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: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:19AM
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]
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:23AM
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
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
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
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.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(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.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(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.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:26AM
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
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
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
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
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
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".
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:19AM
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
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
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
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
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
Posts like yours definitely cross the line from sophistry into faggotry. Why your obsession with my ass?
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:51AM
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
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]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:56AM
Geek-Domination is Canceled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:59AM
Will there be a Trump-tweet on this topic? Or is he only out for manufacturing industries and jobs to Mexico?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:06AM
Uber Trump will need to consult his bedfellows at Facebook, Google, Uber, etc, to be told what to tweet.
By sending IT jobs abroad, UC is undermining its own mission, which includes preparing California students to serve the high-tech industry.
The social media industry doesn't need UC graduates. UC might as well eliminate all computer-related degree programs, right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:10PM
My guess is when he lowers the visa limit and starts investigating these shenanigans he gets labeled a racist, again.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:07AM
"But UC is a public institution, not driven by profit. It's qualitatively different from other employers."
That doesn't mean that money doesn't matter tho. I dollar saved here or there is a dollar they can spend somewhere else.
While unfortunate is it really that big a difference from what many universities are doing when they let Google run their mail-servers? Which from what I understand it's quite common. Sure it's not eliminating the entire IT-staff but a couple of persons perhaps plus you are handing over all your students and staff emails to Google. So is it only bad when not-Google are doing things or is it the whole idea that you are going to have to get IT-support from Apu?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:20AM
Large universities use Amazon for their web sites now. Small universities have moved their entire web presence to Facebook already.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:40AM
Citation or links please? I haven't seen either of these and I work with hundreds of universities (but most of them are mid-sized or large).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:17AM
An AC asking another AC to identify specific universities? Isn't it ironic. Why don't you just spam A/S/L and cyber?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by darkfeline on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:48AM
Have you ever worked with Indian IT support? Using Google hosted email is leagues better than trying to get support for a Microsoft Exchange server from an Indian speaking broken English telling you to reboot your computer. I think it's reasonable for an organization to outsource their IT, as long as they aren't doing it blindly. However, for an institution of learning they should instead be hiring students. The students get paid, the students get hands on experience, the school gets cheap labor, the full-time IT staff get to work with relatively intelligent students (well, better than your average Indian front line support person anyway).
Before any SJWs get too excited, there's nothing inherently wrong with Indians, hell, Google hires Indians as first-class software engineers. But these are not the same Indians doing cheap outsourced IT support. They're cheap for a reason.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:46PM
They're cheap for a reason.
And extending the slap in the face 50 of the eliminated positions I'm sure required VERY expensive BS or MS degrees probably from UC itself, yet supposedly those jobs can be done by bottom of the barrel uneducated Indians with a month or two of training.
Its a display of degree inflation. Why can we demand a master degree for our receptionist? Because there's so many unemployed liberal arts degree holders that we can. Why do we have MSCS degree holders pulling cat-5 cable and terminating it as their primary job, well, because we can.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:13PM
2009 [informationweek.com]
See where wanting to get rich led you? Should have learned Six Sigma, now you don't know shit.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @10:53PM
Even if you've learned Six Sigma, you still don't know shit, but you at least have a POS certification that says you went through the marketing BS to get it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:01PM
And you'd be suddenly employable by HCL working for peanuts.
Congrats, you realized it or not, a better life is no longer for you.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:44PM
why did you use the term SJW? you could have stated "anyone", because most people against outsourcing appeared to have voted for Trump; remember that whole TPP thing, and his rants about building cars in Mexico and threatening high tarfis?
You'd have come across as smarter if you didn't have to add a smear into your post. People have been upset with HCL, Indian outsourcing, and off-shoring of jobs in general, before the term SJW was ever coined for use to describe the Other people that may get offended by something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:23PM
If they wanted to save money they should have used grad students.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:24PM
Another aspect of this is security. For my small business, I think it's safer to hire Google to run email than managing my own server. I can even force everyone to use two-factor auth. Of course Google is becoming a bigger and bigger target for attacks, but emails shouldn't be that sensitive, given the modest security of the medium.
A rule of thumb might be to farm out public and not-so-sensitive IT stuff (web hosting, email, bulk storage) while keeping sensitive stuff (like patient records or design documents) in-house or encrypted.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:59AM
The problem with most hospitals' IT policies are that management sees IT as a cost rather than an opportunity. My company has been developing health sector software to try and fill this gap but I steadfastly advice hospital managers not to outsource their core functions.
Hospitals with thriving IT departments are in an excellent position to innovate and sell software but most departments I have seen are truly fucked by vendor lockin. They make the same mistake over and over and should be used to asking the right questions by now (re standards, migration an separation of function). Instead they end up spending their time maintaining WinXP (not kidding).
My company recently outsourced some dev to India. It was for a prototype UI. The experience was positive overall but I would never do the same for anything production critical. It's about 3x more expensive to develop locally but the shorter review cycle and better communication make up for that. YMMV of course!
(Score: 1) by Lester on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:14AM
Money, that's the name of the game.
if "shorter review cycle and better communication" means lower cost, it is good. if it means higher cost in the short term, but lower cost int the medium/long term, it deserves to be studied and analyzed and then (after clearly proved) it may be accepted depending upon other factors (credit interest, cash etc). If it means higher cost in the short term and same or higher cost in the long term, then "shorter review cycle and better communication" is irrelevant or bad.
I don't know what's you current charge in the company, but don't talk too loud, your job may be outsourced if you insist in spending more money.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:53PM
Instead they end up spending their time maintaining WinXP (not kidding).
Beats getting involuntarily upgraded to Windows 10 from Windows 7. But hey, I don't work in healthcare, so I can't comment on if Microsoft's product 'improvements' better serve that industry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:19PM
Why should tech people get special treatment? All the other jobs are getting outsourced or automated these days. I'm not crying because some geek's job gets sent overseas or when illegal labor gets used for it. We do it for everything else, don't we?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:46PM
Is this runaway writing anonymously?
I guess when they come for you, I won't say anything because you didn't stick up for my rights either.
Just because everyone is doing it is not a reason to continue doing it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:08PM
On paper, H1B visa's are SUPPOSED to fill skill shortages, and not be a tool to pay workers less. As written, it's a lie.
Let's screw everyone equally and maybe our cost of living will be more aligned. Make it easier to outsource or visa-tize doctors and lawyers, for example, so our medical and legal bills are smaller. They protect their turf with trade unions and US-centric certification rules, we don't. They are "special snowflakes"; we've been melted down. Thus, IT worker wages are flatter relative to doctors. In the end it still would mean the rich get richer and the rest get outsourced. That's been the trend since the 80's. Doctors and lawyers would simply join the sliders instead of the 1%.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:36PM
They protect their turf with trade unions and US-centric certification rules, we don't.
That's also why IT has been a leading creator of economic growth in the US while those two are causes of higher costs of doing stuff in the US. IT can create its own jobs. They don't need to screw over the rest of society in order to get ahead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:09PM
While that may be true, it won't necessarily benefit IT workers. Cheaper doctors would benefit many OTHERS also, just NOT doctors. Why should IT workers be the sacrificial economic lambs? Spread the pain/benefits.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:33AM
Why should IT workers be the sacrificial economic lambs?
I was thinking more that the protected status of those other groups should be revoked. But this is the Atlas Shrugged scenario in a nutshell. I'd much rather wait till things get worse before doing that.