Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the training-how-to-be-outsourced dept.

Michael Hiltzik, a columnist with the Los Angeles Times, has some harsh words about UCSF's plan to outsource 20% of its IT staffing to the Indian outsourcing firm HCL Technologies:

Using a visa loophole to fire well-paid U.S. information technology workers and replace them with low-paid immigrants from India is despicable enough when it's done by profit-making companies such as Southern California Edison and Walt Disney Co.

But the latest employer to try this stunt sets a new mark in what might be termed "job laundering." It's the University of California. Experts in the abuse of so-called H-1B visas say UC is the first public university to send the jobs of American IT staff offshore. That's not a distinction UC should wear proudly.

UC San Francisco, the system's biggest medical center, announced in July that it would lay off 49 career IT staffers and eliminate 48 other IT jobs that were vacant or filled by contract employees. The workers are to be gone as of Feb. 28. In the meantime they've been ordered to train their own replacements, who are employees of the Indian outsourcing firm HCL Technologies.

[...] "The argument for Disney or Edison is that its executives are driven to maximize profits," says Ron Hira of Howard University, a expert in H-1B visas. "But UC is a public institution, not driven by profit. It's qualitatively different from other employers."

By sending IT jobs abroad, UC is undermining its own mission, which includes preparing California students to serve the high-tech industry.

"UC is training software engineers at the same time they're outsourcing their own software engineers," says Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose), whose district includes much of Silicon Valley. "What message are they sending their own students?"

[...] Of course, if UCSF's initiative blows up in its face, the victims will be its patients, doctors and researchers. In running a university hospital, Laret told me, "you have to make some hard choices." That's indisputable, but the unanswered question is whether UCSF's choice will cost more than it saves.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:19AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:19AM (#451850) Journal

    UC is anti-American to start with. Berkeley, for instance, demonstrated against military recruiters, until the recruiters simply shut the door and left.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Marine_Corps_Recruiting_Center_protests [wikipedia.org]

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/index.html?eref=onion [cnn.com]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Troll=1, Overrated=1, Disagree=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:23AM

    by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:23AM (#451854) Journal

    You can't see the difference between anti-military and anti-American? Really?

    It must be nice having a monochrome world view. Things must seem so much simpler.

    I guess decisions just don't take much effort when there are no nuances to life.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:09AM (#451877)

      To be against the military is to say that we shouldn't defend our interests. This suggests that, on some level, you are OK with the world being dominated by others. Maybe you even want that, which is definitely anti-American.

      Alternately you think the world shouldn't be dominated by anybody, but that's anti-history and anti-reality. One might as well ask for unicorns that fart rainbows.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:15AM (#451880)

        There's a difference between having a defense force and having an invasion force. The American military is in the business of invasion, and that needs to stop.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:23PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:23PM (#452084) Journal

          Actually, the American military is in the "business" of doing congress' bidding. The military is a tool, sometimes used properly, other times used improperly. If a kid uses a hammer to smash all your windows, you don't blame the hammer. If he uses that hammer to make needed repairs on your property, you don't credit the hammer for all the work done.

          We, military and veterans, know that we are misused as often as not. Have you ever read Rudyard Kipling's poems? We've known how badly we are misused even before Kipling put the words down on paper.

          I opposed the invasion of Iraq - but I have never badmouthed any soldier who went to Iraq and obeyed the lawful orders given him. I HAVE badmouthed a select few soldiers who went to Iraq. Those responsible for Abu Ghraib, for instance. Bradley Manning. SOME soldiers have failed to serve honorably, so you can badmouth those sons of bitches. But, don't badmouth the soldiers and sailors just because you don't like the political games in which those servicemen are mere pawns.

          I voted against the Mormon candidate for president, because he was likely to lead us into another war. Among other reasons that I voted against Hillary, was the fact that she wanted to invade Syria. If you feel strongly about congress invading random countries every few years, then USE YOUR VOTE to keep warhawks out of office.

          Don't blame the servicemen. They don't start wars. They only hope to finish them.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:55PM (#452101)

            Going back to the original point, protesting the Iraq war (or other offensive action) at a military recruitment center is not anti-American. Trying to reduce the number of "hammers" that Congress has access to may (not that they really care) discourage them from breaking shit when there isn't popular support.

            Only a very small number of ignorant assholes blame servicemen for the actions of the military. Associating those assholes with anti-Iraq war protestors was just a rhetorical tool to shame people into supporting the war (remember how many bullshit resolutions went through Congress declaring they "support the troops"?).

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:13AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @01:13AM (#452318) Journal

              Berkeley to Marines: You're 'not welcome in our city' - does that sound like they are protesting some specific war or action? Not really - they want the Marines out of their city. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/berkeley.protests/index.html?eref=onion [cnn.com]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Marine_Corps_Recruiting_Center_protests [wikipedia.org]
              On January 29, 2008, the Berkeley City Council passed a series of motions concerning the recruiting center. The most controversial motions ordered the city clerk to draft a letter calling the Berkeley Marines "unwelcome intruders" and another motion gave Code Pink a parking permit on Wednesdays and a noise permit. The motions drew national media coverage. Some veterans groups and conservatives were angered by the motions. National and state laws were drafted to remove funding for Berkeley. The Berkeley City Council changed the wording in the letter February 13, 2008, to remove the most controversial wording and communicate support for the troops but opposition to the war.

              As much as I dislike and disapprove of Code Pink, the Berkeley City Council are far more despicable.

              Bottom line is, Berkeley has no use for me, and I have no use for Berkeley.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:11PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @02:11PM (#452496)

                All the Code Pink quotes seem specifically anti-war.

                As for the City Council, the link to the text of the letter is down but there are some quotes that provide context of anti-recruitment and offensive action:

                [The Counsil] accuses the United States of having a history of "launching illegal, immoral and unprovoked wars of aggression and the Bush administration launched the most recent of those wars in Iraq and is threatening the possibility of war in Iran." [...] It adds, "Military recruiters are salespeople known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits."

                [Councilwoman Dona Spring said] "I still oppose the Marines recruiting in Berkeley because it's one way of protesting this wasteful war," [...] "Our military policy is a shambles. But we're not in opposition to the Marines; we oppose the policy that directs the Marines."

                The actual "unwelcome" quote from the letter is directed to recruitment: "If recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders".

                I don't really have any use for Berkeley either and I'm not specifically defending their city council. This just seems to be another case of clickbait headlines with out-of-context quotes that try to misrepresent issues as an "us versus them"/"with us or against us". There was far too much of that rhetoric during that time and it was disappointing how effective it was.

                http://m.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/In-Berkeley-push-to-rescind-letter-to-Marines-3227862.php [sfgate.com]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:18PM (#452562)

            If a kid uses a hammer to smash all your windows, you don't blame the hammer.

            Correct, but you may legitimately take away the hammer from the kid, because the kid can't be responsible with it.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:25PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:25PM (#452737) Journal

              In this case, the "kid" is the congress. You don't punish the hammer, right? You punish congress.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:26AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:26AM (#451885)

        Being against increasing the standing army of the US, against offensive military actions, or against going further into debt to funnel more money into the military industrial complex is not necessarily anti-American. Actually, it could be very pro-American to work more on domestic problems at the expense of democracy spreading/drone striking/contra funding/Israel defending actions.

    • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:42AM

      by SanityCheck (5190) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:42AM (#451890)

      Without the military we would not be speaking English right now. You may have a nuanced view of the world, but our enemies do not.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:18AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:18AM (#451898)

        Who are all these enemies that justify the huge amount of taxpayer money being spent on the military?

        Once the cold war was over, the US kept doing its best to create enemies to justify its military spending. Even when the military says they don't want new toys, politicians fall-over themselves trying to show that they "support the troops" and increase funding for their district's pet project.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:07AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:07AM (#451966) Journal

          Who are all these enemies that justify the huge amount of taxpayer money being spent on the military?

          How much of this money being spent on the military is actually being spent on the military? Perhaps we could focus our efforts on the actual problems?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:37PM (#452142)

            There is the general problem of too much money being spent on the military and wasteful military-type projects is part of that.

            Great places to start:
            Specifically dropping wasteful programs and asking the military to rank problems by level of importance.
            Reevaluating the level of military aid given to other countries and our military presence around the world to better reflect the priorities of the American public.
            De-couple programs with limited relevance to the military (e.g. breast cancer research funded by the DOD).

        • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:49PM

          by SanityCheck (5190) on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:49PM (#452006)

          Of course we can be more efficient, that is why we put someone in the White House who will have the balls to make sure we get our money's worth, and someone who respects and listens to the people (mostly men) who spent (or given) their lives keeping our country safe from all kinds of assholes. A lot of people that I respected before would talk about corruption in the armament procurement programs for decades, but they never did a damn thing about it. I think that we will see military spending drop but we will get a lot more done in terms of preparing and outfitting our soldiers to defend our nation. It will be an era we haven't seen since Roosevelt as far as taking care of our troops is concerned.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:03PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:03PM (#452014)

            Of course we can be more efficient, that is why we put someone in the White House who will have the balls to make sure we get our money's worth

            Not paying a contractor is not the same as getting your money's worth.

            and someone who respects and listens to the people (mostly men) who spent (or given) their lives keeping our country safe from all kinds of assholes.

            Say what? He says he knows more than all the generals and is "very smart" so he doesn't need to listen to them (or even security briefings). BTW, your addition of "mostly men" says a lot about your fear of women and being emasculated.

            I think that we will see military spending drop but we will get a lot more done in terms of preparing and outfitting our soldiers to defend our nation.

            The President doesn't set the military budget or approve military spending - Congress does. As long as lobbyists have their "say" (money is speech), and members of Congress bring home military contracts to their states and districts, unnecessary military spending will flourish.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:26PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:26PM (#452085)

              "BTW, your addition of "mostly men" says a lot about your fear of women and being emasculated."

              No one wants to be a ball-less bitch like you.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:07PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:07PM (#452040)

            I think that we will see military spending drop

            High military spending has been a strongly bipartisan issue for at least 40 years so it won't be likely. I'm not sure if Trump has demonstrated any more "respect" for the military than any other presidential candidates (politicians mostly say the right things), but his reputation as being "strong" could enable him to cut military spending without appearing "weak".

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:19AM (#451900)

        Um, didn't they teach you about the British Empire? That's why English is spoken around the world. Nothing to do with American military power.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:44AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:44AM (#451948)

          Um, didn't they teach you about the British Empire?

          Teaching about British Empire is anti-American too.

          In fact, it seems teaching anything** is anti-American and by that measure any university is anti-American

          ** sermonising is the true American way nowadays.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:14AM (#451976)

      anti-military.

      I dealt with recruiters in both High School and Junior College. They were some of the sleaziest fucks around. Like seriously they make ambulance chasing lawyers look like upstanding citizens. I even went assessment and such for the Army at one point (dropped out after reading through the legalese for the secret security checks for longer contract positions in fact! Even if you didn't enlist, by filling out the paperwork you would have been allowing them to nose into your business for a full 5 years after the date of signing!)

      If people on campus dislike the 'hard sell' antics of recruiters coming on campus and harassing them, then more power to them in getting them to shove off and go elsewhere. It is not like there aren't dozens of recruiting centers around the bay area for any interested parties to visit if they wish to consider a career in the military, and it is not like you cannot find ex-military on any college/university campus to give you an idea of what it is like and let you know in their opinion if you should consider it.)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:34PM (#452088)

      And that, my friend, is why it is so hard to argue with people that are always right. There is no room for differing opinions.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:36AM (#451862)

    When you volunteered to serve in the navy, were you the petty officer in charge of storing the torpedoes up your spaciously stretched homosexual ass?

    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:42AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:42AM (#451865) Journal

      Posts like yours definitely cross the line from sophistry into faggotry. Why your obsession with my ass?

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:51AM (#451870)

    Protesting the Iraq war is anti-American?

    From your link: "UC Berkeley had no connection to the council's decision". Also, it seems that the recruiting center never closed.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:08AM (#451876)

    You can't see the difference between UCSF and UC Berkeley? Perhaps this will help--
        http://colleges.startclass.com/compare/270-568/University-of-California-Berkeley-vs-University-of-San-Francisco [startclass.com]