Southern California Edison (SCE) was known for good pay and benefits before it began laying off IT workers and replacing them with H-1B visa holders. Today, SCE is the latest Exhibit A in Congress of a company whose IT workers are displaced through the use of the H-1B visa.
"They are bringing in people with a couple of years' experience to replace us and then we have to train them," said one longtime IT worker. "It's demoralizing and in a way I kind of felt betrayed by the company. Not one of these jobs being filled by India was a job that an Edison employee wasn't already performing," he said.
SCE, Southern California's largest utility, has confirmed the layoffs and the hiring of Infosys, based in Bangalore, and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) in Mumbai. They are two of the largest users of H-1B visas.
Related Stories
Original URL: http://www.itworld.com/article/3035145/it-careers/doj-ends-probe-of-utility-over-it-replacements-no-charges-filed.html
"I wanted to pass along some good news," said Pedro Pizarro, SCE (Southern California Edison) president, in the email. "The Department of Justice's investigation into whether SCE discriminated against American workers in its IT outsourcing practices has closed with no adverse findings against the company," wrote Pizarro.
About 500 IT workers at SCE were cut, mostly through a layoff. Some of the IT workers complained of having to train foreign replacements on an H-1B visa to remain eligible for a severance package.
The cuts followed a decision by the utility to hire Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services to take over some its IT work. Both firms are major users of visa workers.
The layoff of the Edison workers struck a nerve in Washington. After learning that SCE had brought in the two India-based contractors, 10 U.S. senators signed a letter last April asking several federal agencies to investigate.
[...] "It's just another betrayal by our government," said [a] former SCE IT worker, who asked that his name not be used. "The government seems to be taking an active position in allowing companies to outsource" IT jobs, this worker said.
Previous Coverage:
Southern California Edison Replacing IT Workers with H-1B Workers
New Data Shows How Companies Abuse the H-1B Program
Senators will Listen to Tech Union Members about H-1B
[In the mid 1980's, I recall having to train three people to replace me. That was not the only time that H1-B's were hired instead of local help at places I have worked. What will it take for things to change? What, if anything can/should be done? -Ed.]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:29AM
Globalization is the best for wealth production. Don't worry, all that wealth will trickle down eventually. Those IT workers, soon to be greeters at Walmart, will get welfare checks. Enjoy living in poverty!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:49AM
Perhaps rather than merely complaining that one has lost in the global competition, perhaps actually looking at why jobs are being lost from the developed world and doing something productive to compete would be better.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:05AM
A significant reason for the workforce shifting away from "the developed world" when possible is due to the increasing costs of labor. When labor costs are artificially increased by developed governments, even with the best of intentions [soylentnews.org], the simple economic facts show that There Ain't No Such As A Free Lunch [wikipedia.org]. Unlike traditional governments which extract funds from their "customers" by force, most businesses need to generate profits in order to stay in business, and if prices cannot be increased when costs are artificially imposed by governments, costs must be reduced.
Artificially inceasing the cost of business also has the side effect of stifling new competition, which pleases big evil corporations.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:04PM
Well, since it's a race to the bottom, we could always throw away all those things that make us "less competitive" here in the developed world.
We could start shitting in rivers, drinking water full of heavy metals and bacteria, dying from pretty preventable and treatable diseases and living on the right lane of roads with a piece of cardboard as a mattress. Just imagine how much money we would save. Anyone could live like this on a dollar a day.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:27PM
That race to the bottom is still going on in the USA, in regards to its history of stonewalling development of safe, inexpensive, and abundant zero-emission power generation [soylentnews.org] in favor of radiation-laden smoke clouds belching forth from coal-burning plants. It wasn't that long ago when that which you speak of was being done in the open within the USA as well, ala the Love Canal and soot-covered industrial cities. It may well be going on enmasse to this day in the form of industrial waste used to fluoridate most munincipal water supplies.
However, in a world where special pals of government do not get to be exempted from law, you are only allowed to mess up your own property (be it your land, your body, etc.). If you pollute someone else's property, you are responsible for restitution and cleanup. This also means that governments can't favor their special interests by forcing private companies to obey laws that financially favor cronies involved in banking and finance, and thus effectively forcing businesses and their employees to deal with "benefits" that both may find of dubious value (such as 401k plans and crazy government-designed prepaid healthcare plans disguised as insurance).
People form societies and governments to improve their quality of life over that of a state of nature. Even in a state of nature, one human has no justified authority to destroy another's property, be it with a fist to the nose or a load of toxic waste on the lawn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:30PM
Well, since it's a race to the bottom, we could always throw away all those things that make us "less competitive" here in the developed world.
It's worth noting that's what's happening in the US even if the choice isn't explicitly made.
We could start shitting in rivers, drinking water full of heavy metals and bacteria, dying from pretty preventable and treatable diseases and living on the right lane of roads with a piece of cardboard as a mattress.
What policies do you advocate that will keep this from happening in 50 years?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:47PM
Reducing/eliminating H1Bs and similar artificial wage-reduction strategies, and implementing "human rights" tariffs on imported goods made by workers in conditions we would consider unacceptable here in the US might be a start. Yes, your TV, phone, shoes, etc,etc,etc would become much more expensive, but it would make domestic production viable, and keep that money circulating and producing wealth here rather than overseas.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:51PM
Reducing/eliminating H1Bs and similar artificial wage-reduction strategies, and implementing "human rights" tariffs on imported goods made by workers in conditions we would consider unacceptable here in the US might be a start. Yes, your TV, phone, shoes, etc,etc,etc would become much more expensive, but it would make domestic production viable, and keep that money circulating and producing wealth here rather than overseas.
Meanwhile the rest of the world passes you by. Isolationism only works if you can keep ahead of everyone else that you wall off from. For example, cutting the world off from Cuba would work because Cuba will never be able to outpace the rest of the world. Cutting the US off from the rest of the world wouldn't work because the rest of the world is already moving faster than the US can keep up and it's about 20-25 times bigger too. My view is that you'll need to get the EU, China, and India (that's the biggest present and future powers of humanity) on board in order for such a scheme to work. None of them are on your side.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday February 17 2015, @05:26AM
Who's advocating cutting us off from the rest of the world? The EU, having a generally higher level of worker protections wouldn't see any tariffs on their exports - in fact if they got on board you could reasonably expect them to put tariffs on imports from the US. You wouldn't even have to impose tariffs on a national level: Chinese Company A using child labor working 15 hour shifts for pennies a day could see a massive decency tax, while Chines Company B that paid fare wages to adults working reasonable hours would see a lower or nonexistent tax, with the net result that products from either company would cost roughly the same as those made in the US.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:16PM
There's nothing we can do, man. Only bend over and wait for the invisible hand of God Market to fist fuck us. Because, you know, economy is not made by people. It's the other way around.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:42PM
There's nothing we can do, man. Only bend over and wait for the invisible hand of God Market to fist fuck us. Because, you know, economy is not made by people. It's the other way around.
Again, do you have a better idea than being "fist fucked" by the "invisible hand"? My view is that market economies are the primary economic tool for making the wonderful societies we have.
I tire of the theatrics. Put up or shut up.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:09PM
You shut up, you disrespectful asshole.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:11PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:44PM
most businesses need to generate profits in order to stay in business,
Absolutely. And SCE is definitely going broke [edison.com]. Not.
But please, don't let any pesky facts interfere with the fantasy you're living in.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:53PM
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:34PM
I guess your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. You might want to get that checked out.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:16PM
I guess your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. You might want to get that checked out.
I wonder how one would even come to that conclusion from what I wrote. I didn't miss your sarcasm. Even if I did, it would be completely irrelevant to what I wrote.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:47PM
I guess your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. You might want to get that checked out.
I wonder how one would even come to that conclusion from what I wrote. I didn't miss your sarcasm. Even if I did, it would be completely irrelevant to what I wrote.
Then why reply to me?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 16 2015, @12:53AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday February 16 2015, @04:41AM
Because I think your original argument was dishonest.
Fair enough. Perhaps I'm just tired, but I'd appreciate a little clarification as to which part of my "argument" you found dishonest.
For your reference, I was responding, to part of Fauxlosopher [soylentnews.org]'s comment [soylentnews.org], to wit:
I merely pointed out that Southern California Edison was, in fact, profitable. I backed that up with their 2013 (the most recent available) financial statements [edison.com] which showed a net profit of more than $900 million.
The thrust (as I understood it) of fauxlosopher's argument was that the outsourcing move was somehow necessary to ensure profitability. Given the numbers, I felt that his (her?) argument did not reflect reality, hence my comment about fantasy.
As I said, I'm a little confused about what was, as you said, "dishonest" about my comment. I did use sarcasm, and the bit about fantasy could certainly be construed as snark, but dishonest? I just don't see it.
I would very much appreciate a better understanding of your point of view, as I'm quite mystified by your response. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Monday February 16 2015, @05:19AM
I intended to make a general economic point in regards to private business, profit, and costs. The company in the summary appears to be a "public utility", which due to anticipated monopoly protection from government, I do not consider to be a "private business". Nor a true Scotsman! ;P Seriously, though, mercantilism aka crony capitalism is a huge problem within the United States. Frauds upon the public are the norm in the political, financial, and business sectors, so why not expect the same in the monopoly-protected public utility sector?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 16 2015, @11:13AM
First, SCE is in a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation under your argument. If SCE makes a profit, then they can spare some profit for whatever bad decisions or policies you want. And if they aren't making a profit, then they'd go bankrupt anyway and "we didn't really want that electric company anyway". You get to sarcastically dismiss the argument either way.
Second, they are profitable because they make decisions that are profitable. This I believe goes to core of the observation that "businesses need to generate a profit". If instead, they start making a bunch of decisions that aren't profitable, then they become unprofitable. I think there should always be some value to the decision. Merely employing expensive people in California just isn't that valuable. Those people can work elsewhere in California.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday February 16 2015, @09:37PM
In greater detail, here's the issues as I see it.
First, SCE is in a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation under your argument. If SCE makes a profit, then they can spare some profit for whatever bad decisions or policies you want. And if they aren't making a profit, then they'd go bankrupt anyway and "we didn't really want that electric company anyway". You get to sarcastically dismiss the argument either way.
I begin to see where we went off track, Khallow. My *only* point was that SCE was profitable. If you go and look, you'll see that I didn't advocate or rail against any particular course of action. Yes, there was the implied question that "since SCE was profitable, why are they taking steps to replace permanent workers with outsourced ones?" I haven't seen any answer to that question. I'm still curious about it.
I'd also point out (as Fauxlosopher did) that SCE is a regulated utility. Which means they set prices in collusion with the governement which, presumably, assures their profits.
Second, they are profitable because they make decisions that are profitable. This I believe goes to core of the observation that "businesses need to generate a profit". If instead, they start making a bunch of decisions that aren't profitable, then they become unprofitable. I think there should always be some value to the decision. Merely employing expensive people in California just isn't that valuable. Those people can work elsewhere in California.
See above. Presumably they are profitable because their collusion with the government makes them so. As long as they are a regulated utility/monopoly they are, barring massive embezzlement or gross mismanagement (and even then a loss isn't a sure thing), they will *always* be profitable.
Beyond that, you neatly sidestepped my question. Why do you say my argument was "dishonest?" Are you backing off that assertion? I bring that up again mostly because I find being called dishonest quite distasteful, given that I (and have for most of my life) strive to be as honest and upfront as possible in all aspects of my life.
If your intent was to attack my comment (I wouldn't even class it as an argument, rather as more of an observation) without applying logic or rhetorical mustard, you succeeded. If your intent was to refute (again, I simply stated facts and didn't directly advocate any particular position) my observation or enhance the point you were trying to make, you failed.
Better luck next time!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:49AM
"since SCE was profitable, why are they taking steps to replace permanent workers with outsourced ones?" I haven't seen any answer to that question. I'm still curious about it.
Just because they could afford to make this decision doesn't imply that they should. This decision can't be made in a vacuum. The same criteria used to make this decision could be used in thousands of other decisions with similar tradeoffs. You can't run a profitable business this way.
IMHO a similar example is giving money to panhandlers. You might have enough money in your wallet for a gift to a few panhandlers, but you'd go broke, if you tried to give money to every panhandler. I think the original observation that "most businesses need to generate profits in order to stay in business" is akin to "you'd go broke, if you tried to give money to every panhandler". Then someone looks at my wallet and says, "but you could give money to Bob over there". Ok, I could do that. And then I could give money to his buddies, Jim and Joe. And all their pals at the homeless shelter and the local bar. Pretty soon, I'm broke.
Now, I have to admit that SCE is doing something shifty with H1-Bs and it might get blocked by the feds just because they're doing something illegal and/or goes against the political winds.
As long as they are a regulated utility/monopoly they are, barring massive embezzlement or gross mismanagement (and even then a loss isn't a sure thing), they will *always* be profitable.
SCE almost went bankrupt [wikipedia.org] in January 2001. A California competitor which also was a regulated utility/monopoly, Pacific Gas and Electric did go bankrupt that month.
Beyond that, you neatly sidestepped my question. Why do you say my argument was "dishonest?" Are you backing off that assertion? I bring that up again mostly because I find being called dishonest quite distasteful, given that I (and have for most of my life) strive to be as honest and upfront as possible in all aspects of my life.
Ok, I'll buy that and I'll back off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:08PM
This is pretty asinine.
While it's easy (and often accurate) to stereotype Americans as fat, lazy, and stupid, there are other factors that contribute to this issue. Here are three. First, Americans are struggling with an epic national debt that contributes to our 40%+ tax rate. That handicaps any domestic workers. Second, management is almost always clueless/indifferent about technology, so unqualified (domestic and foreign) workers who can "complete the job" cheaper will always win based on cost. Third, and as a result, we've embraced novelty for novelty's sake, so a cheap overseas worker who promises proficiency in the new shiny tech will always have a leg up on these domestic, legacy guys and gals who actually pay property and income tax, student loans, and all the other overhead...bleah.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:24PM
Here are three. First, Americans are struggling with an epic national debt that contributes to our 40%+ tax rate. That handicaps any domestic workers. Second, management is almost always clueless/indifferent about technology, so unqualified (domestic and foreign) workers who can "complete the job" cheaper will always win based on cost. Third, and as a result, we've embraced novelty for novelty's sake, so a cheap overseas worker who promises proficiency in the new shiny tech will always have a leg up on these domestic, legacy guys and gals who actually pay property and income tax, student loans, and all the other overhead...bleah.
Sounds like all three fall under the "Americans are fat, lazy, stupid" trope. After all, that epic national debt didn't just happen; clueless/ indifferent management didn't always get rewarded for making bad decisions; and a lot of that overhead came about as a superficial attempt to make US workers more competitive (education and social safety net costs in particular). I don't really think the tropes are true, but it's worth noting here that you aren't presenting anything to dispute them.
My view is that in the economic growth following the post-Second World War period, the US had a nice thing going. But in the 1960s we started to see the pressure of globalization. And the US rather than anticipating that competition from foreign workers was going to be a thing, started a half century of delusional, dumb thinking. For example, it was that those Japanese made crap products and couldn't innovate (we've since moved on to China), hence, we didn't have to care what they were doing. We had to educate everyone so we drove the price of education up by a factor of three or so higher now after inflation than it was 50 years ago. We lost the USSR as an enemy and had to find a new enemy for our military-industrial complex so we could continue to spend as much as before. We didn't want all those polluting industries, those low wage businesses, or young adults (rather than old children) anyway.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:36AM
They replaced a transformer on the pole here a few months back.
My power was off for 5 hours and 20 minutes.
(Analog clocks are useful for measuring such events.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:46AM
Analog is irrelevant. There are such things as mechanical digital cocks.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by c0lo on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:09AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:29AM
I have plenty of digital clocks with battery backup.
I also have a wind-up clock.
Now, will your idea allow me to see how long the power was off if that happened while I am sleeping|away from home?
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 16 2015, @12:17AM
But... you'll only know how long the last blackout was (assuming there were many, the prev ones are "masked" by the last reset)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday February 17 2015, @12:44PM
I think I saw a film about that. Unfortunately, the plot and dialog was awful and I cannot recommend it.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:13AM
Wow, is that ever some stereotyping.
One event, that for all you know had extenuating circumstances, and from that you judge the entire company.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:24AM
Did I forget to mention that this was the 3rd time Edison employees had dicked with that transformer in 4 months?
For those who are counting, that's 3 outages when it was clear the 1st time that the thing needed replacing.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:42AM
You weren't working on the transformer yourself, you have no idea what was really going on.
For all you know there were multiple minor problems masking the most serious one.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:04AM
Following the 2nd incident, when power had been restored, I walked over and talked to the Edison guy.
He was an old hand.
From his online records, he knew it had failed before and needed to be replaced.
Apparently, the guy they sent the 1st time couldn't spot that need.
I had a mailer from Edison and knew what date the replacement would be made.
When the 3rd crew came out, I watched them.
It looked like a Three Stooges comedy.
Yeah, I do have a pretty good idea of what was really going on.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:19PM
So, from the online records the "old hand" knew it needed to be replaced, but he didn't replace it?
So he's a terrible employee. Hhhhm.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:28AM
Five hours and twenty minutes to change out a transformer atop a power pole? How long do you think it would have taken you to do it?
Its taken me longer than that to address a simple water spigot changeout.
I cannot see coming down on Edison over a problem like that, occurred and fixed, within the day.
Methinks you owe SCE an apology.
I can see where SCE is getting fed up with IT. I think we are all fed up with it. But its not the IT worker's fault. Things change faster than the guy doing the job can track. Its been my experience that just as I am becoming proficient in some way of doing something, it is rendered obsolete by another way of doing the same thing a different way. I often think of how useless I am using one toolset when the customer wants it done with a different toolset. Like a pianist who learns to play on a "standard" piano, then somebody gets the bright idea of putting all the "A" notes together, all the "B"'s and so on... then asking the experienced musician to play it. Of course, the new generation who were taught on the "new, improved" piano are the only ones that can play it.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:41AM
either:
a) American wages (and standard of living) fall to something more competitive with foreign labor markets,
b) America becomes a communist state (which will also result in a lower standard of living) and is forced to get back to work, or
c) value of dollar plummets, which will make foreign labor relatively cheaper (but will also make imports more expensive)
This should be obvious to anyone except maybe clueless liberals.
I can't see a) happening, as the union movement in America is still too strong, and this is probably part of the 'deflation' that Keynesians are so afraid of so the Federal Reserve will likely stimulate to prevent this.
You can only get fat off the backs of foreign workers for so long. Eventually Americans are going to have to make good on the trillions of IOU's that they've spread around the world.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:43AM
c) value of dollar plummets, which will make American labor relatively cheaper (but will also make imports more expensive)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:12AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:37AM
Another problem is that we have jobs that require intelligence and education being susceptible to off-shoring to low-wage countries, while jobs that require no intelligence or education but require a physical presence get unions in place and generally out-earn the higher skill and education jobs. Here in Canada we have bus drivers earning more than software developers for example. That's not sustainable. You either need to let market forces work (no unions, supply and demand) for all jobs, or severely protect your borders with tariffs, import restrictions, etc.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by iamjacksusername on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:11AM
There is a middle ground. You see it in Germany. While a major exporter (3rd, 2nd or 1st in world depending on the month and how you calculate it), German labor law protects German jobs. They allow foreign workers but with a lot of bureaucratic strings and obstacles. They bring in the skilled labor they need for specific occupations while allowing the average German to have a solidly middle class wage. They are unapologetically protectionist when it comes to German jobs.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:52AM
German corporations are required to have 50% of board be rank and file employees. Folks don't fire themselves to short-term boost earnings. Folks don't fire themselves to hire pseudo-slaves to replace them (H1-B doesn't allow the visa holder to move away from the sponsoring employer).
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:18AM
In most places this has seemed to cause an exodus of manufacturing jobs due to high relative wages. Does the EU protect against this or something, because otherwise I'm not sure how they'd avoid that other serious import tariffs.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:51PM
Does the EU protect against this or something, because otherwise I'm not sure how they'd avoid that other serious import tariffs.
Sure, via the usual protectionism. For example, ISO business standards are a typical example. It's been pretty hard for foreign companies to enter the market when one needs not just their own company, but also their supply chain to comply with a standard.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:13PM
Are you crazy? In which democratic society could there be no unions? Why shouldn't workers be able to get together and defend their common interests? I've never heard anyone defending that companies shouldn't organise to defend their common interests.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:22PM
I'm not saying that, I'm saying you can't effectively have both. Without tariffs and other protections, they will cause the exodus of anything that can be moved somewhere cheaper.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:11PM
OK, dude. We're on the same side, I guess.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday February 15 2015, @08:01PM
Kind of. I am against unions to a degree in that here, bus drivers make more than nurses an software developers as they held the public hostage in the winter. Teachers are now making over 100K in many cases as well even though the market of *available teachers is about three times the size of the number of jobs. Supply and demand has to come into it, but again doesn't, again because they help the public hostage. I like the idea of the sort of 'unions' professional athletes have where a minimum of basic rights are protected and people can bargain to be paid what they're worth. The way they are now is not working.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:16PM
That doesn't sound right. If teachers are making more than nurses and software developers, it's not their fault. Maybe nurses and software developers need to stop whining and start forming their own unions.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 16 2015, @06:45PM
Why shouldn't workers be able to get together and defend their common interests?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's in the very first one....
(Score: 5, Insightful) by iamjacksusername on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:14AM
Only in America do we have arguments about how American workers should compete with foreign workers for jobs. Seriously. You go overseas to China or Vietnam or anyplace else they say "Chinese jobs are for Chinese workers" or "Vietnamese jobs are for Vietnamese workers". This is how the world works. However, the mercantilist captains of "our" industry have sold us a bill of goods on "free trade". They say free trade will help overall returns increase - the economy as a whole will be larger; what they fail to mention is that returns on labour will achieve equilibrium between whomever we are free trading with. So, when the US and, for example, India have free trade, Indian wages will go up and American wages will go down until they reach equilibrium. However, the capital owners are taking in those differences as profit. It is funny - we allow the free movement of goods but heaven forbid we allow the free movement of labour. Funny how that works...
The job of the American government is to look out for the interests of American citizens just as the job of the Indian government is to look out for the interests of Indian citizens. Sadly, I believe the regulatory capture is past the point of no return for Americans. I always recommend to younger IT workers to get out and find something else to do. I know that most of what I do today will be outsourced within the decade; there is no future for the American IT worker. I wish I knew what to do about it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:36AM
Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Thomas Piketty would all say, no matter how affordable their current labor force is, it's only a matter of time before the Capitalists hijack the regulatory system and find a cheaper source of labor to exploit (Africa).
Containerized shipping and the Internet have changed everything.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday February 17 2015, @12:47PM
Any idiot can run an import/export business. However, the captains of industry are running an import/export business with people's jobs.
1702845791×2
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:44AM
The H-1 program doesn't make sense.
There are two types of people in the world - the ones you want in your country, and the ones you don't want. It's hard to do anything about the unproductive ones born in your country that you'd rather get rid of, but bringing in new desirable people is fairly straightforward.
Temporary visas, in that light, don't really make sense. If you're bringing someone in, you aren't likely to suddenly replace them with a local worker (after all, you "couldn't find any"), and they aren't likely to suddenly become useless. Perhaps seasonal work could be done, but there's not much of that outside agriculture and retail, and given that both of those can be done by trained monkeys and we still have unemployment, there's no sense in importing more untrained workers for those jobs.
In practice, the H-1's effect to the local economy is the same as bringing in a permanent immigrant, but their "temporary" status is just there to keep the worker in line. In other words, "the worst of both worlds".
I would much rather see workers straight-up immigrate. If they're productive workers, people we want in our country, bring them in permanently. Permanent status will decrease the negative effects (wage deflation), and will also protect the workers themselves. Eventually we'll reach a problem of running out of space, but that's a solvable problem (quick brainstorm: artificial islands, conquer more territory, colonize the moon, fill in the Great Lakes, American Underdark, exile all felons in lieu of imprisonment). And when your problem is "we have too many awesome people in this country, we're running out of room", you're having the *good* type of problem.
(Score: 5, Informative) by iamjacksusername on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:21AM
I do not disagree - I would prefer people immigrate then for temporary worker. That said, I do not philosophically disagree with the premise of the H1-B program. The implementation, though, is left as an exercise to the regulators captured by private interests.
I had a conversation with a college professor. Her husband, also a professor, came to the US on an H1-B. She was arguing "racism" as the reason why people have been protesting H1-B. Seriously. She honestly had no idea what has been going on in the American tech industry. I had to show her the articles on the layoffs, the Youtube videos of attorneys explaining how to make a job posting so you can outsource it to an H1-B, and finally the Department of Labor's own statistics of what organizations got most of the H1-B visas. The companies with the most H1-B visas? Not Intel. Or Microsoft. Or Google. Or Yahoo. Or any innovative tech company. It is WiPro, Tata and the IT out-sourcers getting most of the H1-B visas.
I wish I knew what to do.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:06AM
>The H-1 program doesn't make sense.
The H-1 program makes sense from a business perspective.
Here's a small part of the whole process:
Step 1: Place want ads for employees with ridiculous requirements at low wages (minimum wage).
Step 2: Wait. No one is going to apply for your job except people who are severely under qualified or "over qualified".
Since you can't find anyone that meets your demands, you can go to the government for H-1B's.
Step 4: Import cheap labor.
Step 5: After 3 years, or whenever you feel like it, fire your H-1B workers and get new ones.
The government will take care of deporting your spent laborers.
"If a foreign worker in H-1B status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non-immigrant status, find another employer (subject to application for adjustment of status and/or change of visa), or leave the U.S."
Step 6: Claim that there's an extreme shortage of ____ workers (In most cases, the claim is STEM).
These public claims defend your practices and floods the local market with ____ workers, which drive down wages.
Step 7: Sit back and wait for impressionable youngsters to flood colleges in an effort to become one of those in-demand workers.
In order to ensure the long-term survival of the country, the U.S. needs to stop pretty much every form of immigration and encourage the formation of strong worker unions.
If neither action is taken, this country will be stripped of it's wealth and left to rot as the rich flee to their private islands and exclusive countries.
Communism has been gaining steam among the political left, and nationalism has been gaining steam among the moderates, working class, and political left. Of course, I fully expect nothing will change, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the government will sit around throwing money at Israel and doing the opposite of what's been said publicly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @09:34AM
Communism has been gaining steam among the political left, and nationalism has been gaining steam among the moderates, working class, and
political left.Unfortunately I made a mistake. I meant "political right".
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Sunday February 15 2015, @01:50AM
Had a 30 something friend recommend my 56 year old ass for a job as an embedded engineer, sounds like not only will I not get an interview, he'll be competing with me for fricken jobs.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:18AM
Note that Southern California Edison isn't hiring H1-Bs to replace laid-off workers; it's contracting to two other companies to provide the services that the laid-off workers once did.
Strictly speaking, the two are quite different things.
If one is going to argue that hiring H1-Bs over American citizens or permanent residents is illegal, one needs to take that up with Tata and Infosys. You'd have to argue that Tata or Infosys hired an H1-B when they could have hired an American.
And yes I know this is really stupid, but this is the way the law is structured.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by iamjacksusername on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:34AM
And good luck making that argument in court. Do you know how many H1-B fraud cases the Department of Labor has filed in the 5 years? 10 years? 0. That's how many. The Department of Labor now destroys H1-B records for "privacy" reasons after 5 years. Yeah, privacy reasons.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2839375/feds-set-to-destroy-h-1b-records.html/ [computerworld.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @05:52PM
Let me guess. They are contracting with comcast for customer support.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hb253 on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:17AM
At the Fortune 500 company I'm working at, the same thing is happening. IT workers are being fired, "staff reduced", or offered packages and being replaced by incompetent H1B imported contractors who barely understand or speak English. Employee morale is a thing of the past. The thing is, the CxO types can show Wall St they're cutting costs and they are rewarded. They could care less about the path of destruction they're creating since they will have their golden parachutes to save them.
The firings and offshore outsourcing will not stop until morale improves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:12PM
The only saving grace on this is that the outsourced employees in my experience are either horribly understaffed, incompetent, or lazy. I'm not sure which, but I've been in a few datacenters as of late where racks these companies should be supporting have alarms going off for months at a time and nobody fixing them (failing raid arrays, battery backup units with failed batteries, overheating alarms, failing backup tape drives, you name it). These companies are setting themselves up for a major disaster, so while we might all be unemployed, at least we'll get the last laugh when the companies doing the outsourcing eventually eat it when their entire system melts down.
(Score: 1) by hb253 on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:36PM
Same here. I'm seeing multiple examples of such incompetence on a daily basis. Even so, the executive leadership are blind to what's going on in the trenches and are doubling down by increasing the number of outsourcing companies they bring on board.
The firings and offshore outsourcing will not stop until morale improves.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:24AM
For the past fifteen years at least, the "educated" people in this country have been praising this whole "globalization" thing. We've been told how good it is that twenty to thirty million illegal aliens have invaded this nation to do all the work that Americans don't want to do. When a tradesman, a craftsman, or especially a laborer (skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled) complained about the competition, the "educated" people have laughed, and told them all that they should have gone to college.
Now - educated Americans with varying levels of education are being replaced.
Yes, some of us saw this coming.
The game plan was, is, and will remain, REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH! The US has been the wealthiest nation on earth for several decades, and the Powers That Be have determined that must be changed.
There may or may not be some justice to globalization, but I am amused at the supposedly "educated" people who thought they were exempt from the ill effects. Educated? Some very educated people are also very freaking STUPID!!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:39AM
The game plan was, is, and will remain, REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH! The US has been the wealthiest nation on earth for several decades, and the Powers That Be have determined that must be changed.
That's always been the gameplan - wealth moving from the people who do work to the people who own capital. Occasionally the latter class lets in someone new (maybe as many as a hundred a year) to keep the impression of social mobility alive with the masses and prevent wholesale revolt.
The hilarious thing is that they then claim the phrase 'redistribution of wealth' as the evil that they stand to oppose.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @07:28PM
For the past fifteen years at least, the "educated" people in this country have been praising this whole "globalization" thing.
Personally, I'm for immigration reform in America along the lines proposed by Obama (and in the past, by some Republicans such as Sens. Graham and McCain; I think they've withdrawn their support though). Among other things, that would lead to a path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants who are here and have steady employment and clean police records.
Even Rupert Murdoch, the founder/CEO of News Corp is said to be strongly in favor of US immigration reform. Of course, that position isn't reflected in his TV or web site programming, because they are the de facto information arm of the Republican Party, which currently depends on the support of the anti-immigration crowd.
The Internet is the genie that came out of the bottle, it creates entire new industries while destroying other ones, or at least eliminating half or better of the good paying jobs that used to come with them. We can't put the genie back into the bottle. We can try to control or mitigate the effects, but then we run into the risk of being in the same camp that 1) the RIAA/MPAA are trying to do as Copyright police; and 2) Snowden and the anti-NSA crowd are trying to do by preventing government surveillance; 3) Denmark and other coastal countries are trying do with dykes. (OK, the last one is a metaphor). You're opposing the flow of nature. People on /., SN, and Techdirt are gleeful that nature is on their side in the copyright battle, and are scornfully dismissive of the lost jobs and careers; not so much in the globalization of IT jobs front.
(Score: 1) by dltaylor on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:28AM
How stupid do you have to be to put control of critical infrastructure in the hands of foreign nationals (even putative allies)? I'm not saying that any of H-1B workers ARE, or WILL BE, inimical to the United States, but the US relationship with India, for example, has had ups and downs. Suppose we get into a trade war over ridiculous copyrights or something and we now have "enemies" running our power company computer resources?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:26AM
-ements?
I'm happy to train my replacement when I resign on good terms.
But if my employer outsourced my job to Tata, then expected me to train my replacement, I don't think I'd even give notice I'd just pack up my personal possessions then leave.
Although possibly I'd email my protest resignation to everyone in the entire company. I've done that several times.
Maybe we'd all be a lot better off if American workers would get some spine? It's better to be broke, hungry and unemployed than to have no self-respect!
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by dcollins on Sunday February 15 2015, @06:53AM
Presumably the company keeps them in a state of uncertainty, dangling a "maybe-just-maybe you'll be the one to keep your job after training?". That's generally how you keep people in line, kind of like... well, look, I almost just Godwin'd the thread.
Also, don't you waive unemployment compensation if you quit? But in principle I agree with you.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @02:22PM
> Why do laid off workers consent to training replac
Because they can't afford to be unemployed for very long at all.
And holllly shit. Putting the first sentence of the post in the subject line is anti-social enough, but hypenating the last word into the body. That is some serious fuck you to anyone reading.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 15 2015, @10:30PM
ROFLMAO - I'm always amused when the Policia Gramattica are upset. Geez, Louise.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by hb253 on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:42PM
If I were independently wealthy I would do what you say. But I'm not and loss of my salary would be catastrophic. I don't have the spine to accelerate my journey to homelessness.
At my place of employment, the soon-to-be-replaced workers are offered a package. If they train their Tata replacement they get the package. If they quit before the agreed upon term, they lose that "bonus".
The firings and offshore outsourcing will not stop until morale improves.
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Sunday February 15 2015, @04:32PM
Today's professional management class that runs organizations has only one arrow in its quiver: Outsourcing. They outsource critical business functions, fire the employees who used to do those functions, and pocket the difference as a bonus. That's why wages are stagnant. High-end, middle-class jobs are disappearing, because of outsourcing and firing. If you have specialized skills, where do you go to get a job after you're fired? The only people doing your work are outsourcing companies, and the reason they got the contract is lowballing your old salary, so you will make less money working for them.
Thus wages are stagnant, meaning a lot of higher-paying jobs have disappeared and been replaced by lower-paying jobs. I'd love to have numbers on this. All I have is overwhelming anecdotal evidence.
There's no way to stop outsourcing, because there's been a generational change in managers at organizations. These new mangers are MBAs who have only managed - they have no other real-world experience doing anything. So all they do is look at a spreadsheet and see how to make cuts so they get a bigger bonus. That's all they know how to do!
Maybe some day outsourcing will catch up to companies. You can't keep cutting and hollowing out companies without eventually turning them into a shell of what they once were. But it may take a generation for this to happen. Especially because no one seems to care much about quality.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)