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: 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.