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: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:23PM
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
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
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
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
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
In this case, the "kid" is the congress. You don't punish the hammer, right? You punish congress.