't allowed any time off.

    7. Re:And yet... by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Better change the age discrimination laws then.

      Because letting go of older more experienced workers because they're too expensive and replacing them with younger newer workers because they're cheaper is actually illegal in the US.

    8. Re:And yet... by msauve · · Score: 1

      " because they're too expensive"

      Citation of case law needed.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re:And yet... by ooloorie · · Score: 0

      It's quite obvious that the reason was to lower costs, not because they specifically wanted younger workers from some foreign land.

      Under leftist legal theories of discrimination, intent doesn't matter, only disparate impact.

    10. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > don't give as much vacation time off

      That's true for whites. I work for UCB, and I haven't had more than a long weekend off in the over twenty years I've worked here. My Indian coworkers get weeks off at at time since their plane tickets are so expensive plus they have a lot of travel time home and back. I don't begrudge them that since they care so much about family. I just wish I could have gone to my mother's funeral or spent more than three days at home when my father died a couple of years later. I paid a lot for that since I had to hire someone to handle my parent's estate.

    11. Re:And yet... by JWW · · Score: 2

      Yep. Is this the same UC that squirreled away $175 million into a secret account?....

    12. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      y aren't even allowed a long weekend off

      I work for MSFT, and I haven't been allowed more than a four day weekend off. That was Presidents Day in 2010 when the Olympics were in Vancouver, and I watched a couple of hockey matches. I got to see the US beat Norway.

    13. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. I worked for UC Berkeley for nearly twenty years and wasn't allowed more than a long weekend off.

    14. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stephanruby's statement missed a qualifier: ... if you replace with employees on H1B visa.

      You can hire people on H1B visa if there aren't any American's at any price to do the work. And then you have to pay them market rate. [ how to get market rate when the market couldn't produce a rate is another question).

      Age discrimination in the U.S. is illegal for employees over 40. You can't just replace them with younger employees to save on healthcare, etc.
      You can replace older employees because they are expensive though, and the replacements are likely to be younger. If you do this though, and you can't use H1B employees *because* they were cheaper.

      The over-40 aspect made it a catch-22. UCSF has to choose between being guilty of visa fraud or age discrimination.

      Now if the summary were correct, and this work was actually being done offshore, there are no employees and UCSF is in the clear (except for bad PR). It doesn't look like offshoring though.

    15. Re: And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us white people arent allowed vacation time.

    16. Re: And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true everywhere.

    17. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about that but would not be surprised.

    18. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you shitting me ?...seriously ?

      Hang on...I want to get this straight....so you've worked for Microsoft for years and you've never had more than four days off in a row ?

      Is this normal from where you are from ?

      I don't understand.....

    19. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except in at-will employment states they don't have to make the offer to those people.

      and this isn't discrimination. it's a lawyer, working on a hopeful percentage, of getting a settlement out of the school system, giving these people false promises.

      then again, these are california courts...which are known to be idiotic....so there's a good chance the lawsuit will prevail

      lol

    20. Re: And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't mean to hit someone when i was driving so drunkâ... So don't worry about the impact that caused death and hardship.

    21. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real issue is that UC is a public agency. Your Tax Dollars (and student tuition, etc.etc.) pays for this. Public agencies are usually under more scrutiny than private companies. So doing this as a public university gets a lot of press. It's also why the supposed "protections" of civil service are an illusion (yes I've been through a few politically-driven layoffs). But in terms of optics it's the public agency part that drives it. Private companies practice age discrimination all the time, and if anybody sues tough luck - the company almost always has the better lawyers and/or forces arbitration with the company conrols. A few people do win - law of big numbers. But that's just a cost of doing business. So is UC, mainly, being accused of being a public agency run like a business - hardly true in general, but perhaps in this case?

    22. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that discrimination without intent is still... discrimination.

    23. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so were there other contractor firms under consideration, from different part of the world, as well as from US and Canada? And did they consider teams located in Israel, Russia, China, Laos and France? Did they set the bid parameters so low that only a 20-year-old from an Indian village would qualify?

    24. Re:And yet... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      If I kill you to lower costs, I still killed you.

      If I hit you to lower costs, I still hit you.

      If I reaccomodate you to lower costs, I still reaccomodated you.

      If I hire people of only one race and age group to replace another group to lower costs, I still committed age and race discrimination.

      It's quite simple really.

      Motive and intent matters in some cases but in many cases it does not.

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

      I don't believe them if they claim that happened over ten years ago here, but for the past few years, teams have been too lean to allow time off. The team I work for supports a group of Azure developers, and we're required to provide 24/7 support. That normally takes five people minimum, but we have currently have only three people after someone quit and another because she's had a baby a couple of weeks ago. Covering 168 hours a week with just three people is a little difficult especially since we need two people around 10am each weekday. There is no way I could take even a single day of vacation, and I haven't in almost three years.

      What sucks even more is that we're exempt so we don't get overtime, and WA state law lets Microsoft pay out less than 2/3 of the vacation time accrued so we get screwed on the payout.

    26. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty much a given that all colleges are funneling away money for their top people.

    27. Re:And yet... by msauve · · Score: 1

      If you're logic impaired, you make false equivalences.

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

      As someone who is now in their early 50's, I probably took no more than 2 sick days in my previous job working in a SOC, that pretty much helped me when the contract was changed to another company, and I got a whopping large check from the current company for un-used vacation time. The fact that we were working 3 on/4 off or 4 on/3 off probably helped as well.

      Not all older workers are expensive from a health care standpoint, I'm probably in better physical condition than most persons half my age,

    29. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I can hire some dirt poor people in other parts of the world and fire you.

    30. Re:And yet... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      As long as it is to lower costs!

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    31. Re:And yet... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Under leftist legal theories, disparity of impact is evidence of possible discrimination, and often something to be investigated. Under right-wing theories, I suppose, evidence of illegality should be discarded if the company or rich person comes up with a lame excuse.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:And yet... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Under right-wing theories, I suppose, evidence of illegality should be discarded if the company or rich person comes up with a lame excuse.

      Under rational standards, disparate impact is not evidence of discrimination.

      In addition, under classically liberal and conservative views, discrimination by private employers should be legal, and universities ought to be private employers.

    33. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a well pitched reason. The much less pitched but still plausible reason could be to be able to get envelopers full of cash accidentally fell into their jackets again when they left hanging on their chairs while out. Or to have that numbered nameless account have a sudden unanticipated deposit that one did not notice.

    34. Re:And yet... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Okay, do I have to get serious about this? If an employer is illegally discriminating, there will be disparate results. Not all employers have disparate results. Therefore, the conditional probability of disparate results given illegal discrimination is higher than the conditional probability of disparate results given no illegal discrimination. That means it's evidence.

      Under pragmatic social views, allowing private discrimination leads to more problems overall than it solves (it leads to fewer problems for the dominant subset, which makes it attractive to those who make the rules). The classic liberal case is that the business that discriminates on traits unrelated to the ability to do the job will be at a competitive disadvantage to one that doesn't, and that isn't enough of an effect to push any change. The competitive difference between a company that hires only white males as engineers and one that tries to hire the best engineers is mostly lost in the noise.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:And yet... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Okay, do I have to get serious about this? If an employer is illegally discriminating, there will be disparate results.

      Yes, but there will be disparate results also if the employer is not illegally discriminating.

      Therefore, the conditional probability of disparate results given illegal discrimination is higher than the conditional probability of disparate results given no illegal discrimination. That means it's evidence.

      You need to look up the base rate fallacy.

      Under pragmatic social views, allowing private discrimination leads to more problems overall than it solves

      That's merely your belief, not a fact. In fact, I think that prohibiting private discrimination leads to far more problems overall than it solves.

      The classic liberal case is that the business that discriminates on traits unrelated to the ability to do the job will be at a competitive disadvantage to one that doesn't, and that isn't enough of an effect to push any change. .

      Change for what? Why should companies have representative populations in the first place? There are millions of businesses in the US; none of them needs to have a representative pool of employees for everybody to do well. Indians might want to work with Indians, lesbians with lesbians, Mexicans with Mexicans, macho men with macho men; what harm does that do to anybody? They don't need to be at a "competitive disadvantage" based on their choices, it is fine for them to co-exist as they are.

      And what is even more reprehensible about your view is that you basically think of employees as interchangeable cogs and deny that we have the capability of making our own choices.

    36. Re:And yet... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You need to look up the base rate fallacy.

      The "base rate fallacy" is, essentially, disregarding the prior probabilities of things. I can establish that illegal discrimination is at least plausible, so it's not like it has a vanishingly small prior. The rest of my reasoning is essentially Bayes' Law.

      And what is even more reprehensible about your view is that you basically think of employees as interchangeable cogs and deny that we have the capability of making our own choices.

      Again, you completely fail at reading my mind. Ideally, people would get hired, promoted, etc. on the basis of what they can do for the company, not any irrelevant or proxy factors. Ideally, people would be treated as individuals with their own individual strengths and weaknesses. If an employer doesn't hire a guy because he's black, or gay, or was considered female at birth, they're treating that guy as an interchangeable part of a group the employer doesn't like.

      However, statistically, I'm just another experienced software developer working in C++ for employment purposes. My individual strengths and weaknesses are ignored. Statistics is a way of throwing away information until you've got something comprehensible. If Joe is hired or not, or Jane is or is not promoted, there's no valid conclusions we can draw. If we see that one group is hired disproportionately to the percentage of qualified applicants, or that the only people promoted are of one group, that's strong evidence that management is judging people on the groups they belong to (typically involuntarily) rather than as individuals.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    37. Re:And yet... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The "base rate fallacy" is, essentially, disregarding the prior probabilities of things. I can establish that illegal discrimination is at least plausible, so it's not like it has a vanishingly small prior. The rest of my reasoning is essentially Bayes' Law.

      HIV infection also doesn't have a "vanishingly small prior", yet the base rate fallacy still applies.

      Again, you completely fail at reading my mind.

      The problem is that your mind contains a number of conflicting and inconsistent ideas, so when people point them out to you you say "well, I'm certainly not thinking that". Well, "that" is what your other views imply.

      Ideally, people would get hired, promoted, etc. on the basis of what they can do for the company, not any irrelevant or proxy factors.

      You have no idea what is "relevant" to running any particular business, and neither do you or the government. If I want to work surrounded by gay white males, that should be my business, not yours.

      If an employer doesn't hire a guy because he's black, or gay, or was considered female at birth, they're treating that guy as an interchangeable part of a group the employer doesn't like.

      Well, and I'm saying that a private employer should have the right to take that view of their employees, even if it is a demeaning and irrational view, just like you have the right to view employees as a whole that way, even though it is demeaning and irrational.

      If we see that one group is hired disproportionately to the percentage of qualified applicants, or that the only people promoted are of one group, that's strong evidence that management is judging people on the groups they belong to (typically involuntarily) rather than as individuals.

      So what? Maybe that works for the company, maybe it doesn't. It's the company and the investors who need to live with the consequences. So far, you still haven't given any compelling justification for government to intervene. I mean, what's next? Are you going to hold cities responsible for having interracial marriages at the predicted rates for race-blind marriages?

    38. Re:And yet... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The problem is that your mind contains a number of conflicting and inconsistent ideas, so when people point them out to you you say "well, I'm certainly not thinking that". Well, "that" is what your other views imply.

      If you can point out specifics, I'd be very interested. So far, you're very good at throwing out accusations of muddy thinking, and really lacking on the details. In this specific case, I was arguing for treating people as individuals, and you accused me of treating them like interchangeable cogs. I'd be very interested in the specific logical chain of reasoning that gets from one to the other.

      You have no idea what is "relevant" to running any particular business, and neither do you or the government. If I want to work surrounded by gay white males, that should be my business, not yours.

      In specific, no, I don't know what's relevant. In general, what's relevance is the ability to get the job done, work with others, and contribute value to the employer. There are very few cases where race, gender, gender preference, and other such things matter.

      Well, and I'm saying that a private employer should have the right to take that [discriminatory] view of their employees

      And I'm disagreeing. I'm claiming that hiring an individual should depend on that individual and what the individual can contribute to the company, not class membership.

      There are rules that we have established that employers must follow. I think we agree on banning fraud, wage theft, and other dishonest and larcenous activities. I'm saying that we have a right, as a society, to establish more rules a business must abide by. You seem to have an ideological view of how businesses should be regulated, whereas I'm going for maximum benefit to people in general and thinking regulation should be based on that. (I don't mean maximum immediate benefit, or any such thing, and I do know that "benefit" is ill-defined, and the consequences of actions really hard to figure.)

      It's the company and the investors who need to live with the consequences.

      It's everybody on the planet who needs to live with the consequences. It's profitable for the investors to ignore how much harm the company does to others, but we (most of us, anyway), still want protection from pollution.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are you claiming that the high cost of college is due to the burdensome salaries of the IT staff?

  6. Re:Fiduciary duty by lupinetine2896 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I agree, outsource all the professors and facilities staff too. Even cheaper, no buildings or classes. Best value: $20 gets your name printed on the degree of your choice. I mean, it's cheaper, they'd be doing their fiduciary duty, and the student gets a degree. Learning is, at best, ancillary to the sober work of cutting costs.

  7. Trump fix? by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    We recently heard president Trump signed an executive order to harden foreign worker's visa rules. Does that case means it was a failure? Or were the visas obtained before the new rules?

    1. Re:Trump fix? by rossz · · Score: 2

      This happened before Trump took office. Also, it's an offshoring firm, so visas are needed for the vast majority of the workers.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    2. Re:Trump fix? by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      I don't think an offshore outsourcing solution would involve visas.

    3. Re:Trump fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, which part of Off-Shore don't people get. I know you're joking, but sadly many people don't understand the facts.

    4. Re:Trump fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump wants to force vacations. That is not what we want. I work for Amazon, so I haven't had more than a long weekend off since 1998. Yes, my Indian coworkers get more time off, but that's because it takes so long to travel home and their flight tickets are so expensive.

    5. Re:Trump fix? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Two different issues. These people are offshore and won't need ANY American visas.

    6. Re:Trump fix? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Which is bullshit.

      Go on holiday to fucking India and get your own time off if that's the criteria.

      You're either lying, or just don't know how to ask for and take time off. I've worked for multiple American companies and staff take holiday at all of them - a lot of holiday.

    7. Re:Trump fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ^ I take my 3 weeks, + my floating holidays, + every holiday and a couple of sick days every year. I end up with somewhere around 4.5 weeks of holiday and vacation time off every year, next year, I get 4 weeks of vacation. Sick days vary by year but at minimum, 2 for doctors visits.

    8. Re:Trump fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should involve work permits, since work is done on US-based equipment and for the benefit of a US company. THAT hole needs to be plugged

    9. Re:Trump fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US we call it vacation. Youre not from the US, your from englund, fuck off you blimy bastard. You lie. Eat a frog.

  8. Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think that this sort of an incident and the response to it highlights the very contradictory nature of so many leftist ideals.

    When old workers are replaced by younger workers, some people will allege that "ageism" is responsible.

    But when younger workers aren't hired in favor of keeping around older workers, we also see some people allege that "ageism" is responsible!

    When American workers aren't replaced by foreign workers, some people will allege that "diversity" is lacking.

    But when American workers are replaced by foreign workers, we also see some people allege that "diversity" is lacking!

    Leftists have spun such an illogical web of ideals that at any given time we can see the same "-ism" or the same "discrimination" happening no matter what choice is made or no matter what course of action is taken!

    When a set of ideals is so inherently contradictory, the only sensible thing to do is to do a complete reevaluation as to their sanity. Chances are the only sensible conclusion that can be reached is that such a system of thinking is so utterly flawed that it needs to be completely discarded. There is no fixing it.

    1. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1, Troll

      By leftist I assume you mean liberalism (in the modern sense, not classical liberalism).

      That's just it though, liberalism is not so much rooted in thinking or logic, it's more about emotion.

    2. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LOL. Which school did you go to and did you bother to pay attention? Your entire comment is a straw man argument devoid of evidence and lacking in coherence. You say leftist without first defining what you consider to be "left". Is left of george washington leftist? Is left of Reagan leftist? If you want to make a point, please learn to write or did you skip English class in college? You do realize there's no such thing as "leftist", since there is no monolithic group of people that believe in exactly the same thing. Just like there isn't a "rightist" group. Are you using the term "leftist" to mean anyone that doesn't agree with you is "leftist"? What if you're left of someone else, does that make you "leftist". Or is your complain too many people are "self entitled" lazy jerks, who feel they're owed stuff because they are special creatures gifted to the planet? What do you define as lazy? Is working 100hrs a week at 3 jobs the threshold of "hard working." Is a banker that works 40 hours a week and goes to his Yacht on the weekend hard working? It's pretty challenging to make any sense of what you wrote, since it looks like flame bait. Speaking for myself, I am not leftist or rightist. I'm a humanitarian first. Meaning I put humans first. I define humans as someone that is open minded, compassionate, stands up for justice, helps those in need and speaks up against injustice. Individuals that chase greed and fore sake others aren't human in my definition. I define those as toxins in society. Toxins poison the community and destroys the nation from the inside out. The toxin isn't money either, it's the individuals that think firing 30 people to give themselves a bigger bonus is good. It's individuals that create structured securities like mortgage-backed securities using mortgages they knew would default. It's individuals that sold those securities, while buying insurance form AIG to make sure they don't loose any money when it all falls apart.

    3. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are still a lot of jobs for older employees if those older employees have been working in IT their whole career. There is almost 200 billion lines of COBOL in production today. CICS, RPG, DB2, mainframe administration, and other older technology platforms skillsets are in high demand and pay very well. The "younger" programmers gravitate towards the multitude of modern scripting languages and web based platform technologies which also are in high demand and pay very well. However, the younger employees tend to have no depth or real world experience when compared to the older employees with 30 years worth a software development experience, project management, across a wide array of computing platforms. And even now there is a shortage of qualified C\C++ employees. Anyone can learn new technologies and over a 30 year career that ends up being quite a few different technologies that all lead up to where we are today. Today's web based platforms rely on frameworks that target various runtimes of one type or another. But this model only works because you can just keep adding more hardware to provide the necessary performance instead of designing and coding a more efficient application. Is the web app running slow? Just keep adding memory to your application server and create multiple VM's to distribute the load? Database running slow? Add more memory to the database server and high performance hard drives. Although I have seen applications that are so poor that it doesn't matter how much hardware you throw at the problem.

    4. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Which school did you go to...

      Strawman much?

    5. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your hate and absolutism is precisely what's wrong with politics right now. This situation could be discuss without dragging left vs right politics into it.

      The question is; is it fair to fire long-time employees and replace them using a program that was supposed to be used to fill jobs that weren't getting filled. Do you think it's not discrimination based on country of origin? I don't see how it's not.

      Your rant is not helpful.

    6. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think by far rightists are far more hypocritical and self-contradictory. Liberals may be because they overthink, rightists are because they are stupid.

      Says the bigot. Yup, anyone who doesn't think like you is stupid. Good job showing that you are considerate of other's views and opinions.

    7. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      overthinking you say,.

    8. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is; is it fair to fire long-time employees and replace them using a program that was supposed to be used to fill jobs that weren't getting filled. Do you think it's not discrimination based on country of origin? I don't see how it's not.

      What the plan was intended for is inconsequential, it is a tool available to them so they can use it.

      The issue of discrimination could be interesting. Burden of proof under title VII of the Civil Rights Act falls on the accuser. They must have direct evidence that they were discriminated against because of their age or origin. Hiring the outsourcing firm because they are cheaper would not fit the case, there would have to be evidence that there was intent to higher the outsourcing firm because the workers would be younger or because they would be of a specific nationality.

    9. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair? No,but doesn't matter.
      Ethical or moral? Yes or no but doesn't matter.
      Good for short term profits? Yes
      Makes CEO and other Suits appear productive? Yes
      Satisfies board of directors? Yes
      Any risk to a Suit? Nope.
      Legal? That's what this is trying to answer but due to who has the money and lobbying, I predict YES.

      American business cares only for short term gain and profit. There is no room for giving back, common good or other socialist ideas like spreading the wealth... And there is a perverse argument that "everyone is empowered" because they have the "freedom" to work elsewhere.

    10. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by harperska · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The same thing can be said of conservatism, or libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter. Adherence to a political philosophy as ones primary approach to life is inherently rooted in emotion rather than logic regardless of the philosophy in question.

      Your singling out of liberalism as the one philosophy as the only one rooted in emotion indicates a clear conservative bias on your part.

    11. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. My side is completely logical. The other side is crazy dangerous and emotional

    12. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lovely words--my FIL was let go from his IT job at a large university 2 years ago. Despite a 30+ year IT career in insurance and education (both heavy COBOL) he hasn't had a bit of luck getting hired.

      No one wants to hire a 55 year old individual contributor.

      As a 35 year old individual contributor I'm already seeing doors closed if I don't have experience in the areas new employers want--they seem to be OK switch younger people growing into a role, it's expected, but when you're older you aren't seen as valuable.

      I fully expect to be much less employable, in strictly technical roles, within 15 years despite hopefully having years of experience in the fields.

    13. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What the plan was intended for is inconsequential, it is a tool available to them so they can use it." ...and hopefully lawsuits like these will make far less palatable to do.

    14. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The same thing can be said of conservatism, or libertarianism, or any political philosophy for that matter. Adherence to a political philosophy as ones primary approach to life is inherently rooted in emotion rather than logic regardless of the philosophy in question.

      Your singling out of liberalism as the one philosophy as the only one rooted in emotion indicates a clear conservative bias on your part.

      Here's what happened in about 150 years under "conservative" US government policies:

      Grew from small, isolated, breakaway country to the richest, most powerful country on the planet, with the highest standard of living. Along the way, freed slaves and saw life expectancy become the highest in the world.

      Contrast to what happened in "progressive"/socialist/liberal nations such as Venezuela, Greece, and the Soviet Union.

      Hell, compare North and South Korea for the difference between the capitalist/free-market approach and the "progressive" statist approach. 70 years ago North and South Korea were pretty much identical.

      70 years of capitalist/free-market policies have made South Korea the 11th largest economy in the world. 70 years of "progressivism" has left North Korea 113th.

      South Korea's people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the entire world. North Korea's people are worried about starving to death.

      Tell me again how facts have a liberal bias...

    15. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by computational+super · · Score: 1

      pay very well.

      Actually, as far as I can tell, they don't - even though banks and insurance companies are risking actually going out of business if they can't find people to maintain (or port) their ancient mainframe COBOL applications, they're still not offering more than about $50K/year for these jobs.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    16. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by hackel · · Score: 1

      These are not "leftist" issues. The people making such contradictory, apocryphal claims are just regressive idiots. Plenty of deplorables have done the exact same thing, particularly when it comes to idiot coal miners who think their jobs shouldn't be replaced with more advanced technology and automation, or manufacturing workers when their jobs are outsourced. These people are overwhelmingly ignorant rightists. You're grasping at straws and demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the reality that is the ignorant, idiotic U.S. American public.

    17. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counterpoint: nope

    18. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your smug condescension of anyone less fortunate than you is fucking disgusting.

    19. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Here's what happened in about 150 years under "conservative" US government policies:

      Grew from small, isolated, breakaway country to the richest, most powerful country on the planet, with the highest standard of living.

      Here's what happened under "liberal" government policies:

      • Declared our independence from Great Britain in the first place.

      You have the right to be on Slashdot and argue about which ideology is better because of liberal policies.

      Along the way, freed slaves and saw life expectancy become the highest in the world.

      Lincoln was most assuredly not conservative. Republican, yes. Conservative, no. His policies resembled those of modern progressives more than modern conservatives, though even that is something of a stretch, because unlike 99% of modern politicians, Lincoln was actually a respectable statesman.

      Contrast to what happened in "progressive"/socialist/liberal nations such as Venezuela, Greece, and the Soviet Union.

      Progressive != socialist != liberal.

      Additionally, Greece's problems stemmed from government overspending without enough taxation to cover the expenses. That's more similar to what Republicans do today than Democrats. And both Venezuela and Russia had problems where a few people at the top of the party essentially lived in luxury while the poor starved, which makes it more like a caste system than true socialism.

      Besides, essentially zero modern progressives view socialism as the be-all and end-all of public policy, but rather as a useful tool to use in limited ways for the public good. That's radically different from a country that attempts to use pure socialism as its sole policy (which is exactly as foolish as using pure capitalism as the sole public policy).

      --

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

    20. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I put humans first. I define humans as someone that is open minded, compassionate, stands up for justice, helps those in need and speaks up against injustice.

      Interesting. I am not so open minded that my brain falls out. My compassion has a limit. I despise social justice. My help is limited because I have to help myself and my family first. Define injustices because a lot of "injustice" in the west is a perceived entitlement. (government funding of abortion construed as a right as an example)

      Does that make me not human? Does that mean I do not get the rights and responsibilities of a human in your idea of a society?

      individuals that chase greed and fore sake others aren't human in my definition

      Sounds like you are very close to rationalizing violence toward those people. After all, the Jews weren't human. Infidels aren't human. It isn't murder if what you kill isn't human. You are treading on very dangerous ground.

      structured securities like mortgage-backed securities using mortgages

      Thank you captain hindsight. I am sure your moral relativism is great at convicting those with 20/20 hindsight on what policy is the right policy in such technical terms.

      It's individuals that sold those securities, while buying insurance form AIG to make sure they don't loose any money when it all falls apart.

      Since you already said those individuals are not human, per your definition, what is acceptable retaliation to those sub-humans? Can I beat 'em up? Punch 'em in the face? Kill 'em? Round 'em all up and gas them? They are not human after all so I why should I care about their suffering if I only care about human suffering?

      You are dangerous as are the cylons that modded you insightful. You are like a lynch mob itching for the sheriff to turn a blind eye.

    21. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Here's what happened under "liberal" government policies:
              Declared our independence from Great Britain in the first place.
      You have the right to be on Slashdot and argue about which ideology is better because of liberal policies.

      All true and I think the part of the problem is when "non-liberals" take on the liberal title which misrepresent the "true" liberal ideals. No true Scotsman aside, it happens to both sides. RINO and DINO labels came about because of this. I don't think anyone can claim to be liberal while at the same time shutting down someones right to speech. EVEN IF their speech is offensive. Yet, we have many that do and a similar situation is on the right. Horse shoe theory fits.

      Progressive != socialist != liberal.

      Yet, we have one party to represent them all. Democrats. Just as Republicans represent many different facets of conservatism. We see the riffs in both parties and normally the moderates on both sides would come together to pass legislation. Yet, the rhetoric has become so over-the-top they have painted themselves in a corner. How can you give Trump any credit for any thing he might have done right if you called him 'literally Hitler'? How could you compromise on anything with that kind of rhetoric?

    22. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the dogshit you are licking off of oligarch boots taste?

    23. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by computational+super · · Score: 1

      That's really my greatest fear right there, as I'm coming into my mid-40's. I've been a developer/individual contributor my whole life (since I was a teenager, actually). It's been made abundantly clear to me that there's no room for me in management in any capacity; whenever I've so much as dipped my toe into a management track, I've been violently pulled back into technical roles - although I must admit I've always been more than happy to go because I hate managing and love programming. But man, I have a lot of years left before I'll have enough saved up to retire, and two kids that still have to go to college...

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    24. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      The Soviet Union went from a country a century behind the developed world to launching the first man into space in just 45 years, despite it losing a fifth of its population and a large part of its infrastructure in a war of extermination. So much for that.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    25. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than the dogshit you sucked off the totalitarians dick. Practice hard, you wouldn't want that totalitarian to think your not a human now would we?

    26. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like you need to be either tossed in an oven or given a helicopter ride, whichever is quicker.

    27. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Somebody who wasn't irretrievably conservative might notice that not all situations are the same, and that it's consistent for some people to have one attitude towards one situation and people who may differ in some way have another towards a situation that's different in some ways.

      Similarly, I've heard farmers complain about too much rain and too little rain (at different times), so they're inconsistent.

      It should be obvious to anyone except a conservative that ageism is when age per se is used for decision making where it should not be, not whether it favors young or old.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Are you confusing shutting down speech and not allowing speech in a certain venue? You can make your own website and say what you like, but I don't have to post anything you write. The last free speech flap I saw was because the university in question didn't get enough advance notice of the speaker to find an adequate venue. Few people really want to ban free speech.

      Given the election setups in the US, both those Constitutionally ordained and traditional, we get a two-party system. Over my lifetime, partisanship has gotten worse. The rhetoric about Trump, however, isn't as bad as the Republican Congressional determination to make Obama fail rather than make the US succeed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    29. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I despise social justice.

      That, if you really meant it as you wrote it, marks you as a bad person. I suspect that, if you found yourself on the receiving end of social injustice, you'd complain.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I'll be glad to mail you a hanky. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

    31. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Are you confusing shutting down speech and not allowing speech in a certain venue?

      No. I am not confusing the two and I understand the difference/argument. If you value free speech as a right that we as a nation should cherish, then any public accommodation has a responsibility to protect that freedom. Yes, the 1st amendment protects against the government but that is not the end of the debate in a free society that cherishes and protects those freedoms.

      Few people really want to ban free speech.

      I used to think that but now not so much. They may not say "ban free speech" but they will hide it with "ban hate speech". No one wants to ban free speech but we should ban hate speech *wink wink nod nod*.

      You can make your own website and say what you like, but I don't have to post anything you write.

      Sure and I would say that you do not value free speech if you did that but then I would also argue that any public accommodation should protect our freedoms as much as the government should. Especially any public accommodation that has a dramatic influence on our elections, dialogue, and freedoms. I am not asking you to change your beliefs or to like what I say but I am asking you to be impartial in your public service and value the freedoms this nation was built on. Just like a baker does not change their belief by being impartial to their customers. Can we call ourselves a free society if we let corporations, universities, and media censor our lives and discussions even if not prescribed by law? I don't think we can.

      Over my lifetime, partisanship has gotten worse.

      That is the nature of democracy. Every vote comes down to a yes or a no. A with us or against us. It is inevitable that division and partisanship will happen even if partisanship is limited. That is why "Democracies... have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths". Unless there is an outside enemy we all can call the bad guy, the bad guy is the guy that voted against you. There is a reason that public opinion was represented by a relatively small portion of the government (House of Reps or 1/6th the government until the ratification of the 17th amendment).

      The last free speech flap I saw was because the university in question didn't get enough advance notice of the speaker to find an adequate venue.

      Not sure what instance you are talking about but if it is Berkeley with Coulter, it was planned for a long time she would speak by a non-partisan group that wanted two sides of an issue (immigration) before Coulter's planned visit they had the pro-immigration side presented without a hitch. Which brings up another interesting point about that quote I gave, "democracies... have ever been found incompatible with personal security".

    32. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, he meant that he despises Social Justice, not social justice.

    33. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      There is only justice. Justice is blind. We are all equal before the law and any marker to predispose judgment of the law is not justice. Anything that is not just is an injustice. Social Justice is not blind by definition. Social Justice is an injustice veiled by prejudice and expected societal roles and outcomes.

      The individual is the ultimate minority to be protected by society. When the individual is protected we all are protected and society is more free, fair, and just. "Social Justice" in the west is a farce. "social justice" when there is societal induced injustices on a minority (gays/Christians being killed in ISIS) is the ever challenging struggle to achieve justice in that society. You don't need the word "social" to describe justice unless you wish to have biased predisposed judgment.

    34. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by bongey · · Score: 1

      In NO way can you claim Lincoln was like modern progressives. Modern progressives are exactly the reason why Greece is messed up. Greeks want the government to pay for everything, hardly work and retire young. Exactly what the modern progressive millennials are actually doing.

    35. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by bongey · · Score: 1

      You can do that with good spies.

    36. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Greece, as best I understand it, is screwed up because the government paid for it without actually having the revenue to pay for it. That makes them far more like the modern borrow-and-spend Republicans than the tax-and-spend progressives. When, over a five-year period, a country's tax revenue increases by 31% and government spending increases by 87%, you're going to have a serious increase in your national debt. The United states solves this by devaluing its currency. Unfortunately, the Greeks are part of the Eurozone, and thus are limited in how much currency they can print each year, which means they can't just print more money to avoid becoming crippled by their national debt.

      Of course, to make matters worse, their national debt is so huge relative to their GDP that it probably wouldn't help even if they could print money. Even in relatively good times, Greece was borrowing over 8% of their GDP every year. That's simply unsustainable. As a result, while U.S. states have debts that are on the order of a third to half their GDP, Greece has debt that is on the order of double their GDP. Imagine if the state of California took on a third of the national debt by itself, and you're in the ballpark. Nobody in the U.S. government—even the most socialist progressives who advocate a base income—are crazy enough to borrow that kind of money, I don't think.

      But a bigger problem is not the amount of spending, but rather the types of spending that the Greek government has done. Instead of building infrastructure that would actually benefit them financially (e.g. factories), they spent frivolously on things like a giant sports venue for the 2004 Olympics that didn't cover its costs and that they couldn't afford to actually maintain afterwards. Their social security system is or was broken, with such fascinating flaws as paying out pensions to single female children of dead retirees. The state airline was a giant money pit for many years. And their military spending at the start of the crisis bordered on insanity (sound Republican enough for you?) at something like 7% of their GDP—proportionally more than the U.S. spent while fighting two wars.

      No, the Greek government is a prime example of what happens when Reagan-Republican-style borrow-and-spend budgets get out of control and are not tempered by true fiscal conservatives insisting on balanced budgets and rainy day funds and so on. It is the polar opposite of progressive ways of handling budgeting (which, if they got out of control, would result in a tax rate that's so high that the people themselves would demand cuts in spending).

      --

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

    37. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experience doesn't seem to count for much unless you were using the exact technology mix required within the last six months as it seems experience you had a couple of years ago is assumed to be out of date, even if that field has not changed radically in the meantime. Sometimes breadth and depth of experience and understanding of fundamentals seems not to be valued.

    38. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The problem with allowing any idiot a reasonably prestigious pulpit is that there are so many idiots out there, and lots of them like to talk. Are you suggesting that a University should give speaking venues to Flat Earthers on the same basis as astrophysicists? People who want to establish a monarchy on the same basis as people who want to deal inside a republic?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    39. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that a University should give speaking venues to Flat Earthers on the same basis as astrophysicists?

      As in teaching a class toward a major in 'flat earthery', no. As in hosting a flat earther speaker, yes. Are a flat earthers ideas so dangerous as to poison anyone to hear it?

      People who want to establish a monarchy on the same basis as people who want to deal inside a republic?

      Again, hosting a speaker, yes. You can do something like the Thomas Paine Society that debates the virtues of Republic on one side and the virtues of a Monarchy on the other.

      The problem with allowing any idiot a reasonably prestigious pulpit is that there are so many idiots out there, and lots of them like to talk

      Of course and this is really the issue for brick and mortar places like a university or with physical constraints like a news paper. But online there are no constraints and each idea must be able to stand on its merits and endure criticism.

    40. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There are limited resources. Offering a physical venue for a Flat Earther means the institution can't offer it to someone rational who has ideas that may be useful and thought-provoking. How to allocate limited resources is always a problem.

      The Web is effectively unlimited, and idiots should and do make their own websites to disseminate their stupid ideas. This is as it should be. I assume there are several websites that push Flat Earth ideas, although I haven't looked.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals. by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      How to allocate limited resources is always a problem.

      Agreed but someone shouldn't be barred or no platform because of their opinions/ideas. Unless there is full booking or no space available (which I doubt honestly) I don't think it would be much an issue.

      The Web is effectively unlimited, and idiots should and do make their own websites to disseminate their stupid ideas. This is as it should be. I assume there are several websites that push Flat Earth ideas, although I haven't looked.

      I haven't looked but wouldn't be surprised there is a flatearther.com. But not everyone can create a website (that argument doesn't work for other examples [google], it shouldn't work here) and if a lot of the national dialogue happens on one site (say Twitter for example) and that site is banning people based off political ideology then it becomes a problem. There comes a point that a public accommodation must be impartial. We do that for brick and mortar we should do it for the digital space and since the thing that matters most online is ideas, those sites should be impartial to political ideologies.

  9. That's actually debateable by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the CEOs of the outsourcing firms have been caught a few times complaining about lazy Americans. And frankly he's right. By Indian or Chinese standards our 50-60 hour work weeks make us lazy. The H1-Bs I know regularly put in 80 hour work weeks. They're young and disposable but they don't care because currency exchange means they're earning a fortune working here. Best case they get a greencard and start doing the 50-60 hr work weeks of Americans, worst case they go back home flush with cash.

    The moral? You can't compete with India. You can't compete with a country that has a literal cast system and effective slavery for millions of their citizens. End the H1-B program. Start calling your congressman/woman/thing and ask them why they haven't ended the program. There are other programs for rural doctors. The program is for replacing Americans. Call your congressman and ask. Remind them you and your family and your friends won't be voting for them in their primary. Make sure you say primary. They've gerrymandered the districts. After their Primary they'll win. But they're vulnerable in the primary.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't hear mentioned a lot is that although you can find someone to work 80+ hour work weeks for less money than domestic workers you often get the productivity of domestic worker doing about a 25hr work week.
      I've seen employee costs go down, hours worked skyrocket and amount of work done completely tank at the same time.

    2. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am an American. I work in Mainland China. I have worked in Dubai with a mostly Indian staff. I actually work with many nationalities, and I am connect to many organizations just like mine. That means, the company I work at, is connected regionally in China to at least 30 others that are collaborating. Each collaborative partner has a similar structure with a few western staff mixed with Chinese staff. In every case, without exception, we out perform the Chinese staff 3-1 and sometimes 4-1 in terms of work hours and project completion. I do work 60-70 hours to finish a project, a Chinese colleague will not do that without pressure from 3-4 higher level people. They have to be coerced.

      A Chinese colleague will be at work for 40 hours a week; but in an 8 hour day they only work about 5 hours. The rest is invested in the social expectations, eating, napping, etc. Many will have 5-7 out of office tea/coffee breaks. One of our division leaders complains because 50% of her staff use the bathroom every 20-30 minutes due to the massive amount of liquids they intake.

      These behaviors are all fine, as they are culturally expected and acceptable. For me, these behaviors are not expected and my supervisors are not Chinese so I cannot indulge in the down time. This same behavior is observable and testable in every company in Shanghai. Some "start-up" spaces in Shanghai are very cool and fully open from the street. When you look in during the day, many people will be asleep. This does not mean they might not invent something amazing, or they lack intelligence, but at 10:00 am seeing a start-up asleep, and then leaving at 5:00 pm always surprises me.

      I do make more money than most of my counterparts, and I knew the situation before arriving. I took the job because it allows me to work on really interesting things, invest 2-3 years maximum and then move to something new, and make more of a living than I could in the USA. The output from western staff is high, but we turn over quickly, so the HR investment is not too excessive.

      I have seen projects Chinese staff have let linger for 1-2 years, and I was able to finish them in a month. They have very little sense of urgency because they value their families and non-work life more than the work life. There are exceptions. Mainland Chinese who have the true entrepreneurial drive work circles around their peers, collect invest rapidly, and build businesses rapidly. They will always become the big fish very quickly, and people will follow them in sheer amazement.

      I am in Mainland China, my experiences in Hong Kong are quiet the opposite, but the wages there for local workers are higher than the mainland, so there are less people like me doing these jobs. Not all Chinese people are the same, and expectations from country to country are very different.

      Dubai was much worse than China. I have to say I witnessed work culture there that was destructive. People literally watching things melt down at 3:45 PM and going home at 4:00 PM because they were allowed.

      I could never do anything like that, and I was always the one putting the stress on myself to stay and fix things. The waste and abuse of resources was rampant, and like China, the re-work rate on many projects would be 100%.

      I watched facility construction, destruction, and re-construction too often, and could never understand the complete lack of ownership or pride in a project. These were engineers who were actually making a high salary and often out ranked me. However, again, Americans often ended up leading projects that were new and required aggressive strategies, self motivation, and hours of overtime. Had the company set the expectation that everyone needed to be self-motivated problem solvers, I would say only the western staff would have been able to meet that standard. More often than not, the expectation for the non-western staff was they were waiting to be "told", and anyone making a request had to do so through the proper channel. There was no teamwork really unless a western pers

    3. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that they often work 80 hours but only get paid for 40 because if they complain they get booted

    4. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhm, I'm pretty sure you don't know what misogyny is....

    5. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dislike this pretending that we're banning h1b visas for the good of those poor indians!

      By banning h1 your cutting their (the Indians) salary potential significantly, but your boosting your own so who cares right?

      Also the indians who are educated enough to get a h1b are not the slaves, even if effective slavery is certianly a problem in India

    6. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the CEOs of the outsourcing firms have been caught a few times complaining about lazy Americans. And frankly he's right. By Indian or Chinese standards our 50-60 hour work weeks make us lazy."

      Anecdote. Here's another one: My girlfriend is an engineer whose company outsources some work to Indian engineers; according to her they are incredibly lazy, slow, and do terrible work, though they're cheap enough that it's still slightly cost effective to use them.

    7. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my experience working with offshore folks in question (cheap labor), and I have a LOT of it (not always by choice):

      There are some great developers out there offshore, but we're not talking about those folks because they are smart and smart people charge what they are worth, usually.

      We're talking about that cheap entry level labor that the general theory at the C level is that 4 entry level nerds somehow operate at a greater capacity than 1 talented nerd.

      The truth is though that they end up hiring 5 entry level nerds and one of them has a whip and literally screws everything up even if one of the other 4 entry level foreign nerds is a super pro nerd. These are the 5 over seas.

      The team lead who usually operates best as an architect or senior developer level is engulfed in meetings to discuss the deadlines that are being missed. His or her pro nerd talent is wasted doing what a run of the mill PM does (also an area where there is a 'talent shortage' apparently), and the actual PMs either don't care or wonder usually as clueless-ly as the C levels what the heck is going on.

      And then it gets worse, on the victim end of this wallet pillaging (the client) they end up having to hire a few pro nerds to fix all the problems, and a few people pushers to organize all the screw up that's going on.

      So now you have 60-100 people doing what 10-15 could do, you're missing deadlines, the next company says its all shit and you should start over fresh, and the icing on the shit cake is that everybody hates you for it (particularly the talented people you replaced)!

      9 hours ahead? This approximately means more than one person on the local end spends the first half of their day either discussing or correcting what occurred the night before.

      The only group of people I have come across that use H1-B to hire actual real talent and pay competitively were VC groups.

    8. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jingoist. Why should Americans be any better off? If anything the Indians deserve those jobs to make up for decades of white oppression and misogyny towards marginalized communities.

      Are you joking or being ironic? Sometimes it is hard to tell.
      You ask "Why should Americans be any better off?" This is taking place in the USA.
      Who should be better off in America if not Americans?
      Who should be better off in France if not the French?
      Who should be better off in China if not the Chinese?

      And if anyone should be criticized for oppression of marginalized communities, they would have to begin with India and the caste system. How stupid about history are you?

    9. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhm, I'm pretty sure you don't know what misogyny is....

      And it's laughable that the troll labels Americans as misogynists that should step aside for workers from India. They would be better how?

    10. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longer hours does not mean more or better work. If you explicitly lay out what they need to do, and every step along the way in excruciating detail they can do it, but good luck getting them to come up with their own solution.

    11. Re:That's actually debateable by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      the CEOs of the outsourcing firms have been caught a few times complaining about lazy Americans.

      Gosh, it's not like they have any incentive to portray American workers as lazy, right? So surely it MUST be true.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    12. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe in capitalism. Believe it!

    13. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonono. Only WHITE people can discriminate. Oh wait, only straight white people.

      Everyone else just has "culture".

    14. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BINGO!

      I win again!

    15. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy from a country that had legal discrimination and segregation of non white folks.. Right.

    16. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that's because of the way they measure these things?
      80 hours a week is irrelevant if the quality of work isn't up to scratch. But if you're only measuring hours worked, then they seem better.

      What if you're only working 80 hours a week because you're screwing up so much that you need 20-30 hours of rework....

      But frankly in my experience that figure is too kind, I'd rather deal with an American 50-60 hour a week, or even an Australian 40 hour a week sub-contractor than many Indian (though this is getting better, now it's other countries) 80 hour a week. Because then I wouldn't have to spend so much time double-checking the work and organising re-work.

    17. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      H1-Bs makes little difference. Development is now being farmed out to agencies that use programming services from overseas. These companies have over 100,000 devs on tap covering almost all platforms and languages. The have a base here for sales, and the rest are in India.

      This started almost 10 years ago. Open your wallet, there's a chance one of those extremely well know cards is running on a system designed and developed by this kind of resource. Local devs are now cleaning up the code that comes back as their prime role. Whether we like it our not, our futures as devs is coming to an end unless you can find a small shop that cannot operate this way. We cannot compete against people living in very cheap economies that don't have the high cost of living we do in the west. It happened to manufacturing, it happened to data entry and call centers, and it's happening to developers.

      Unless you deal with people face to face, your days are numbers; so start planning for the reality.

    18. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being at the worksite for 80 hours doesn't mean they are productive. Anyone who has worked with South Asians knows they don't exactly have the Protestant work ethic. But you can tell people are finally wising up to the H1B scam because in the past the story was always "They're just smarter than Americans, they have skills we don't have", and now we're hearing "They're young and not that skilled, but boy they sure work harder than Americans". Eventually people will figure that one out to and the narrative will change to "Yeah, sure they're not that skilled, and don't work that hard, but they never complain" or something. Give us all a fucking break. H1Bs are ass. Now if they bring in a bunch of Korean dudes with CS PhDs who work like maniacs to replace you, then I really have nothing to say about that. But they aren't going to bring in Korean guys with PhDs who work like maniacs, they're going to bring in Indians with Associates from overseas diploma mills who work like slugs.

    19. Re:That's actually debateable by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      but in an 8 hour day they only work about 5 hours.

      Coincidentally, that's about the amount of effective hours you could expect from just about anyone. I think I read some study on that some time ago. People don't seem to be made to work for 8 hours at a 100% productivity utilization.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:That's actually debateable by ProfBooty · · Score: 1

      I would but my congressman ran unopposed in the primary AND the general election!

      --
      Bring back the old version of slashdot.
    21. Re:That's actually debateable by mjwx · · Score: 2

      the CEOs of the outsourcing firms have been caught a few times complaining about lazy Americans. And frankly he's right. By Indian or Chinese standards our 50-60 hour work weeks make us lazy. The H1-Bs I know regularly put in 80 hour work weeks. They're young and disposable but they don't care because currency exchange means they're earning a fortune working here. Best case they get a greencard and start doing the 50-60 hr work weeks of Americans, worst case they go back home flush with cash.

      The moral? You can't compete with India. You can't compete with a country that has a literal cast system and effective slavery for millions of their citizens. End the H1-B program. Start calling your congressman/woman/thing and ask them why they haven't ended the program. There are other programs for rural doctors. The program is for replacing Americans. Call your congressman and ask. Remind them you and your family and your friends won't be voting for them in their primary. Make sure you say primary. They've gerrymandered the districts. After their Primary they'll win. But they're vulnerable in the primary.

      Most of this post is completely incorrect. The rest is only partially incorrect.

      First things first, the decision to outsource is never about quality or performance, it's always 100% about money.

      Secondly, its not the "exchange rate" that makes working overseas attractive, its the disparity of income. The exchange rate just denotes how many rupees you get for dollars, income disparity is what makes you get more money per hour.

      Thirdly, 12 hour working days are rare, its mostly 8 hour shifts, especially for western companies that are subject to laws back home even though the labour is outsourced. As another poster explained, the culture of long hours with Asian companies tends to be more about social rules than work. A Japanese employee might be at work for 12 hours, but thats all about appearance, they have to look like a hard worker by arriving before the boss and leaving after the boss. They don't get any extra work done, a lot of the time they are napping or socialising. This is a common theme across Asia.

      In my experience, Indians buck the trend of Asian culture. Most Asian (especially the Chinese) don't like it when the Gwailo demonstrates they know more, so the appearance of knowledge is more important than the knowledge itself. The Indians are the opposite. I once had to run training in Singapore, the ethnic Chinese attended, but never participated. They didn't ask questions or interact much, to do so would have lost them face in front of their colleges. The ethnic Indians on the other hand never stopped with questions. At one point I had to ask them to write them down as I didn't have time to answer them all tonight.

      The reason so much outsourcing ends up in India is because they are happy to work under western managers.

      Of course with all races, you get the full spectrum from idiot to genius, western, Asian or otherwise, however only certain cultures have a compunction against learning or thinking outside the box. With Indians, you get two types of body shops, cheap ones that employ anyone with an IT cert so they get all the ones that paid for their certs and are pretty much useless. The second kind employs the Indians that are moderately competent, these guys actually earned their grades and are good at performing routine tasks but don't expect much in the way of creativity, the downside of this is that you pay more, probably about the same as hiring flunkies in the US. Those Indians that are actually as good as good western IT workers... We'll they're your colleges. Indians who are a good enough can generally get out of India of their own accord. Most end up in the UK or Australia as India is part of the Commonwealth of Nations which makes it easier to get a visa. Really good Indians will have worked all around the world.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    22. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we are Americans, should we not be worried about Americans first in our own country? If there are Americans around to fill the position, then Americans should be hired. If there any positions left, then sure, offer them to a H1B. We really need to get over the whole idea that we have to accept the rest of the world wholesale above our own interests. We need to start taking care of ourselves again.

    23. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything the Indians deserve those jobs to make up for decades of white oppression and misogyny towards marginalized communities

      White oppression from the British, not the Americans. But then again I guess all white people are the same, right? Its rich that you'd bring up misogyny since Indian men are some of the most misogynistic people on the planet.

    24. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not an American as can be seen by some of your sentence constructs.
      For example, "I could never do anything like that..." is not something a typical
      American English speaker would say, but I've heard that construct from English
      speaking Indians many times before. You've also missed several definite articles;
      you're an educated Indian, but you're not a U.S. citizen.

      Face it, the tide is beginning to turn in favor of American workers doing American jobs.

      CAP === 'errant'

    25. Re:That's actually debateable by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Manual-labor jobs they can. Office jobs require some downtime to refactor, and the 8-hour work day theoretically lets you mix that in so you can optimize it.

      The more-scientific approach I've seen is to schedule high-effort, complex work in the mid-morning and around 2-5pm, with low-effort work put between 1pm and 3pm. The slump cripples your ability to perform productively, and so spending that time returning calls, checking e-mail, writing changelogs, and so forth lets your brain relax and recover so you can get back to designing rocket engines and writing complex computer code later in the afternoon. You wind up productive all day, doing the simple shit when you can't handle the heavy lifting.

      The moral of the story? Do your code reviews and merge windows between 1pm and 3pm. It's less work than writing new code, and it keeps your head in the code so you're ready to hit the ground running right after.

    26. Re:That's actually debateable by trevc · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that how many hours you work is directly related to the quality of the work you put out. I feel sorry for you. Get a life!

    27. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had, India currently HAS the problem.

      Keep working on past present and future tense there bob from Kansas.

    28. Re:That's actually debateable by cashman73 · · Score: 2

      The H1Bs put in 80 hour work weeks not because they want to, but because they have to. If they don't, they're ass is on the first plane back to India, because their H1B sponsorship ends. Corporations can do this because the law lets them; plus, there is an almost endless supply of new H1Bs willing to take their place.

    29. Re:That's actually debateable by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      "You can't compete with India."

      Sure "you" can. I used to work at a company that offshored a portion of its tech work to India. On average, the projects in India had a burn-rate of 2/5 (two fifths) of the U.S. burn rate.

      The schedule? Five halves (5/2) or *worse* of the duration of a similar U.S. schedule. It was a total washout, or worse, to send the work offshore.

      YMMV, and all, but the idea that a caste system causes a winning situation is false.

    30. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This! This is the problem with American capitalism today. People work 80+ hour weeks and think this is somehow a good thing.

    31. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only children and fools think success springs from sudden inspiration, and not years of dedication.

      Not everyone who works long hours is successful, but almost everyone who is successful started out working long hours.

    32. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but in an 8 hour day they only work about 5 hours.

      Coincidentally, that's about the amount of effective hours you could expect from just about anyone. I think I read some study on that some time ago. People don't seem to be made to work for 8 hours at a 100% productivity utilization.

      Absolutely. We do not need more stuff, we need better quality stuff, and it does not come out from somebody who works 80-hour weeks. This is simple biology. You get what you pay for, and you will be drowning in junk with this practice, and we already are

    33. Re:That's actually debateable by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      If they really have such a "cast" system, couldn't they easily address the complaints of unfair foreign competition by something like this:

      Programmer = (American) IndianProgrammer;

      ?

    34. Re:That's actually debateable by computational+super · · Score: 1

      Talking that way - I could never do anything like that.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    35. Re:That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he meant caste system

    36. Re: That's actually debateable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy from a country that had legal discrimination and segregation of non white folks.. Right.

      And that answers my question "How stupid about history are you?" because you described a practice done on every single place on the planet.

  10. Parts of the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't California considered "one particular part of the world"?

    Foolish lawsuit.

  11. Re:Fiduciary duty by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are underscoring the very heart of this issue. Why is only one industry a candidate for this legal replacement? H-!B should be open to all professions or not at all. Also there should be a set amount of H-!Bs available at every salary level, including executive/administrative.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  12. Re:Fiduciary duty by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    For that matter, if a university could be entirely staffed by a team from India and run at half the cost, isn't it that university's fiduciary duty to change out its entire staff?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  13. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "opinion ?"

    You have a space between 'opinion' and '?'. This example of bad grammar has completely invalidated your argument.

  14. Re:Fiduciary duty by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    You have a space between 'opinion' and '?'. This example of bad grammar has completely invalidated your argument.

    I wouldn't go that far. A space between the end of string and the input question mark was common in some versions of BASIC. Old habits die hard.

  15. Re: Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seems like a good idea until the first time you step into shit in the parking lot.

  16. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that many assistant professors aren't originally from the US, I'd say they already have. But, when few Americans pursue doctorate degrees who then do universities hire for teaching and research?

    We did this to ourselves. America won't be a functioning country by 2100 just a Balkanized collection of nations who hate each other.

  17. Re:Fiduciary duty by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    More likely he's a cheese monkey.

    It's actually correct to write it that way in French, retarded though it is.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Financial punishments are not enough by zerofoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The law prohibits using the H-1B visa to replace American workers with foreign workers.

    Put a few decision makers in prison and watch how fast this stops.

    1. Re:Financial punishments are not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An old historian ( friend of Lenin ) observed that shooting a few company CEOs does wonders for private industry treatment of employees. If the old companies crap-out -- then there's always another optimistic business-man to snatch-for-the-ring !

    2. Re:Financial punishments are not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they didn't replace American workers. They got rid of their IT department and outsourced it to a consulting firm. They won't be held liable for how that outsourcing firm hires workers. This is a loop hole Trump will not fix because he's full of shit.

    3. Re:Financial punishments are not enough by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      This is a loop hole Trump will not fix because his hotel business isn't affected by it.

      FTFY.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  19. I know you're just trolling by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but it's not poor Indians coming over here. It's their middle class. Somebody might read your BS comment and think there's something to it and that would be worse than useless. You're not hurting Indian tech workers by making them stay in India. Not very much anyway. Now, that's not to say their country isn't a hell hole that could use improvement. But the thing is, let _them_ fix it. Not because I'm being as ass, but because they're their countries Middle Class. They're the only ones with any power to effect change. The poor can't. It's all they can do to survive (many don't). The rich won't. They like slave labor. That leaves the Middle Class. They have a responsibility to their country and right now they're shirking it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I know you're just trolling by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

      Just call me a Nazi already and Godwin the bloody thread why don't you? Opps, just did it myself.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    2. Re:I know you're just trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming something you disagree is racism just because you disagree with it is trolling. Not only that, it diminishes the experiences of actual racism victims. If anyone here is supporting a racist agenda, it's you.

    3. Re:I know you're just trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      racism is power + prejudice. you can't marginalize immigrants over privileged white people.

    4. Re:I know you're just trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding me?

    5. Re:I know you're just trolling by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      racism is power + prejudice.

      I see idiots have found their way to /. :-p

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:I know you're just trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idiot crying about white oppression was the one being racist. The British oppressed India, not the US. But people like you think all white people look the same and should all share the blame because they share a skin color. You are the true racist.

    7. Re:I know you're just trolling by computational+super · · Score: 2

      You're arguing with a paid Tata consulting shill (and maybe a bot).

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    8. Re:I know you're just trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with much of your comment, you missed something. At a personal level, your choice comes down to self-interest, what you think you can accomplish, and how much time and energy you are willing to invest. In any job, in any business, in any country.

      For most, changing a country is an absurd ask. It's too big a goal, it's out of reach, and they can't link their personal accomplishments to larger societal change anyway.

      Thus at a personal level, it's usually easier for someone from India (let's say) to emigrate. Get into a better environment, with more job opportunities, more infrastructure,. The individual can usually make more progress this way.

      Also, I'm not willing to let the Rich off the hook. If the Middle Class has responsibilities, why don't the Rich have the same responsibilities? Just dismissing this as 'well the Rich won't cooperate and so we give them a pass' is excusing them from their duties as citizens.

      At some level, you get a response to what your expectations are. Set the correct expectations and you will get better outcomes. Even if not ideal, the expectations set some kind of standard of behavior.

    9. Re:I know you're just trolling by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      You're arguing with a paid Tata consulting shill (and maybe a bot).

      Tata pays poor Indians to shill, not a bot. It's cheaper. That's kind of the point.

      Shit, if they tried to write a bot to do it, the project would take 48 months and of the resulting code, 30% of it would never execute, 30% of it would be buggy, 30% of it would be copied and pasted from StackOverflow, and 30% of it would be stolen from the firmware of one of those electronic coffee machines.

  20. Re:Fiduciary duty by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Fuck.

    They were doing that back in the 80's. Every fucking math teacher I had could barely fucking speak English. All I understood in calculus was DYDX, which was apparently the only fucking English the fucker knew.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  21. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you even have your IT workers file a lawsuit? Isn't that a job for lawyers? At least an offshore outsourcing firm might hire actual lawyers to file the lawsuit. I guess I just don't see the harm in the situation where "University of California IT Workers (are) Replaced By Offshore Outsourcing Firm To File (a) Discrimination Lawsuit."

  22. Re:Fiduciary duty by sycodon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    H Fucking B1 should be eliminated.

    There is no fucking way some dude from a country where the majority of people are shitting outside, next to their water well is more qualified than anyone in America.

    H-B1 is just so hypocritical assholes in the SJW Silicon Valley businesses can save money while they bitch and moan about men now being able to shower in the women's locker room.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  23. questionable by superwiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HCL may be India-based, but it's going to be hard to prove that this is offshoring. HCL has a lot of US operations. It's practically a subsidiary of Microsoft in the US, in fact. They definitely employ a lot of people in the US. So they may be able to pass it off as simply outsourcing rather than offshoring of their operations. It's going to come down to personal accounts of who were the replacements whom the laid-off workers were training. If they are US residents, this isn't likely to go anywhere.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:questionable by superwiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just saw that they were also going for age discrimination. This should be a much easier to prove. I am not sure why IT workers don't sue for age discrimination more often, actually. It's rampant.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    2. Re:questionable by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " I am not sure why IT workers don't sue for age discrimination more often, actually. It's rampant."

      The majority of us with the balls to sue can't because - get this - the limit for age discrimination is 40+, not say 21+, as it should be.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:questionable by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      It's practically a subsidiary of Microsoft in the US

      Huh? Or is this just anti-Microsoft fodder by trying to associate their names together?

    4. Re:questionable by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Or is this just anti-Microsoft fodder by trying to associate their names together?

      How do you figure? HCL has 3 main locations here: https://www.hcltech.com/career.... And the one in Redmond is in the middle of MS campus. I don't see anything smearing about this. They are hiring in the US to do work in the US for a US company. What's the "fodder" part of it?

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

      FWIW, I am a White American born in California to American parents. Tech working. Working for HCL America (the US branch). Soon to be transferring to Ireland and stealing the Irish peoples jobs.

      What I say to people who fear Indian's is to grow up it's a global economy, maybe you should try to compete. I don't have a college degree either.

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

      " I am not sure why IT workers don't sue for age discrimination more often, actually. It's rampant."

      The majority of us with the balls to sue can't because - get this - the limit for age discrimination is 40+, not say 21+, as it should be.

      Most groups don't sue because most of the members of the group don't have the financial resources to forgo the severance package. Most companies will not
      give you a severance check until you sign away your rights to sue.

      So then you have 3 hurdles. You have to prove that you signed under duress, find an attorney that thinks your case has merit as was as works on contingency and live on your savings until either the case is resolved in your favor or until you find a new job.

      Funny thing about the last one, I've actually been told that some companies won't even interview people who are unemployed ... makes it kind of hard to find a new job.

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

      Didn't PG&E which is also in California just do the same thing? To the same outsourcing firm? Do the university and the utility share board members who might profit perhaps? Why would we allow outsourcing of ANY critical infrastructure IT job to a foreign company no matter how friendly or supposedly secure? Isn't that just begging to be pwned? It should be illegal. Universities should definitely hire local just to set an example. Or maybe this is admitting they can't train their own graduates well enough to work for them?

    8. Re: questionable by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Or maybe this is admitting they can't train their own graduates well enough to work for them?

      But HCL hires Americans in the US. The university is just not doing its own infrastructure work. It's hiring an outside company to do it. If HCL (as it seems to often do) hires US residents to work in its US operations, then it might hire this university's grads. The university also doesn't run it's own electric power station to generate all of its power. It doesn't mean that it can't train electrical engineers. I am not too familiar with the HCL internal operations, but from what I"ve seen and heard they are not a backdoor way of replacing US workers with foreign counterparts. They just operate globally. And like I said, it will all depend on who the laid off workers will be training. If they are forced to train non-resident (those without Green Cards or US citizenship), then there might be a case. But if they are training US-based employees of HCL, then it's just restructuring of HCL's business.

      Didn't PG&E which is also in California just do the same thing?

      That's entirely possible. I don't know. It's also entirely possible that HCL learned their lesson and started hiring americans for its american operations after a public scandal. I am not saying that they are above board in their operations, but I am saying that they seem to have all the infrastructure in place to be above board on this. Whether or not they are doing what you'd want them to do with that infrastructure is the proverbial devil in the details. I don't know.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    9. Re:questionable by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lot of It workers are white males, and making any discrimination claim as a white male is challenging, especially if you're only in your early 50s. You can expect low unemployment figures and high salaries to be trotted out as examples of how you're not really a member of an at-risk class.

      What I'd wager is intrinsic to the problem of age discrimination is that older workers often have family commitments, and when combined with spouses working at similar professional careers and children, leads to an apparent decline in workplace engagement. The older employee is less able to devote their lives to the job (learning new tech for free in their own time, or at least less of this, working overtime hours, short-notice travel, etc).

      IMHO, it's less "age discrimination" than "life situation discrimination". Younger employees living in rental housing without spouses or children are just more competitive in the workplace because they have nothing to do but work.

      I don't really know how you fix it, either. In an ideal world, I'd presume that the *society* would recognize that children come from parents and parents need to engage in their families to produce productive, well-educated children, and that workers of parenting age are going to be less engaged. Thus, labor would be structured in a way that doesn't penalize this kind of natural life cycle.

    10. Re:questionable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

    11. Re:questionable by ghoul · · Score: 1

      This can be fixed by making it mandatory for companies' to pay for daycare or provide onsite daycare. Also carve out an exception to the discrimination laws if companies want to structure your salary as Base+Family allowance which has amounts which increase with increase in family size . Also allow Housing allowances which the company can base on family size. All of these are allowed in Europe.
      But the fact of the matter is all the middle aged parent were young bachelors/spinsters at some point. They could have saved the money for when they would need to hire nannies to keep up the same level of engagement so people will feel its unfair to cut them a break now. The same people will be middle aged parents with no savings in 10 years time.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    12. Re:questionable by swb · · Score: 1

      The problem is, nobody earns any serious saving money in their 20s. My savings were for shit until I was in my 30s and quite often drained with stupid shit like car repairs, apartment moves or other life situation stuff. I felt like I was doing well not running around with $5k in credit card debt.

      Plus today's 20-somethings are not just managing those expenses, but juggling $500 student loan payments.

      I just think it's weird how society shits on people who are otherwise responsible parents. Where do they think human beings come from, a store?

      You would think that supporting family life and the resulting mostly normal, well-adjusted contributors-to-society it generally produces would be a broadly accepted social value. Instead we seem to have greedy assholes who gripe about people taking care of their kids -- when they're not bitching about problems that result from the shitty family lives they enable by making it tough to raise a family.

    13. Re:questionable by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How is it easier to prove age discrimination? A business will come up with some legal reason not to hire someone, or to lay someone off, and it's difficult to prove otherwise.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:questionable by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Well the Student Loan problem is because we allow everyone to go to college as long as they can pay for it. Of course not everyone is cut out for college so we let them waster 4 years in luxury courses (as in should only be taken by the indepently rich) like Art History and Women's Studies. So they end up in debt without a real career. So they work as Baristas and other pseudo jobs and since they are college educated demand 15 dollars per hour. This drives up the Cost of Living for everyone so that even the productive folks struggle to save money.
      Solution would be for the State to fund college but have a nationwide standardized test (no multple attempts as that favors richer kids) and fund the college of the top 30%. The rest can go to vocational schools on the govt's dime or if they want to fund their own education do it without Student loans.
      It will allow poor and rich smart kids to go to college, rich dumb kids to waste their parnets' money but avoid burdening poor kids with a huge loan for a course which has no career. The poor dumb kids go to vocational school and learn a money earning skill without the burden of student debt.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
    15. Re:questionable by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I didn't figure anything, I asked. Thanks for backing-up your assertion.

    16. Re:questionable by swb · · Score: 1

      I agree that a well-structured kind of placement/vocational exam would be a good idea, especially if coupled with heavy subsidies for people who choose an education path that aligns with their test results. We want to encourage and make it easy for people to get into fields (academic or vocational) they're compatible with in some objective way.

      I would worry that it would slightly ingrain a caste system, though, where people who could afford it would send their kids to more academic programs anyway even if they didn't test into them, thus insuring the rich maintained a lock on the best paying jobs. You might be able to fix this with just more intensive academic standards in school -- so even if daddy buys you a slot in college, you're still at risk of failing out because you're not good enough.

      I think the other thing you need to do is somehow alter wage distribution to make "vocational" fields higher paid with improved working conditions (ie, less of the hostile labor/management style division found even in highly skilled vocations).

  24. They forgot the first rule of outsourcing by Trogre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first rule of outsourcing:

    Don't.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:They forgot the first rule of outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second rule of outsourcing is to not talk about outsourcing.

  25. LOL by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You think the cost savings was passed onto the students? Oh that's a good one.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course not. With the money saved, they can hire another diversity coordinator.

  26. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You couldn't be more wrong. Universities tend to pay below market for IT positions. The upside is that you tend to work closer to 40 hours and get decent benefits.

    As someone who actually works for a university, I can assure you that we are not unionized and easily could make 10k to 15k more if I left.

  27. Re:Fiduciary duty by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't like what the University of California is doing, no problem, bag it, rag on it, grind it's reputation to dust. The charge to much, their degrees are shit, the professors abuse students, the facilities are horrible, make them spend ten times as much as they saved on countering negative publicity. Hate what they did, let them feel that financial pain. Don't forget they have no pretty much abandoned to privacy of their students to a foreign contractor. Why would any business trust them with research when a foreign outsourcing contractor now controls access to those secrets. Doing research, a new thesis, a major book, well, now all you work is open to foreign entities, your secrets up for sale (don't think so, think how much they are worth and how much and underpaid H1B can sell the for, especially compared to the sub-standard wage). Research Universities want to open up the network security to foreign 'FOR PROFIT' entities, well, it's major emergency time to shift all the research, delete the data and all backups, otherwise you will see a foreign company suddenly releasing that research et al as their own.

    You want to know exactly how I would spy on a country, fill it full of espionage agents pretending to be cheap H1B labour, all operating independently upon seize opportunities as they come up and there will be major rewards for success (no comms leaks, no conspiracy links, just take your chances for major rewards, part ownership of the secrets obtained and passed on, and wow, is US security leaky as across the board and it is just starting to get really bad, some have been there for a quite a while, good luck). By secrets I mean every single kind, industrial, financial, extortion, everything of value and the agents work until they have build up sufficient 'er' investments to retire back home.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  28. This can't be true by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 0

    "University of California IT Workers Replaced By Offshore Outsourcing "

    I've been assured by Democrats that this *never* happens. Surely they wouldn't be lying, would they?

    1. Re:This can't be true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of pot are you smoking and why aren't you sharing with everyone? There have been senators and house reps that spoke up against large corporations off-shoring. For example Bernie sanders has been railing against it for over a decade. The majority of of both parties have supported off-shoring, since they are paying for their campaigns and "other" stuff. Go look at the voting record before you take a hit from the bong. You've been screwed by both parties. As an independent, I wish both parties would just die and go away already.

    2. Re:This can't be true by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you now have a Republican president who has personally been involved in offshore outsourcing to save costs in his own company so you're completely safe now.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:This can't be true by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      What kind of pot are you smoking and why aren't you sharing with everyone? There have been senators and house reps that spoke up against large corporations off-shoring. For example Bernie sanders has been railing against it for over a decade. The majority of of both parties have supported off-shoring, since they are paying for their campaigns and "other" stuff. Go look at the voting record before you take a hit from the bong. You've been screwed by both parties. As an independent, I wish both parties would just die and go away already.

      I get it, I'm an independent, also. But Republicans are the ones who have been talking properly about this on (with Trump actually doing something about it, by the way) while Democrats are assuring us that there is no problem. Hillary even wanted to expand the H-1B program.

    4. Re:This can't be true by eyenot · · Score: 1

      I nominate this comment and it's parent "Comments Of The Day".

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  29. Those new IT workers should illegally immigrate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because we all know it's ok if an illegal immigrant steals a job.

  30. Trump is blowing smoke by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    if he was serious he would have rescinded the Obama Executive Order allowing spouses of H1-Bs to work in America signed in 2015. Trump could do that today. The fact that he hasn't isn't an oversight. He's just telling people what they want to hear, but in the end he will side with big business because he's one of them. Always was.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Trump is blowing smoke by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      "...Executive Order allowing spouses of H1-Bs to work in America signed in 2015."

      Given that the U.S. has H1-B workers, that's actually an allowance that I support. I'd rather that the U.S. limited the number of fundamental H1-Bs in the first place. The thing with the spouses is just compassionate noise, IMO.

      At one point, Trump was proposing an H1-B process that would prioritize the highest-paid H1-B positions. That would support businesses' claims that they "need H1-Bs in order to get skilled workers". If the workers are needed that badly, then pay them well.

      "...in the end he will side with big business because he's one of them. Always was."

      Yes, I think that's the most likely final outcome.

    2. Re:Trump is blowing smoke by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1
      (replying to my own post, to finish this thought)

      At one point, Trump was proposing an H1-B process that would prioritize the highest-paid H1-B positions. That would support businesses' claims that they "need H1-Bs in order to get skilled workers". If the workers are needed that badly, then pay them well.

      Conversely, if businesses are just trying to find cheap labor with H1-Bs, then those cheap H1-Bs go to the bottom of the pile, never to see the light of day. Mathematically, this is how an H1-B skilled-labor process ought to work, if it is real.

    3. Re:Trump is blowing smoke by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      At one point, Trump was proposing an H1-B process that would prioritize the highest-paid H1-B positions.

      That is the one Trump proposal I've seen that I really like. It would allow businesses to bring in people with high-demand skills while not depressing pay for US citizens and legal residents.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  31. Re:Fiduciary duty by FictionPimp · · Score: 2

    Yep, when I left a community college I got almost a 30k bump in salary for the exact same position. I lost great benefits and a fairly casual atmosphere, but it was worth it in the end.

  32. government workers by ooloorie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Would some progressive care to explain why government employees like these should be protected from cheap, young, foreign labor, while at the same time other workers should be forced to compete with cheap, young, Mexican migrants?

    1. Re:government workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a progressive but sure Ill try.

      Mexicans pick fruits and vegetables, doing a job NO ONE WANTS, that PAYS HORRIBLE.

      H1B workers are imported to DEPRESS WAGES. If we were bringing in H1B workers to pick strawberries, there would be no complaint.

    2. Re:government workers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      As a progressive, I don't know what you're talking about. There should be no difference between government and other workers in cases like this.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:government workers by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      - Using cheap young foreign labor (migrant Mexicans) to compete with American blue collar workers? You approve!

      - Using cheap young foreign labor (Indian IT workers) to compete with American IT workers? You disapprove!

      Obviously, "as a progressive", you fail to see the hypocrisy in this.

    4. Re:government workers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Your telepathy helmet is obviously on the blink. Examine the "approve/disapprove" circuits.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    5. Re:government workers by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The competitive difference between a company that hires only white males as engineers and one that tries to hire the best engineers is mostly lost in the noise

      It's not telepathy; you identified politically as a progressive in this very thread. Progressives support large scale illegal and legal immigration and admission of refugees. Why did you self-identify as a progressive in this thread if you don't actually support progressive immigration policies?

    6. Re:government workers by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Okay, name a political philosophy you like. Should I feel free to ascribe every facet of that philosophy to you, or would you insist on being able to make up your own mind without carefully checking into what people in your political movement have said? I describe myself as a liberal, progressive, or leftist as shorthand. I'm also strongly in favor of nuclear power plants, which is somewhat unusual for leftists.

      How about I ascribe distorted versions of your philosophy's views? I don't know progressives that are actually in favor of illegal immigration. Do not confuse this with how people want illegal immigrants treated. Typically but not universally, progressives are for larger scale legal immigration and admission of refugees, and would rather give illegal immigrants a way to become legal than crack down on individual illegal immigrants.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:government workers by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I don't know progressives that are actually in favor of illegal immigration. Do not confuse this with how people want illegal immigrants treated. Typically but not universally, progressives are for larger scale legal immigration and admission of refugees, and would rather give illegal immigrants a way to become legal than crack down on individual illegal immigrants.

      So you are saying that you, and progressives in general, are "not in favor of illegal immigration", and on the other hand they "want to give illegal immigrants a way to become legal". Sounds to me that my "telepathy helmet" is working just fine. Your discomfort comes from the fact that this is not a logically consistent position. And even if you think it is, we tried this 30 years ago and it didn't work. In fact, it is a slap in the face for legal immigrants like myself.

      I describe myself as a liberal, progressive, or leftist as shorthand.

      Well, and indeed you hold mainstream "liberal, progressive, and leftist" political positions. And like most of that leftist mainstream, you hold to a set of logically inconsistent rationalizations, mostly carefully crafted propaganda for the economically and historically illiterate.

      The actual logical edifice that ties together American leftist ideology is much simpler: it's whatever gets Democrats elected. They just miscalculated for the last few years, because they didn't manage to pull the wool over the eyes of American workers and legal immigrants this time: more and more of those voters are figuring out that admitting large numbers of refugees and legalizing illegals by the millions is not in their interest.

      Okay, name a political philosophy you like.

      I'm a classical liberal and an advocate of free markets, as represented by Bastiat, von Mises, Hayek, Sowell, Jefferson, and Adam Smith.

      Should I feel free to ascribe every facet of that philosophy to you, or would you insist on being able to make up your own mind without carefully checking into what people in your political movement have said?

      I have carefully checked into what these people have said. I may disagree on some details with them, but overall, they represent my views on government, morality, and economics.

      Now your turn.

  33. Socially Shame the Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Going Anonymous because I am deep in the industry and don't need my name associated to this comment.

    You are not going to beat these organizations in court and walk away with just compensation. The lawyers will win big and the workers will end up getting the equivalent of a coupon to Red Lobster out of the settlement. Their names are forever stuck in a Google search showing they sue employers.

    If you really want to stop outsourcing in America, you need to socially punish the managers that advocate and those that are close to them (family and friends). Publish their names online with their Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram, and Linkedin accounts. Inform their friends and family who are linked to them that it would be in their best interest to "unfriend/unfollow" them or they will be caught up in the social shaming for supporting the perpetrator. Faceless corporations and colleges are not replacing workers, human beings are. Identify those human beings and magnify their actions for the public to see. Pressure their relationships to follow suit or they will suffer the social shame as well. Make a personal cost for the activity at an individual level. (Rule #13)

    Make the practice of screwing Americans hurt in the social arena in addition to having their family and friends shun them. If you really want to solve this overnight, hand over the names of Americans outsourcing jobs to H1-Bs to the weaponized autists of 4chan.

    1. Re:Socially Shame the Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really want to stop outsourcing in America, you need to socially punish the managers that advocate and those that are close to them (family and friends).

      I think you're on to something, if by "socially punish" you really mean "gun down."

    2. Re:Socially Shame the Management by jodokast98 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like typical SJW solutions...poo poo until you ruin someone's life all because you don't like something.

    3. Re:Socially Shame the Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can find a way for people to add value to society above what someone growing up ib the third world can do, I mean seriously, someone growing up without food or running water let alone elericity can take "your job" the wtf does it mean?It means you are going to be unneeded and a burden. If you have to force people to not get a robot and basically handout you a job .. what value are you?

    4. Re: Socially Shame the Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People won't give a shit if they see Ramesh, Sanjeet, and Pajeet hiring only Indians. It's only a problem if white people do it.

    5. Re:Socially Shame the Management by overlook77 · · Score: 1

      Terrible idea. In a large corporation there's rarely "a boss" that independently makes decisions like this. You may have several layers of management just doing what they were told to do by a finance department or someone very high up the food chain. I'm not making a specific comment on whether I agree or disagree with H-1B or outsourcing due to the nature of my job, but I can tell you one of the departments under me is in India and when I received a promotion this wasn't something I decided (both doing business offshore as well as even managing this group, it was assigned to me). My boss is relatively new and offshore was already in place before he transferred to the department. So an onshore employee under me may think offshoring is something either I or my direct manager control which isn't entirely true. Someone personally attacking either of us would be extraordinarily unfair, and I probably would pursue some sort of legal action (or certainly HR) if that were to happen. I think it makes more sense to do whatever you want directed at the company itself, not the individuals.

    6. Re:Socially Shame the Management by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Sounds like typical SJW solutions...poo poo until you ruin someone's life all because you don't like something.

      I wish I had mod points, this deserves to be marked down as a troll. Anyone who uses the term "SJW" is completely full of shit and should be treated accordingly.

      The GP was half way right. You need to go after the managers and "decision makers" who are responsible, but forget social media. You need to hurt them in the hip pocket. Legal and financial disincentives are what is needed to stymie outsourcing. PR can handle any social discontent, it's when their positions are threatened because its costing more to outsource than to hire local will they change.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:Socially Shame the Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Disagree. Those were the terms you accepted when you took the job. Don't want to be seen an an offshoring "middle manager" asshat? don't take the job.

    8. Re:Socially Shame the Management by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 2

      ... but forget social media. You need to hurt them in the hip pocket.

      I would like to point out that it was social media that hurt United Airlines in the hip pocket, after they forcibly ejected that doctor from an airplane, and tried to blow it off like he was some unruly asshole. So, outing bad behaviors in public may help achieve the monetary effect.

    9. Re:Socially Shame the Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dilution of responsibility. "I was only following orders."

  34. Re: the moral of the story is: don't hire American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woah, dude. Your synapses are firing on another level.

  35. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The university did it's fiduciary duty to its students and the state by lowering costs substantially, replacing a bunch of overpaid and probably union workers with a much, much cheaper alternative.... and they think this is going to be overturned by a lawsuit? With the soaring cost of college these days, honestly they should be applauded and used as an example.

    The university has no fiduciary duty to the students nor to the state.
    I don't know what you think that word means, but you're using it wrong.

  36. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that many assistant professors aren't originally from the US, I'd say they already have. But, when few Americans pursue doctorate degrees who then do universities hire for teaching and research?

    We did this to ourselves. America won't be a functioning country by 2100 just a Balkanized collection of nations who hate each other.

    Hate to break it to you, but getting a PhD is a sure way to kill your job opportunities in more than a couple of fields.

  37. I've got the best solution by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Let's just make it illegal to hire all foreign workers so that every one of our tech companies moves entirely overseas and takes every American tech job with it. Wait, making competition illegal isn't the solution then?

    1. Re:I've got the best solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monday: Facebook moves to India.

      Tuesday: Suddenly MySpace makes a comeback.

      Wednesday: Everybody is still laughing.

      Thursday: Nobody gets the joke.

      Friday: Squirrel!

    2. Re:I've got the best solution by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Nice move.

      Here, I'll just have congress tariff the fuck out of them for trying to peddle their services to American telecom companies from overseas. Check. Hmm and simultaneously have congress budget some more startup and small business incentives so the run-always are replaced with brand new, fresh, American jobs for actually qualified Americans. Mate!

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  38. stupid fucking low status beta peasants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    qed.

  39. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately for you, American managers don't agree. You idiots go from "The hiring manager hired me because I'm smart" to "The hiring manager hired the brown guy because they're greedy!" without realizing the irony of the situation.

    The _REALITY_ of the situation is that all IT workers are overpaid. IT is going to be the next burger flipper profession. Computer are getting easier and easier to use, and soon they're going to be managed entirely through the cloud. Meraki is already doing a fantastic job with networks, and soon azure AD will replace on-premise AD for tons of companies. The train is coming so you either figure out a way to get on it or get crushed. There is nothing you or your boy trump can do about it.

  40. I've met University of San Francisco IT staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *I* wouldn't hire any of them. They've been brainwashed by the whole political left "I *identify* as whatever I think I want to be" wackiness, including "I *identify* has knowing how to spell DNS and therefore should be given control of the network!"

    1. Re: I've met University of San Francisco IT staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What percentage were pajeets and what percentage were gender fluid other kin? Did you do the needful?

    2. Re:I've met University of San Francisco IT staff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging from your comment we should all be thankful you are in no position to hire anyone. Talk about incoherent.

  41. A Long Shot by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    From the top does there exist hard evidence that only certain types of people, or races or age groups will be hired or is that simply an assumption? If I outsource blue jeans to a company in Burma am I under legal compulsion to be certain that they do not race or age discriminate? Is age or race discrimination legal in Burma? Can these employees find enough money to pay for that expensive and probably long lasting law suit? Is the outsourcing to a foreign corporation or an extension of the university. I would not want my money squandered in such a pursuit.

  42. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought you racists were against affirmative action because you felt people should be allowed to hire who they think are fittest for the job.

  43. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you get what you take, your legacy

  44. Re: Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That shit is externalized

  45. Re: Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    H1Bs are not qualified. Go back to shitting in the street Ramesh

  46. Re: Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahahahahhaa

  47. Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    Let's just indulge a little fantasy here and speculate that it is just barely possible that the actual motivation for outsourcing these jobs was not, in fact, due to their age, skin color, or the length of their tenure, but rather that they are simply more expensive than their Indian counterparts. Can we really take this lawsuit seriously?

    We should just let the cost of education continue to rise without bound. Cost cutting measures are just too... costly.

    The only winners here will be, as usual, lawyers.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  48. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Are you actually blaming the spiraling cost of education on IT workers being too expensive?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  49. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it would be simplistic to assume that there could be a single cause for the higher cost of higher education, but it does seem reasonable to assume that the cost of labor is a contributing factor. Is my math wrong?

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  50. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would you even have your IT workers file a lawsuit? Isn't that a job for lawyers? At least an offshore outsourcing firm might hire actual lawyers to file the lawsuit. I guess I just don't see the harm in the situation where "University of California IT Workers (are) Replaced By Offshore Outsourcing Firm To File (a) Discrimination Lawsuit."

    Because the American legal system doesn't allow lawyers to go around filing lawsuits willy-nilly. There has to be a complainant to assert injury, then the lawyers represent him/her/it/them.

  51. Re:Fiduciary duty by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    If there's only one thing certain in American education it's that costs of providing education and what students are paying aren't at all related.

  52. Just a note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ta Ta has hired a PR company to "counter-post" sites like /. with comments designed
    to raise doubts and confusion about the merits of the original article in favor of

    firing natural-born Americans in favor of cheap foreign labor is okay

    type of ideas. These guys are pretty good, having mostly master the use of the definite
    article in most places in their writing. So they're really difficult to spot. One way to spot
    them is the lack of contractions they will use in their writing, and when they do use a
    contraction, it won't be the "unusual" type, e.g. "they'd", etc.

    So, /. readers, be careful...

    CAP === 'tacitly'

  53. Goodbye H1B! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My opinion is the H1B should be reduced considerably, if not eliminated over time. Its terribly bad for the American IT worker and there is no incentive for any American kids to get into Computer Science because they won't get paid well compared to other lines of work. It essentially destroys the computer industry in this country.

    I am in agreement that any corporate manager who condones the H1B should be exposed for the true frauds that they are.

    Thanks Corporate America.... you certainly have our back!

  54. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The minor grammatical error was only there to distract you from the glaring logic errors. Mission accomplished!

  55. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You couldn't be more wrong. Universities tend to pay below market for IT positions. The upside is that you tend to work closer to 40 hours and get decent benefits.

    Yep, it was the only IT job I had where the one workaholic full-time guy had to be reminded by the managers to go home every time he hit 40 hours in a week.

  56. Re:Fiduciary duty by laughingskeptic · · Score: 1

    Re: "Why would any business trust them with research when a foreign outsourcing contractor now controls access to those secrets."

    California Universities have an open research policy. Their professors will not sign an NDA, so companies like my former employer will already not work with them. I tried to bring one of their professors on as an expert on a project and learned this pretty quickly.

  57. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    Basically, yes your maths is wrong because you haven't done any. Compare how much the cost of university has risen compared to the increases in wages over the same time, say 10 or 20 years. Do that and you'll see that the cost of university has risen far, far faster.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  58. Re:Fiduciary duty by mtmiller100 · · Score: 1

    Your argument lost all of its teeth, the second you used the word "probably", instead of supplying facts.

  59. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    Well, I did look around a bit for a nice graph indicating the cost of IT departments in general (not specifically for university IT departments, or for universities in California), but I can't find any such historical statistics. If you have a source, please feel free to share. Being in IT myself, I'm willing to bet that costs have risen somewhat over the last 20 years.

    Just for the record, I have witnessed and been a "victim" of this outsourcing practice first hand. The Indian company that replaced me was totally incompetent, but cheap. I did not, however, go crying to the government to protect "my" job. I simply got another job, and my life went on. From what I've heard since then, my former employer was far more miserably as a result of this decision than I was.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  60. Re:Fiduciary duty by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    I"m not just talking about professors. I'm talking about support staff, people collecting the garbage, maintenance people, janitors, people working cash registers.. Outsource it all to H1B if you're going to outsource it. Because as a person in an industry that is outsourced, I am now at a disadvantage in the economy compared to everyone else I live with. Outsourcing everyone is the only way for me to have prices set at a fair level for myself now, because I must compete in the economy with people who are not outsourced.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  61. Two schools of thought by mtmiller100 · · Score: 1

    At the end of the day, there are two schools of thought: 1. Outsourcing is good for the economy, because it increases purchasing power. 2. Outsourcing is bad for the economy, because it comes at the expense of American jobs. While both statements are true, I personally believe the price we pay in lost middle-class jobs outweighs the fact that I can save $50 on a TV. Other people disagree, and they're allowed to, and I still respect them and their opinion, because they're still good people, who formed their opinion based on what they believe is best. People also can change their minds on this issue. Here's two scenario's I've seen play-out several times (yes, I oversimplified them for the sake of clarity and word count): 1. Pro-outsourcing person has their own job outsourced, and suddenly the lower price of goods is offset by their lack of disposable income. Now it doesn't matter that a company was able to shave a few dollars of the price, by using foreign call-centers. This person no longer has any money at all to buy it at any cost. 2. Anti-outsourcing person lands a decent job, and has disposable income. They like the extra purchasing-power. They might outwardly say they are against outsourcing, but you don't see them deliberately buying American. I don't think there is a simply solution to this problem. Globalization is a very painful process for developed nations. It is a double-edged sword. Just my two cents.

  62. Re:Fiduciary duty by johanw · · Score: 1

    That's how they do it in India, not in civilised and clean countries.

  63. Re:Fiduciary duty by johanw · · Score: 1

    It's a cultural thing I guess. Where I studied, someone with a batchelor degree is considered someone who failed to obtain a master, not someone who has finished his education.

  64. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fun fact, more people in Mississippi have a TV than have indoor plumbing.

  65. Re:the moral of the story is: don't hire Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long time no see. It looks like the meds aren't working as great as they used to though, you should go get them adjusted.

  66. I'm more worried about the overall trend by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    I've been working in IT for almost 20 years, and have been involved in offshorings a few times. I've fortunately been able to get other jobs after this happens, but I worry about the overall direction of the industry:

    • - I worry about entry level IT jobs disappearing entirely or becoming so unattractive that no newbies want to join the profession. My life was a series of entry level IT jobs where I had enough responsibility and access to learn what I needed to learn at each stage. I imagine the same thing goes for programmers -- you don't let a total n00b make changes to your core application; you give them UI cleanup work or similar so they can learn. If all of those jobs go offshore or become minimum-wage level jobs, rational students aren't going to study CS or IT.
    • - As a result of the first thing, I also worry about having fewer places to jump to. Usually, offshoring goes in cycles where a new CIO comes into town and declares he can save millions by cutting the in-house workforce. When the reality hits, the company either terminates the contract or lets it ride until the end, then starts in-housing everything again. Not every company is in phase on this cycle, so it's been relatively easy to find work when it's your company's turn -- just find one that either never jumped on the bandwagon or is coming back from it. If the newbie pipeline dries up, then offshore firms will be able to say "See? No one domestically wants these jobs" the same way migrant farm work is justified.

    I feel really bad for the IT guys in this situation -- you join a public university system knowing you're not going to make a ton of money compared to the private sector. I know, because I know people who work in the SUNY system. They're trading off current salary for stability and a safe retirement, and are well aware of their choices. When you're midway through a career and are told that your public sector salary is still too high, that's a pretty big blow.

  67. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably due to government regulations on plumbing.

  68. Laws? by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

    As much as I feel for these people, is there any law here that applies that they have a chance of winning? Is there something on the books that states that a company cannot outsource to save money? I also what evidence they have on age / national origin discrimination, as that's usually difficult, barring obvious
      discriminatory statements in email and such.

    --
    "Science is the power of man"
  69. Doomed to fail? by InvalidsYnc · · Score: 1

    Is this kind of outsourcing just due to fail anyway?

    95% Engineers in India unfit for software development

    If their software engineers are unfit for development work, how fit could these young inexperienced guys be at other IT jobs? Does it fit with the 95%, or did HCL actually find some of the X% that are worthy of actually touching someone elses equipment?

    1. Re:Doomed to fail? by eyenot · · Score: 1

      India can't even academe, boasting similarly dismal figures in relation to academic fraud and bullshit peer review. Their only competitor in the world in those arenas is China.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  70. How do you spell b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t? by hackel · · Score: 1

    People whining about losing their jobs is downright pathetic. They know perfectly well that the other employees were cheaper, and that is all it comes down to. I'm sure if they all agreed to work for the same wages the Indian firm was charging (accounting for things like employment taxes, benefits, and all that), the university would be happy to hire them back.

    These people somehow think they're better than the millions of U.S. Americans who have lost their jobs to overseas manufacturing and other industries, but they're not. They are entitled, little shits and I hope the court shuts them down.

    1. Re:How do you spell b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a nice bootlicker you are.

    2. Re:How do you spell b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t? by eyenot · · Score: 1

      If they worked for the same fees as the Indians, they' did be living in the streets, "Down And Out In Beverly Hills" style. And San Francisco does not tolerate loitering!

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  71. Why Insourcing is good ... by techfilz · · Score: 1

    If you employ local people they spend their money in the local economy. If you train and develop local people, you spread more money around the local economy and you help develop your area and your country. Its also a lot easier to do collaborative, agile work when everyone is co-located. Sure you can outsource to a foreign country that bring people into the country, but they rarely stay longer than a couple of years and take your companies IP back home with them along with their accumulated savings. Outsourcing may seem cheaper - and it is at first - but in practice it works out more expensive for companies. Foreign outsourcing companies slowly ramp up the costs and their workers slowly increase their expectations of what they should earn. By the time a company wakes up from its outsourcing nightmare and decide they want to do it themselves , their own systems are a stranger to them.

  72. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you say this? You can always leave it off your resume

  73. Re:Fiduciary duty by computational+super · · Score: 1

    who hate each other

    Woohoo, I'm 83 years ahead of schedule!

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  74. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a hell of a stretch from A to B you've got going there... The fact that you mention AD proves your ignorance.

  75. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Universities all over the US use AD for managing devices. IT is going away buddy. No more showing up to work and goofing off..

  76. Age is a protected class by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but having been in a similar situation and after spending some time with a lawyer, I learned that age is indeed a protected class, but lawsuits of this nature typically take a very long time to get through the courts, and the chances of collecting, in the lawyer's words, are about 50/50.

    "National origin discrimination"... I haven't heard of that one, but hey, it's California. It might work.

    There have been, I think, some recent traction on companies not following rules on outsourcing, they may be able to use that.

    I dunno. I think winning is iffy, but I wish them the very best of luck, and maybe now is the time for this kind of suit to go through. Here's hoping they win and it becomes a precedent.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  77. Re:Fiduciary duty by swillden · · Score: 1

    Why is only one industry a candidate for this legal replacement? H-!B should be open to all professions or not at all.

    It is. Relevant to this discussion, one of my son's college professors is here on an H1-B visa. She's concerned that Trump's changes to the program may cost her her job. Oh, and she's not a CS/IT prof; she teaches Japanese Literature.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  78. Re:Fiduciary duty by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    They can always enjoy a career of writing batch files.

  79. Re:Fiduciary duty by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    So you're saying house builders are free to get carpenters through H-1B? Because if my salary will go down for it, I would like to know that house prices will go down relatively and I don't get stuck in some fiscal black hole. How can a person ever chose a profession if the most lucrative ones will just have a back door opened to relieve the price pressure? What the hell criteria do you go by?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  80. Democrats have to be removed from all power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it obvious that California is under one-party rule and that its Democrat-run government is attacking its citizens on purpose? There is no reason for a state-run university to outsource. If you need to cut costs, hire students.

  81. California does not like globalization suddenly? by jacekm · · Score: 1

    I guess California is OK with outsourcing as long as it affects flyover country only.

  82. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree, outsource all the professors and facilities staff too. Even cheaper, no buildings or classes. Best value: $20 gets your name printed on the degree of your choice. I mean, it's cheaper, they'd be doing their fiduciary duty, and the student gets a degree. Learning is, at best, ancillary to the sober work of cutting costs.

    Outsource the decision makers. They only people doing useful work in a college are the professors

  83. Premature for your hate-on for Trump. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, the horse isn't out of the gate and already there's attempts at blamestorming.

    Sockpuppet accounts.

  84. Pull their federal funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The leftist shitbags that run universities love nothing more than shitting all over America and Americans. It's time to remind these assholes who's paying the bill.

  85. Instant karma is going to be getting you, sahib! by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Alright University of California! Woo-hoo! Your big liberal plans for globalism, and putting the rights of foreign citizens first, and giving developing nations (like India) a hand, is starting to come to fruition! Marx is working!

    I was surprised to see that this is a bunch of over 40s suing to basically reverse what their notoriously unruly student body screams and fights to see happen.

    What will really be interesting is if they win, the student body will be able to use the precedent and sue for these exact same jobs to be given to may a few over 40 supervisors but by and large to the student body themselves where they belong.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  86. If We Use the Same Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we use the same litmus test that is used to gauge other discrimination cases, this is a slam dunk.

    In tort law, it is unimportant what is intended by a policy or act. What is important is the outcome. If the outcome is that a racial or ethnic group suffers a loss as the result of a policy, then that policy is discriminatory, even if the policy actors did not intend for it to be.

    If it can be shown that the group that suffered the loss is overwhelmingly over 40, or from a particular national origin, or some other protected class, then this case should sail right through court to Easy Street.

    1. Re:If We Use the Same Litmus Test by eyenot · · Score: 1

      If they file their tort claim properly.

      If the outcome looks so good, then I hope it goes to federal court. The precedent could change the national economy.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  87. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Why not just admit that if they'd given these jobs to students under a few faculty members for supervision, they might have also brought the cost down and also benefitted from several positive externalities?

    People who talk economics without understanding economics typically just argue endlessly. If you knew economics you could've made your own graph.

    Guess your might wasn't right enough!

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  88. Why Is This The Approach? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it kind of sad that these employees have to argue age discrimination? That seems like a second class argument to me.

    They should be arguing, that citizens are being treated as second-class citizens. Its a question of the treatment of citizens, not of ageism.

    No need even to get into anti-foreigner tirades, which is unproductive and potentially xenophobic. It's simple. Citizens are being treated as second-class citizens. Where's the respect for citizens?

  89. Re:Fiduciary duty by swillden · · Score: 1

    So you're saying house builders are free to get carpenters through H-1B?

    There's no reason why not. They'd just have to figure out how to satisfy the rather vague requirements of high skill. They'd have to be pretty highly skilled just to justify the effort, though, since it costs several thousand dollars to get a potential employee through the H1-B process.

    How can a person ever chose a profession if the most lucrative ones will just have a back door opened to relieve the price pressure?

    Just accept that you're competing on a global market. If someone in India, or Romania, or Brazil, or wherever can do my job for less money, I see no reason why they shouldn't do it. I have some enormous inbuilt advantages in my understanding of the culture and language, my access to high quality education, etc., and if I can't leverage all of those to outcompete them, I deserve to lose. Yes, this means Americans can't just coast on their luck at being born here. Boo hoo.

    My opinion is that we shouldn't have an H1-B program, instead we should allow anyone who wants to work in the US to do so. If that creates a larger influx than we can manage then we can be selective but we should still take every highly-skilled and highly-educated worker we possibly can. Brain drain the whole world, because that will keep the innovation and progress here, and keep our economy the most powerful in the world. Immigration has always been the engine that drives economic growth in the US. That was true when my ancestors arrived in the early 19th century, it was true when we used all the Nazi rocket scientists to win the space race, and it's true today.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  90. Re:Fiduciary duty by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    The main problem I have is that the H-1B is not fair because it is enough to replace me as a worker but it is not enough for me to have lower cost of living. If I am competing on a global market then so should everyone, and it will only balance once the prices come down on goods. As it sits right now, companies get a break on cost but yet there is no pressure on them to lower prices.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  91. Re:Fiduciary duty by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    So, as I forgot to say, I agree with your solution to the issue as long as prices fall to global averages as well as salaries.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  92. Welcome to the liberal global economy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's exactly what you fuckers in California deserve. Sod off and die, all of you.

    --signed

    Everyone NOT in a liberal state/city.

  93. Re:Fiduciary duty by swillden · · Score: 1

    The main problem I have is that the H-1B is not fair because it is enough to replace me as a worker but it is not enough for me to have lower cost of living

    That's a potential argument against outsourcing, but not against H-1B. The H-1B worker lives in the US and pays the same prices you do.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  94. Re:Fiduciary duty by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    But they live in the US under worse living conditions because they know it isn't permanent. Meanwhile on this side of the pond I have to support a family.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  95. Re:Fiduciary duty by swillden · · Score: 2

    So, as I forgot to say, I agree with your solution to the issue as long as prices fall to global averages as well as salaries.

    It will equalize globally. Places with low salaries and low cost of living will see both rise. Places with high salaries and high cost of living will see both fall. Standards of living will also equalize, which probably means those who currently have the highest standards will see theirs decline, though not nearly as much as the low standards of living will rise.

    This has already happened quite a bit in India, and in China. Labor costs have risen substantially, and cost of living has increased, too. For that matter, the cost of many types of goods has fallen dramatically in the US. Basically anything that can be manufactured overseas and imported is significantly cheaper than it would be otherwise. Clothing, for example, costs less than half what it did, on an inflation-adjusted basis, than it did 30 years ago. Toys, electronics, also dramatically cheaper. In fact, strangely enough, most of those things are actually cheaper to buy in the US than they are to buy in the places they're made!

    Note that this equalization won't happen instantly, or painlessly, and there will be winners and losers in the short term. But it's the right thing.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  96. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll point out they launched the first man into space the same way we put the first man on the moon - using technology developed by Nazi Germany.

  97. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    W e both know you're full of it because you keep prevaracating and moving the goalposts. IT workers salaries are well enough documented and no, they do not remotely match the spiraling cost of educating.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  98. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Not at all actually. Which school did YOU go to? :-)

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  99. Re:Fiduciary duty by swillden · · Score: 1

    But they live in the US under worse living conditions because they know it isn't permanent.

    Some, I suppose. The H1-Bs I know very much want to stay.

    Meanwhile on this side of the pond I have to support a family.

    You're basically saying that you'd like steeper immigration barriers to artificially boost your market value and artificially depress the market value of those who weren't lucky enough to be born here. You're far from alone in that view, but I think it's immoral. I spent some formative years living in another country, with great, smart people who worked their asses off for a standard of living that we wouldn't consider fit for a dog. They deserve a chance to earn something better, and if that means I have to compete harder, or even if it means I have to lower my standard of living, I'm good with that.

    To be fair, it's easy for me to say that since I'm pretty comfortable. But I felt the same when I was a poor kid with a young wife and a new baby and I'd just been laid off, so I don't think it's just my relative safety speaking.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  100. Re:Fiduciary duty by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm all for the world leveling out and all but only if everyone suffers evenly across the board. From what I see, some people are taking more of the brunt of it than others and I'm not sure how you could say that is fair.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  101. Re:Fiduciary duty by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Crap man, the "leaders" in our country are mostly PROFITING from it.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  102. The Law Looks At Effect, Not Intent by cmholm · · Score: 1

    A few comments make the claim that this suit will get thrown out, based on the idea that 1) the Indian outsource firms just happen to have younger workers, and 2) that these workers just happen to be Indian nationals with a number of India-sourced ethnicities.

    That would be an interesting dodge, except for one wee obstacle: US labor law doesn't believe in coincidences. Rather, it focuses on disparate impact, and the plaintiffs have that in spades.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  103. Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find this funny that with all the Liberals in charge of the colleges in Cali, and all the students wanting that "Feel good, the whole world as one" are now getting a taste of what they have been crying for. Hang in there Snowflakes, the REAL world gets a whole lot tougher. Remember the old saying; "Be careful of what you wish for"? Ironic isn't it?

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

      > all the students wanting that "Feel good, the whole world as one" are now getting a taste of what they have been crying for.

      The goal of that movement was to make the system fair and improve everyone's lot-- it was specifically NOT to tilt the playing field in favor of corporate management!

      So, no irony to be found.

  104. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    I guess you're right. These bosses are clearly just racists who really hate white people in their 40s. Thanks for showing me how their bigotry is so thinly veiled behind a pretense of wanting to minimize IT costs! What a fool I was for thinking people in charge could be motivated by money!

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  105. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    . You make a silly point, namely that it staff salaries are a notable factor despite having risen much much more slowly, then double down by acting like a clown. Just grow up and learn to admit a mistake when you make one.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  106. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    Whether or not the cost of IT is the one-and-only cause of increases in tuition fees is entirely beside the point. IT is a cost, and controlling costs is what organizations do. If your contention is that IT expenses have zero impact on tuition fees, then I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. Pointing at a diverging graph of historical costs (should you find one) would convince me of nothing. It's like saying that wearing a sweater on a hot summer day is not contributing to me being too hot... because it's the sun, dummy! Well yes... there can be more than one cause.

    By the way, if statistics about the cost of IT are so readily available, please do take a moment to share your findings with the rest of the class.

    Your idea that students be allowed to replace aging IT staff is a fine one, and I would be surprised if it was not considered. If management rejected (or didn't consider) this idea, that would be their prerogative. I still don't see how lawyering up under false pretenses of "discrimination" solves anything.

    And I'll even triple down by saying that it was you, not I, who initiated the personal attacks, dear fellow clown.

    It's a shame that people like you are so incapable of engaging in a civil discussion. Resorting to name-calling when one runs out of arguments is a good sign that any actual thinking has come to a halt.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  107. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    Just one thing... before you waste our time finding actual statistics to back up your argument, I must warn you that any such numbers are very unlikely to convince me. Because principles. Before you tell me that I don't listen to facts, listen to this: You have them too. I'm guessing that I'd be hard-pressed, for example, to find a statistic that would convince you that free speech is not a desirable policy. Or that fascism is actually quite good for the economy. Or whatever your sacred values might hold. Yes, principles matter.

    In this case, the principle at work is a simple one, namely that a job is a contract between an employer and an employee. We no longer require the husband's permission in order for the wife to get a divorce, because the agreement ends whenever either party says it does. Compelling one side to maintain the relationship against their better judgement is just wrong.

    Besides the little problem of principles, I still don't see what the issue is here. In an economy that is allowed to function normally should provide plenty of opportunity for income, especially in the IT sector in California. Seriously, stop bringing bogus law suits against universities, and try using that energy to get a job instead.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  108. Re: Inherent contradictions within leftist ideals by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Not really. Most German technology went to the USA, the Soviets received only scraps so they had to design their own missiles after 1949. By the time of Sputnik the only thing left from German technologies was using hydrogen peroxide in the gas generator to drive the turbopumps. Everything developed in the 1960ies and later was fully independent.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  109. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    before you waste our time finding actual statistics to back up your argument, I must warn you that any such numbers are very unlikely to convince me

    In other words, you're impervious you facts and your arguments are based of something else entirely.

    * excuses for why that's ok follow*

    Though I don't really follow how the spiraling cost of higher education massively outpacing IT salaries implying that said salaries are therefore not a significant factor is a point of principle or an ethical case. actually I did follow: basically you decided to quadruple down (bonus points for inventing an argument that you claimed I made in your other post, then hallucinating lawsuits I filed in a country I don't even live in, in this post) and declare that your principles are to ignore reason and so therefore your conclusions are unimpeachable.

    Well I guess it's impossible to rebut that, in much the same way it's impossible to rebut the time cube.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  110. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    I take back what I said. You're not a clown at all. You're just a troll.

    Oh, before I forget, congratulations on the new job. Who did you sue to get it?

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  111. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    Since this so-called discussion is now irretrievable, I guess you won't mind if I join you down there on your level. Flamethrower is now active.

    I didn't expect to hear back from you again, but I see that you just don't know when you are beaten. No problem. I'm enjoying the bloodbath.

    Let me break it down (again) in terms a monkey could understand. Maybe I can even make it simple enough for your addled mind, but I'm not as conversant in dumdum-speak as you.

    - This lawsuit is clearly spurious and baseless. The argument is that the real reason that these valiant IT employees were laid off was that management is racist and ageist, and that cost-cutting is just a transparent excuse to stick it to nice middle-aged white folks. Seriously? I still hold some hope that, even through the haze of your juvenile concepts of righteousness and moral outrage, you might be able to sense that something is weirdly amiss in this legal logic.

    - On the concept of principles: Apparently, this idea is news to you. I'm guessing either you don't have any, or that you do, but you have managed to delude yourself into believing that all your deeply held beliefs are directly derived from empirical evidence. What are your values, exactly? Mine are pretty straightforward. It works like this: People should be free to associate, and to dissolve these associations whenever and for whatever reason they see fit. Compelling a relationship to continue against the wishes of either party is counterproductive, unhealthy, and petty. Personally, I never would expect anybody to pay me for my work unless they feel that they that my work is valuable enough to justify my pay. In this particular instance, the world has changed in such a way that, in the estimation of their bosses, the value of the work produced by the disgruntled slobs in question just isn't what it used to be. Bosses can be fools, too, but they are supposed to be responsible for their decisions.

    - Clearly, the cost of education in the US has risen in recent decades due to a wide variety of factors. Addressing all the reasons for this rise would take more time than I have, but, as with any enterprise, forcing universities to pay artificially inflated amounts of money for work is just not helpful. You can either pay people a $15/hr. minimum wage, or you can have a free society with a low cost of living, but you can't have it both ways.

    Anyway, this whole argument will soon be moot, as robots and AI will soon be taking all those precious jobs. But not to worry! If people like you have your way, there will be plenty of employment far into the future for lawyers, legislators, lobbyists, accountants, auditors, and tax-collectors... you know, all the really useful people.

    By the way, you don't live in the US? Good for you, me neither. Why are you frothing at the mouth over something that is of not even distant concern to your life? Some misplaced "workers of the world unite" brand of logic, I take it? If so, then, like all good comrades, you must be reserving the right to income and employment for just your own selected special group of workers, i.e., those who look like you and are members of your special club.

    Sorry about all the big words. I'm not so used to talking to people of your intellectual capacity... but you intrigue me! You get gold star just for being amusing.

    Now, if you're still alive, please amuse me with your pathetic attempt at a retort. Oh, and I'm still waiting to see those statistics that are so crucial to your argument, as so easy to find.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  112. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    By the way, I love the double replies you make to my posts.

    I asked you if you were blaming the spiralling costs of education on IT salary costs. You basically said (and I paraphrase):

    "yes and no numbers showing otherwise would convince me I'm wrong".

    I think that makes you a very silly man indeed. The second thrust of your argument is to then heartily address a bunch of points I never made. The final thrust is to simply make stuff up (lawsuits I've filed) and arguing against that.

    I suppose that shows an odd kind of consistency: if reality is't enough to convince you of anything, then what harm is there in inventing your own version of it?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  113. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    Since you are a fan of acts, you might try examining the actual record, rather than putting words into my mouth. I said :

    I'm sure it would be simplistic to assume that there could be a single cause for the higher cost of higher education, but it does seem reasonable to assume that the cost of labor is a contributing factor. Is my math wrong?

    unquote.

    I still don't know how anyone could believe otherwise.

    As for accusing you personally of bringing lawsuits... well, you'll just have to show me those words, since I can't find them.

    Facts are great, but they are our servants, not our masters. Statistics supporting an argument are only useful when people share the same goals. The fact is, we don't. You seem to be aiming for a sort of socialist utopia in which the authority of the state must be invoked to right every perceived wrong, whereas I aim to let people interact freely, minimizing the role of the state and the need for leeches who extract their income from people at gunpoint.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  114. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    The nice thing is that if I get the last reply in, then I win :)

    The reason for that is you've outed yourself as so scatterbrained, that you forgot about an accusation you leveled at me no less than twice already!

    As for accusing you personally of bringing lawsuits... well, you'll just have to show me those words

    See?

    https://slashdot.org/comments....

    You said: Seriously, stop bringing bogus law suits against universities, and try using that energy to get a job instead.

    Then followed up here:

    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    With:

    Oh, before I forget, congratulations on the new job. Who did you sue to get it?

    The rest of your post is you ignoring the first part you made, then trying to make my argument into a hard extreme and then arguing against that. A weak rhetorical trick, I must say and very obvious to even a novice flamer.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  115. Re:Age? Nationality? Race? and.... ? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    Ah, now I understand your confusion. In the first instance, I was speaking rhetorically to the litigious leeches who brought this suit, not to you. But I can see how you might have misinterpreted that.

    In the second instance, I was speaking under the assumption that you support the premise of this frivolous lawsuit. Am I wrong??

    I wasn't aware that I was employing any sort of "rhetorical trick", but I stand by my original assertion: cost drives cost (even if it isn't the one and only thing that does). What could be more obvious?

    Now, unless you have something actually novel to bring to this forum (like those oh-so-easy-to-find statistics you mentioned a couple times), I'm going to leave it at this. You may have the last word, if it pleases you.

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  116. Current spending bill doubles work visas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Washington and many other media sources noted that the number of work visas, H2Bs are being doubled in the the current spending bill due to be passed this week.

    Dinan, S. (2017 May 1). Cheap foreign labor to flood workforce after spending bill doubles number of visas, The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/1/spending-bill-doubles-foreign-worker-visas/

    The funny thing is that the tech luminaries in SV for the most part lambasted Trump during the election. Some going as far as threating employees if they voted for him. Then again many of these same luminaries met with Trump's team after the election and as they say, money talks and others walk.

  117. Re:Fiduciary duty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same here. It took me an extra year to graduate due to having to wait until I could get the *ONE* math prof who could speak English.