SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:49PM
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
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
"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
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".