US Justice Dept. Investigates IT Hiring Practices 223
Zecheus writes "The Wall Street Journal (no paywall on this story) reports that the Justice Department is 'stepping up' an investigation of hiring practices of US technology firms, such as Google, Intel, IBM, and Apple. From the article: 'The inquiry is focused on whether companies, particularly in the technology sector, have agreed not to recruit each other's employees in ways that violate antitrust law. Specifically, the probe is looking into whether the companies' hiring practices are costing skilled computer engineers and other workers opportunities to change jobs for higher pay or better benefits.'"
Sexism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm afraid at your age you are subject to two discriminatory categories. If you started working as a programmer in the 1980s, you must have been pretty determined to put up with the rest of us (men) during that era. I'd hire you - if I had a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Old troll is old. If the originator of that comment was actually real, she hasn't been on /. for a while.
And by Sexism (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there's sexism, but more often than not it's simply that not everyone is nice.
Verifying hiring practices... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Verifying hiring practices... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always wondered why Microsoft hasn't hired a lot of Google's engineers away from Google. In the last 10 years, Microsoft has had huge amounts of cash in the bank. It would have been easy to simply offer each of the 100 top Google engineers literally double their salary each, just to come work for MS. Even if they didn't do anything specific (or did their own thing), as long as they didn't work for Google it would be a net gain. That would have been such an easy way to gut a competitor, much easier than trying to build a better search engine, or to buy Yahoo!.
Not every company could do that, but the top tech companies are swimming in cash, and targeted poaching is an option. But it doesn't seem to be used anywhere near its full (business) potential.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone is for sale. And if you're making half a million a year, does that extra half million really make that much of a difference to you?
Re:Verifying hiring practices... (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the people I know at Google don't work there for the money, and unless it was a job in something like MSR there's no way in hell you could turn their heads.
Re:Verifying hiring practices... (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's the way a company SHOULD protect itself from headhunters.
Re: (Score:2)
Google engineers are mostly Linux engineers using Mac computers. These sorts of people aren't really interested in Microsoft's dogfooding culture. That's not to say they couldn't be a benefit to Microsoft, but it's a fundamentally different platform, and there's not a lot of incentive to learn it, especially when there are hundreds of universities churning out Microsoft-trained engineers.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Been underwater, living on a fiat currency with federal and state taxes eating into your dream lifestyle.
You can turn off at MS from 9 till 5 and then be a real person again at home right?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Verifying hiring practices... (Score:4, Informative)
In the last 10 years, Microsoft has had huge amounts of cash in the bank. It would have been easy to simply offer each of the 100 top Google engineers literally double their salary each, just to come work for MS.
Well, number one it's a huge obvious anti-trust issue. Microsoft is already a convicted monopolist. Google isn't without its own political influences. You do the math.
The other issue would simply be starting a "employee grab" war. You think Google couldn't try the same thing with Microsoft's employees? The only end result would be both companies would be paying more for employees, with a stalemate as far as talent goes. Neither company employs stupid management, and the moves are obvious enough to see.
Also you have to understand that money isn't everything, especially above a certain level. Work environment, influence, location, benefits, and rising stock prices all effect people's decisions on where to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this new news now in the US now?
A childlike naivety that the "tech" sector would be any different from their parents and grandparents generation?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, number one it's a huge obvious anti-trust issue. Microsoft is already a convicted monopolist. Google isn't without its own political influences. You do the math.
It worked with Anders Hejlsberg. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You think Google couldn't try the same thing with Microsoft's employees?
Right, because what Google needs is to dip into a clutch of programmers who still haven't figured out the first thing about software security..
Thanks for the laugh!
Re: (Score:2)
The other issue would simply be starting a "employee grab" war. You think Google couldn't try the same thing with Microsoft's employees? The only end result would be both companies would be paying more for employees, with a stalemate as far as talent goes.
Well, that's the whole point on why the agreement to not poach employees is illegal. This is price fixing, plain and simple, except that instead of colluding to raise the price of a product they sell, the companies are colluding to artificially keep the cost of employee salaries lower than they should be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust me, having Google or Amazon on the resume means a lot more the having Microsoft on the resume.
The former two guarantee you know something about scaling (insane scaling), the later only guarantees you know how to develop for Windows.
The former two haven't drowned themselves in bureaucracy. The later has.
The former two still have managers with technical chops. The later has MBA's for managers.
This is nothing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like a waste of an investigation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seems like a waste of an investigation (Score:5, Insightful)
They key difference is that while for one particular company to hire only people from certain schools may be stupid and discriminatory, it's not a conspiracy between multiple companies -- the latter being pretty much the definition of a trust, and what anti-trust laws are designed to prevent. The former harms only one company, and the employees of that company; the latter harms everyone in the industry.
Ha, I did this last week (Score:5, Insightful)
I think no one should have the right to tell you were you work, but, you shouldn't be allowed leave and take you current employers clients with you over to another firm. if you allow that kind of bullshit, employee's would hold employers to ransom.
things like having agreement not to hire engineers and coders so you don't have to compete for the talent pool is bullshit, i hope they get dragged over the coals.
Re:Ha, I did this last week (Score:4, Insightful)
you shouldn't be allowed leave and take you current employers clients with you over to another firm.
If you can "take" your former employer's clients, it means that they were not really clients of the company but rather clients of a single person. That is a poor way to handle business relationships.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ha, I did this last week (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree 100% there. Nobody should be able to tell you that you can't use your skill set to make a living. That's one of the perks of living in a right to work state.
That said, my wife owns a small therapy business that we took out loans for every penny we're worth to finance, advertise, brand, and build from the ground up. For 2 of 3 years she managed to take minimum wage while making sure that everybody else was paid competitively and with incentives.
After hiring a director for a second office and continually re-investing in the company, 2 years later the director left, took 2 of the 3 therapists and 60% of the patients in that office, open an office 2 blocks away. She basically took our investment, used us to build up a caseload and a revenue stream, and then decided to call it "her" business. That kind've impact, when you also take into effect long term lease agreements on office space that we had to commit to, nearly bankrupted us, forced us to shut down the business and cost 10 other people their jobs. And if you're wondering, the therapist's contracts were mysteriously destroyed before all of this took place.
Hiring in that business is seasonal and through a random stroke of luck we were able to rearrange personnel and my wife has taken on a caseload that she doesn't have time to take on just so that she can get to the summer when therapists usually become available, without having to fire anybody.
People are greedy and in a service based business where the employees are providing a service to your clients/patients every day employees can get a seriously inflated sense of self-worth without a hint of what has been done just to make their position even exist. Holding companies for hostage would be an understatement because the impact of 1 or 2 people leaving can hurt a lot more than just your employeer, it can hurt your previous fellow employees.
I'm a web developer and I had a serious ego in my last job. Then I tried to start my own thing (still working on it) and I now have a heaping load of appreciation for the opportunity that my previous employer gave me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2 out of the 3 therapists took off with the new Director without even *talking* to you?
Sounds like you had a bad relationship with them.
How about investigating H1B BS instead? (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a really big (20+ Billion dollars in revenues) company's IT department.
Of late, they have become enamored with one of the big Indian outsourcing companies. I'm sure their folks are wonderful - indeed, of the ones I've worked with, it's about the same breakdown of wonderful/OK/awful as everyone else.
Based on job listings recently found on one of the internet job sites, they appear to have asked the outsourcer to find someone to work in my area as a technical manager of sorts. The job listing is full of internal lingo and acronyms - nobody from outside the company would know what it's talking about; indeed, some of the acronyms are commonly thought of as something else. (For example, suppose IBM stood for, internally, the "Internet Bandwidth Management" system but it says in the job listing "must be familiar with IBM computer technologies.")
I'm usually one to attribute stuff to stupidity before malice or deviousness.
But is the crap job listing a devious attempt to prove that nobody with US work rights already is suitable, thereby making it OK to bring in someone on a visa - and totally ignoring the fact that the visa guy won't be suitable either?
Or is it just stupidity? After all, HR folks mess up technical job listings all the time.
I don't know, but I do know that the H1B bull shit needs to be cleaned up. Given the employment turmoil of the last year, why would you possibly, honestly, need to bring someone in from overseas?
Re: (Score:2)
But is the crap job listing a devious attempt to prove that nobody with US work rights already is suitable, thereby making it OK to bring in someone on a visa - and totally ignoring the fact that the visa guy won't be suitable either?
Given your description? Yes. Absolutely. There's really no question about that. This kind of thing happens all the time. I also completely agree with you that it's both unethical, and very likely illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You can't exploit the weak if you're exploiting someone else instead...
Who does this apply to? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing this this really only applies to the high-level, superstar tech talent, right? Especially with firms like Microsoft and IBM, what could they possibly be losing when IBM hires someone who's been working on the grammar checker for the Norwegian version of Word? Or the lower-level code monkey keeping an obscure feature of WebSphere MQ up to date?
These kinds of agreements would work in environments where talent tends to stay put. Unfortunately, the invisible hand seems to think that job stability is a stupid, backward 20th Century concept. After all, who doesn't like looking for a new job every 2 to 6 years?? In an environment like this, even the big guys are going to have trouble holding onto employees.
I think a much better investigation would deal with the well-publicized claims of IBM laying off senior US techs, replacing them with Indians or Brazillians, and forcing the laid off person to train the n00b to get their severance package. I'd also like to see the H-1B program users under some scrutiny for things like not paying prevailing wages, or employers intentionally not pursuing the hiring of US workers so they can get their work cheaper.
All of these things would be less of an issue with some kind of professional standards body in the IT realm. Unfortunately, too many people I know think this is evil and doesn't allow the full brilliance of their talent to shine. I don't think that's valid...lawyers sure like the Bar Association and doctors like the AMA. These organizations give them the power to influence laws and maintain educational standards...exactly what we need.
HB-1 "solution" (Score:2, Interesting)
A partial solution to the problem of foreign laborers is to tax it. A 20% payroll tax on people with employment-based visas in addition to current requirements such as prevailing wages would reduce the incentive to use guest labor. If you applied this to illegal aliens as well, then you have yet another stick to go after people who hire illegal alien labor. The downside risk is that even more jobs will go overseas, where companies are subject to weaker safety, pollution, and other good-for-mankind laws a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it would only reduce the amount of money those people would be willing to pay in salaries. Trust me when I say that it would be really easy for them to fire people.
Re:Who does this apply to? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think a much better investigation would deal with the well-publicized claims of IBM laying off senior US techs, replacing them with Indians or Brazillians, and forcing the laid off person to train the n00b to get their severance package. I'd also like to see the H-1B program users under some scrutiny for things like not paying prevailing wages, or employers intentionally not pursuing the hiring of US workers so they can get their work cheaper.
Finally I read an idea that makes a lot of sense. When there is plenty of talent in the states, why are companies offshoring jobs or importing labor via the H-1B programs. Companies get tax breaks for this kind of non-sense. Companies actually get tax breaks for eliminating American jobs! If that isn't an example of just how bad things have gotten in America, I don't know what is. And supposedly the economy is recovering - I just don't see how. It is time for a change and more laws to protect the American Worker. I might even go so far as to advocate that IT needs to unionize!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I might even go so far as to advocate that IT needs to unionize!
It'll never happen. Why? No, not because IT has some special political position. No, not because IT is someone some special talent pool that's immune to corporate scum-baggery. It's because IT is by and large a large amount of small shops who's power would be very weak. The UAW is a great and powerful union because there's only 3 major U.S. based automakers. Teachers unions are powerful because school districts are large. But IT? So spr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stability (by definition) is the antithesis to the IT industry.
Baloney. Eventually the Moore's law gravy train that's been responsible for a lot of the continued development and the rapid change will be over. When that will happen I don't know, but it will. Much of the innovations of new languages has been at least in part been a result of Moore's law. Sure, the change and innovation will likely never stop, but it will slow. Even farming has innovation and change in it and it's one of the oldest activi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With new technologies, and the technologies developed as a result of the previous technologies so far has proved you wrong.
Huh? New technologies can't escape the fact that the world is made of atoms. Moore's law is largely the same technologies of photo-lithography on silicon improved and improved again. I'm sure there's a lot of innovation that occurs, but it can't escape the fact that the silicon atom is of a finitely large size.
quantum computing technologies. The latter will usher in a whole other sub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the invisible hand seems to think that job stability is a stupid, backward 20th Century concept. After all, who doesn't like looking for a new job every 2 to 6 years?? In an environment like this, even the big guys are going to have trouble holding onto employees.
Job stability doesn't work when the -industry- is changing. Advancements in hardware allow for new software concepts. 15 years ago if someone came up with the idea for Google Maps it would be shot down for a number of reasons. Number one because of the lack of high-resolution satellites and number two because of the fact the average person could never download such a large file over the (then) current technology. Today, Google Maps is a large part of Google and similar things are used on other sites.
O
Re:Who does this apply to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And exactly which members of our profession would sit upon this august bo
Not actively recruiting, or actively excluding? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference.
Legal: "We won't have our recruiters stake out the Starbucks in Redmond."
Grey area, probably what the Feds are looking into: "We'll draw up a short list of industry experts and constantly headhunt them, but once we find out they work for Microsoft we'll stop actively pursuing them. If they contact us, fine."
Illegal: "If we find out you are a Microsoft employee we will not hire you until you quit."
Non-compete clauses in employment contracts (Score:4, Interesting)
That would seem to be the biggest problem for would be switchers. Essentially, their legalese translates into:
"You must be subjected to a complete mind-wipe before going to work at one of our potential competitors, because if you use any of the specific expertise you developed while working here, you're screwed."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"You must be subjected to a complete mind-wipe before going to work at one of our potential competitors, because if you use any of the specific expertise you developed while working here, you're screwed."
Language to that effect would most likely be unenforceable. Companies can't use employment contracts to prevent people from using general industry skills to earn a living, unless perhaps they are willing to take on the person's salary (which happens only for a rare, very senior person pulling in substantial six figures).
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
I doubt it's an agreement (Score:2)
More likely it's a consequence of the non-competes most large companies require employees to sign as a condition of employment, and the risk of getting entangled in litigation if a company hires someone who was subject to such a non-compete. Even if the company can't be liable, it costs money to deal with the matter and extract the company from the litigation. And the employees themselves are probably also touchy about the matter, they can't get themselves out of the mess if a previous employer decides to s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are. But that doesn't prevent a previous employer from threatening or actually bringing a suit to enforce them. It just means that, after spending a year or two and 20-30 thousand dollars of your own money, you'll have a piece of paper from the court ruling in your favor. And that is the problem employers have with recruiting people who might be subject to a non-compete and worked for a company that might try to enforce it.
What about the fake job ads scam ... (Score:5)
which is a ploy to avoid hiring American workers in favor of H1B & green card temp workers? It's only "old news" if you have already been replaced by an H-1B.
I read one ad for Qt4 programmers which required 5 years experience, but tool had only been released in the prior year!
The most infamous quote by immigration lawyer Larry Lebowitz during the Cohen & Grigsby seminar on employment visas, May 15th, 2007 in Pittsburgh. Lebowitz coached immigration attorneys and employers how to avoid hiring US workers in order to hire foreign workers on green cards:
"Our goal [youtube.com] is clearly NOT TO FIND a qualified and interested US worker."
http://www.programmersguild.org/rir/ [programmersguild.org]
Or, HERE [google.com]
How U.S. Employers Can Avoid The H1B Cap
Under the present scenario, U.S. employers can only file H1B petitions for new bachelor-level or master-level H1B workers on one day each year, or on April 1 of each year.
However, there are some other options available to U.S. employers.
Alternatives To The H1B Visa
o Hire U.S. workers.
o Hire foreign nationals who already have an H1B visa under the H1B "portability" rules.
o Hire recently graduated students on the USCIS' extended "optional practical training" (OPT) program for certain foreign graduates of U.S. universities.
o Hire H1B1 workers from Chile or Singapore.
o Hire E-3 workers from Australia.
o Hire TN workers from Canada or Mexico.
o Hire E-2 foreign nationals who own and operate their own companies within the United States.
o For multinational companies, transfer employees from overseas to the United States under the L-1 visa category.
o Utilize the U.S. State Department's J-1 visa program to hire foreign "trainees" and "interns".
o Utilize the H2B "temporary worker" nonimmigrant visa category.
A TN visa process is an "objective" process in which the USCIS officer determines whether an applicant's credentials meet those listed in NAFTA.
There is no requirement that a sponsoring employer pay at least the prevailing wage (or actual wage, if higher) for the position being sponsored for the geographic location where the foreign national will work.
A year ago it was reported [computerworld.com] that H-1B workers OUTNUMBERED unemployed techies!
H1B and other quotas are set in the Free Trade Agreements with the various countries. Despite the fact that these job ad s
Re: (Score:2)
A year ago it was reported that H-1B workers OUTNUMBERED unemployed techies!
You seem to be confused. That ain't all that bad -- break it down to the smallest numbers to see why: 1 H1B worker and 0 unemployed techs.
Its not really all that meaningful a metric anyway, but I'd say the time to worry is instead when the number of unemployed outnumber the H1Bs.
Recruiting != hiring (Score:3, Insightful)
And let's stop the shortage myth discussion (Score:3, Insightful)
Before it starts. Slashdot article:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/10/1454250 [slashdot.org]
And i have posted a number of times about it on this and other forums. I'm getting tired of posting it.
RAND institute, Stanford, Duke, and one other reputable institution I can't remeber have all posted studies on this. There is *no* shortage in SMET fields.
There is no excuse for the companies, actions.
Another thing to investigate is non-competes (Score:3, Insightful)
Another thing to investigate is non-competes, and non-solicits. They're illegal in CA, but perfectly legal in most other states. Basically it is illegal for you to use your knowledge in the area where you have the most expertise at the moment. WTF?
Then There is Non-Compete ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Poor Activision... (Score:3, Interesting)
Their supposed crime? Interviewing with EA for a job.
The "supposed" part should be doubly emphasized. First of all, because so far at least Activision hasn't actually provided any proof that the studio heads were actually doing that. Second of all, because if the Justice Department thinks refusing to hire people because the worked for a competitor is illegal, how are they going to respond to a policy of firing any employees that are suspected of talking to a competitor about a job? Presuming no actual trade secrets were being shared Activision my be setting _themselves_ up for further lawsuits or investigations. Everyone knows that if your current company finds out that you're shopping around for a new job that there might be consequences, but most companies aren't stupid enough to announce in a legal document that it was a direct response intended as a punishment for "misbehaving" employees.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The "Rumor" is enough to get someone fired, I've seen people get others out of their way by using such tactics.
I can answer that in two words (Score:2)
Fuck Yes.
The same goes for AT&T, Verizon, Quest, and any other telecommunication company who do the same things to network engineers.
While they're at it, do something about their ways of keeping contractors on the payroll for years with a promise of a job that never materializes.
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A "gentlemen's agreement" between companies not to pilfer employees isn't a bad thing ... unless you're not one of those companies.
Or unless you're employed by one of those companies. Artificially limiting an Engineer's ability to get another job which could offer better compensation or more interesting technical challenges is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
When quality developers drift out of US and UK companies into the private sector and compete with their former masters we have
a gentlemen's agreement to keep them techcropping.
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod .sig +5 insightful (Score:3, Interesting)
Your sig: "The upset over a missed deadline goes away much faster than the terrible taste of a bad product."
Mod +5 insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And anyone working for them today outside of system administration will have a ton of trouble getting a new job, if just because the work the rest of them do is not all that useful anywhere else. Spending years dealing with very large amounts of bad code that you can't edit, and doing a lot of work by editing proprietary XML configuration files is not exactly a good reference. The environment is toxic enough that even local companies that they have acquired recently have been losing employees in droves.
That
Re: (Score:2)
It feels good for the justice dept. to start an investigation to stand up for workers' rights for once!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:4, Funny)
It sounds more like a "hiqhwaymen's agreement" to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These are two r
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
After a few minutes of googling, I reaffirm my claim:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/21349/ [macdailynews.com]
That's not to say parent was not correct, but that my comment was taken out of context.
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think they should investigate the sending of IT jobs off-shore...It should be considered unethical if a company lays off an IT person, then ship their job to China, for example. Nothing against China, or any other country, but when you ship all of that expertise elsewhere, you handicap innovation in your country. That's stupid.
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Luckily, 16 states are looking into banning credit checks, and unpaid internships are being looked at as well.
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, when I saw this, I thought there are many more and worse problems than that in IT hiring.
There's the H1B stuff. Then there is stuff that I suspect is not confined to IT, though maybe it is more common there. For instance, putting out "resume bait" on job websites, practiced by the shadier sorts of head hunting firms. Jobs that don't actually exist. Another of this variety is the one they have no intention of filling, as they've made it impossible for anyone to qualify, or are demanding so much or offering so little pay that only a desperate sucker would bite. This is so they can cry that they can't find talented people, and hypocritically demand more H1Bs or other government intervention. Or there's the cooked job posting. There really is a job, but they've already chosen their hire, perhaps a friend or a relative, and are merely going through the motions to give it the appearance of complying with EEOC requirements. These have the mile long list of requirements, some very obscure and questionable, that just happen to exactly fit the resume of the person they're hiring. Then there's the real job that is already filled. Another common practice is pushing people to perform the work of more than one job, or of categorizing a job as a lower pay, less skilled position than the work they actually want done. And of course discrimination based on age, race, sex, marital status.
The noise level has been bad for years now. It would help everyone if all these sorts of deceit were tamped down, if HR was served notice that, no, such corrupt dealings are not acceptable, no matter how common and "standard" they may be. Well, this investigation is a start.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true! I remember this one job posting asking for 10 years experience with JAVA, when it had only existed as a product for 5 years! I think part of the problem is that IT people don't hire IT people in large companies, its the HR people. And HR people game the system to make themselves look the best, not hire the best people for the job.
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:4, Insightful)
H1-B is broken by design (i.e. the law that establishes rules for them). You have a skilled worker visa that practically invites companies to screw over foreign workers - if they're fired, laid off, or if they leave of their own desire, they have to start packing literally next minute - no opportunity given to look for a new job in U.S. - thus allowing them to exercise insane pressure on them, in particular with respect to working conditions, hours and pay. And you expect companies not to abuse it as much as they can?
You can't fix this by merely going after the companies. You can reduce the amount of abuse that way somewhat, but you cannot get rid of it. The only way to do the latter is to fix the system on legal level. You have to make sure that foreign workers on worker visas have the same leverage vis-a-vis employers on the job market as any member of the local workforce - so that companies have to truly compete for employees, no matter where they come from.
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are credit checks even needed in the first place?
Hell, of course you're going to have a few problems. That's why you're, I dunno, looking for work?
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for the link n/t (Score:2)
Pointless HR busywork (Score:2)
It's not information my employer ever will actually need for anything other than pointless paper shuffling. It's just an irrelevant way for some clueless grandma or recent graduate in HR to say "tut tut, here's a bad boy" and throw out your application before anyone with a clue sees it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"It should be considered unethical if a company lays off an IT person, then ship their job to China, for example."
How goes the old saying? You can't have the cake and eat it too, isn't it?
Didn't you want free market and capitalism? Well, there you have it.
"when you ship all of that expertise elsewhere, you handicap innovation in your country. That's stupid."
Maybe it is, but then you are telling capitalism and free market are stupid. For capitalism is not about long term planning and global-wise decisions
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not remotely a free market; it's arbitrage of labor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Put it in economic terms. Appeals to intelligence or fairness don't work in this "me, me, me" society. For example, US companies enjoy the infrastructure, the laws and legal system, (all too often) the direct protection of the US military for their overseas assets, and the benefit of existing in a society where you generally don't have a lot of the issues prevalent in some other parts of the world. Those things cost money--your tax money specifically. If a company is going to take advantage of the benef
Re: (Score:2)
But these guys at Google, Intel, IBM, and Apple, they stole hundreds of millions of dollars...
..showed that white guys in suits getting together...
All the other companies weren't there.
No one clicked the word 'agreement.'
The scripts for US corporate crime movies from the 1980's, 90s and beyond just write themselves.
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still illegal.
Its bad enough with NDAs that keep you from working in your field of expertise ... even if you're totally honourable and have ZERO intent of using the insider knowledge you gained.
Re:Here We Go ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah it's not bad for the company, but it's bad for the people who would like their wages to be set by "the competitive market." This is harmful for anyone who hopes to be paid what they are worth. It harms not only employees at any company engaged in such practices, it harms everyone else who uses these large firms as a measurement by which wage expectations are set.
Re:wait i'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can be replaced by an Indian code monkey, you don't deserve to have an IT job.
Anyone can be replaced by an Indian code monkey, it just takes management more interested in the upcoming quarterly than in quality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, you do have a point. However, most of the instances I have seen of Indian outsourcing get reversed in really short order. It doesn't take long for shit code to get exposed.
Re:wait i'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't take long for shit code to get exposed.
If only. If you actually have sane people without any conflict of interest looking at the code, you're right. If you only expose the shittyness after the product is delivered and "working", that can take years and tens of millions of dollars. Especially if the project in managed by a consulting firm who's billed out at an hourly rate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"as long as the requirements are met and the expense is lower, they're happy."
Why shouldn't they!!!???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
MS and Google famously pooch from each other all the time....
Here, boy! Good programmer! There's a yummy treat!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Price fixing is still price fixing.
The good in this case, is labor.
It doesn't matter which side of the cash register you are on, if you agree with others to fix prices at which you will buy something, you are violating anti-trust law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention the common practice of calling a position "contract to hire", when they have absolutely no intention of hiring the person, and will replace the person with another CTH once the contract is up. (In some states, they can even "replace" the person with the same person through another agency.)
That, and H1B fraud, I believe to be the two most common exploitation techniques right now.