Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Businesses The Courts IT

Disney IT Workers Prepare To Sue Over Foreign Replacements (computerworld.com) 262

JustAnotherOldGuy writes: At least 23 former Disney IT workers have filed complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over the loss of their jobs to foreign replacements. This federal filing is a first step to filing a lawsuit alleging discrimination. These employees are arguing that they are victims of national origin discrimination, a complaint increasingly raised by U.S. workers who have lost their jobs to foreign workers on H-1B and other temporary visas. Disney's layoff last January followed agreements with IT services contractors that use foreign labor, mostly from India. Some former Disney workers have begun to go public (video) over the displacement process
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney IT Workers Prepare To Sue Over Foreign Replacements

Comments Filter:
  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @09:25AM (#50993193)

    They are the ones who are abusing the H-1B system. Disney is just subbing the work out.

    • by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @09:30AM (#50993241) Homepage Journal

      It's a little bit of a moot argument when the federal government isn't really interested in enforcing the H1-B visa law no matter WHO you believe is actually breaking it.

      • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @09:58AM (#50993443)

        The H1B visa shuffle has become an almost ritualistic dance at this point:

        Congress: May we have this backdoor into your software, for 'merica security and shit?
        Silicon Valley: Sure, may we have more H1B visas to drive down wages?
        Congress: Sure!

        • These disney ppl are almost certain to win this. It will mean massive lawsuits on the old companies. CONgress would have to write it in, that protects not just these companies, but the older companies along with the offshored companies. For any that attempt to vote for that, how long do you think that they would last in their seat?
      • by tompaulco ( 629533 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @10:40AM (#50993757) Homepage Journal

        It's a little bit of a moot argument when the federal government isn't really interested in enforcing the H1-B visa law no matter WHO you believe is actually breaking it.

        It's too difficult to enforce and the 99% of abusers are making the other 1% look bad. So just shut it down. If you can't police it and you can't control it, then you can certainly shut it down. Then we will see the companies who REALLY can't find the talent they need in America and they will be willing to pay through the nose to get it. That is what is supposed to happen with a "shortage" of talent, prices go up. Not down.

      • And that is exactly why these disney ppl need to sue not just disney, but immigration. They have a responsibility to ENFORCE the WORDING AND MEANING of the law. They have not been, and continue to not, do so.
        As such, I believe that upon disney ppl winning this lawsuit, that if they go after the feds, it will open a huge pipeline of lawsuits against the old companies, immigration, and maybe even companies like tata. Of course, the Indian companies will simply declare bankruptcy, but it will be no different
    • by Scutter ( 18425 )

      You really think Disney is an innocent bystander? That they don't have full knowledge of what they're doing?

  • by DirkDaring ( 91233 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @09:26AM (#50993203)

    THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY REPORTS FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL YEAR EARNINGS FOR FISCAL 2015
      Revenues for the year increased 7% to a record $52.5 billion.
      Net income for the year increased 12% to a record $8.4 billion.
      EPS for the year increased 15% to a record $4.90.

    So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @09:29AM (#50993229)

      The current corporate belief is that they have no duty or obligation to their employees. None at all. Their constant party line is that they do this for their stockholders, but that seems like a very weak argument these days.

      I think mostly this is about selfishness on the boardroom and the CEO levels. It's that simple.

      Someone is going to go back to the stockholder argument here I am sure, but the main stockholders are actually people at the boardroom and CEO levels so even that, to some extent, is selfishness.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's an excuse for greed. Greed is fashionable amongst the elite.

        • Capitalism is basically the systematic harnessing of greed for social good. It has some flaws, but it's less bad than anything else we've tried.
      • by cjjjer ( 530715 )

        The current corporate belief is that they have no duty or obligation to their employees

        Based on the recent hires in our company the same could be said for the employees about a company. Lets face it both sides of the fence are to blame for the mess that is the current IT industry.

        • This.

          Most people I know state that you should plan to work for a company for about 5 years before moving on to another one, using the skills you learned at your current job to leverage power when negotiating for the next job.

          There is no loyalty from either the employee or the employer. It is a two sided situation. An employer is not going to show that much loyalty to a workforce that sees it's current job as a means to it's next one. And an employee will go to where the money is and not every corporation

      • by Jhon ( 241832 )

        "The current corporate belief is that they have no duty or obligation to their employees."

        Rightly so. And employees have no duty or obligation to their employer. There is an exchange of labor for money -- period.

        No, why not make a good argument as to why it's a bad idea for HB1s to drive down the cost of labor and displace native workers? THAT is an easy and good argument to make. But suggesting an employer has any obligation other than to exchange money for labor to any employee willing to exchange la

    • So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

      Because the sole reason for corporations to exist is to maximize profits for the owners. There is no such thing as 'insignificant' when it comes to profit and greed.

      • Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...
        • Which, of course, justifies all forms of abuse.

          • By the way, I own stock, but it doesn't mean I am for every type of corporate abuse that makes the company a few extra bucks.

            • By the way, I own stock, but it doesn't mean I am for every type of corporate abuse that makes the company a few extra bucks.

              So as a shareholder what are you doing about it? Are you attending shareholder meetings? Are you putting forth proposals? Are you voting on the board of directors? Are you doing these things even if they are unlikely to make much difference?

              Just so we're clear I agree with you, but if you are a shareholder and you say nothing then the blood is on your hands too. If you own stock then you are an owner of the company and you are tacitly condoning any actions you don't speak out against.

              • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                by Anonymous Coward

                the false premise here is that any of the actions mentioned will make a difference.

              • by kilfarsnar ( 561956 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @11:09AM (#50994007)

                By the way, I own stock, but it doesn't mean I am for every type of corporate abuse that makes the company a few extra bucks.

                So as a shareholder what are you doing about it? Are you attending shareholder meetings? Are you putting forth proposals? Are you voting on the board of directors? Are you doing these things even if they are unlikely to make much difference?

                Just so we're clear I agree with you, but if you are a shareholder and you say nothing then the blood is on your hands too. If you own stock then you are an owner of the company and you are tacitly condoning any actions you don't speak out against.

                Not all shares are voting shares. What you suggest just isn't realistic for shares owned through mutual funds and the like.

                • Not all shares are voting shares. What you suggest just isn't realistic for shares owned through mutual funds and the like.

                  Holding shares in a mutual fund is a choice. Holding voting versus non voting shares is a choice. Nobody forced you to buy those shares. If you are fine with holding non-voting shares and letting someone else speak for you then that is fine but understand and own your actions.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The habits of the consumer is what justifies the abuse. Stop the consumption and the abuse will ebb.
             
            But you'll be in line with the new Star Wars film, right?

        • Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...

          That may be the case but it does not change or invalidate what I said.

        • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @10:48AM (#50993849)

          Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...

          What do you think of the long-term implications of this however?

          The goal, such as it is is to continually maximize profit in all areas. This means a large portion of expenses are the labor costs.

          So it only stands to reason that you want expenses as low as possible - American workers tend to be paid more than someone from a country with a much lower standard of living, therefore - American workers are an expense to be eliminated.

          This makes perfect sense for a extremely short term outlook.

          But from a long term outlook, it is deadly counter-productive to your interests.

          How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?

          Oh, that's right - he's not.

          Then again, since the incidental end goal for Corporate America is to force most of it's citizens to be either unemployed, or to work for the wages that they can pay someone in a third world country - eventually, the Americans who used to go to DisneyWorld, or DisneyLand or Epcot, or stay at the multiple resorts or cruises, are not going to have the money.

          And of all of the businesses that should know that their continued profitability comes from a healthy middle class, Disney should have that on the first sentence of their mission statement.

          They rely on a lot of people, spending a fair amount of discretionary money to visit their venues. How much do you figure a third world America that saves the shareholders a lot of money on labor is going to spend on 100 percent discretionary things like a trip to Disneysomething, when we're all making the same wages as that guy in IndiaStan?

          It's like saving money on skydiving by not spending money on that expensive parachute.

          • How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?

            Probably not WDW Florida and not immediately. But after companies have started to hire skilled workers in the export sector of a particular country's economy, workers in the export sector will be earning more than the workers in non-export sectors. This means two things: the country's currency will become more valuable to international buyers of its services, and employers in non-export sectors will have to gradually raise wages to retain workers. As the rising tide of the Balassa-Samuelson effect [wikipedia.org] continues

            • The eventually part is the problem since there will inevitably be a gap between the collapse of the middle class in the developed world and the rise of a new middle class with similar spending power anywhere else.

            • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @06:01PM (#50997633)

              How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?

              Probably not WDW Florida and not immediately. But after companies have started to hire skilled workers in the export sector of a particular country's economy, workers in the export sector will be earning more than the workers in non-export sectors.

              Respectfully, at the pace that corporate moves these days, as soon as the wages go up, the shareholders cannot have a reduction in profits, so the company has to find more people to pay as little as possible.

              Ak Mexico. As wages went up, those people had to lose their jobs.

              A sort of positive outcome of the ADHD jobjumping done by Corporate world is that eventually there won't be any more people to pull that stunt with. It is going to be interesting when the whole world is at one pay level. But will that happen before robots take over.

              One of the most amusing things in the world of business is billionaires telling people making minimum wage that they are being paid too much.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            IT compensation has declined significantly since the late 90s.

            As a result, I've had to cut back. I don't buy any iThingy or Android thing for that matter. I don't go to movies. I don't have cable because it's too expensive.

            My wife and I cook our own meals and we don't go out. And I do my own car and home repair.

            My TV is years old and I just have a $30 DVD player I got years ago. My Netflix streaming and over the air TV is my entertainment. Go to the movies? Only if I'm given a gift certificate.

            I live worse

          • from a country with a much lower standard of living

            Does this raise or lower the standard of living in those places?`

            • from a country with a much lower standard of living

              Does this raise or lower the standard of living in those places?`

              What happens is that the standard of living tends upward in the power country, and lover in the country with a higher standard of living.

              But all is not well. As SOL's creep up, people tend to want more. More pay, more time off. Stuff like that.

              Since the company has to make more profit this quarter, they will try to source work to another, lower paid country.

              The end result will be somewhat leveling of the playing field, but countries like America will be tending closer to the third world countries .

      • by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @09:43AM (#50993333) Homepage Journal

        This makes corporate-centric people on stashdot explode every time I say it, but the corporation is (at least supposed to be) a creature of the state. One of the reason that corporations act the way they do is because of case law. The legislature can change the law which will contradict that case law.

        The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.

        Having said that, the political will is not there because all intents and purposes the corporate class control the government.

        • by khallow ( 566160 )

          This makes corporate-centric people on stashdot explode every time I say it, but the corporation is (at least supposed to be) a creature of the state.

          Here's why. It's a stupid idea. Business-state separation can't be made as complete as that of religion-state (because the state will need goods and services from those businesses), but it is necessary to prevent a vast abuse of power. After all, aren't we already complaining about the degree of collusion between businesses and government? Why make the problem vastly worse?

          The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.

          The parent of this post doesn't do this, but a lot of people like to pretend that somehow the idea of "maximizing profits" comes down from God. It doesn't. It's the outcome of years of evolution and with national law. It is changeable if the political will is there.

          Shouldn't you have to show that there's a problem first before demanding a change?

          • Shouldn't you have to show that there's a problem first before demanding a change?

            The problem has been stated. The problem is that the only reason that corporations exist is for shareholder profit.

            The symptoms include but are not limited to doing anything possible to avoid paying taxes in the US even to the point of 'relocating' the company outside of the US and reduction of the American workforce in favor of foreign workers using a mechanism that exists only for the purpose of cutting labor costs.

          • Shouldn't you have to show that there's a problem first before demanding a change?

            I look at it from a longer term perspective, not as some anti-corporate thing.

            If maximization of profit is a good thing (and who would argue against that - I certainly have a lot of investments) then it's pretty obvious, a company can enjoy lower expenses by employing the people who will work for the least. Many would call that a no-brainer.

            But outsourcing labor, and employing illegal labor has a longer term problem. The Overpaid American Worker meme, who at one point was was buying homes, cars, and ta

            • by khallow ( 566160 )

              The Overpaid American Worker meme, who at one point was was buying homes, cars, and taking vacations to places like Disneysomething, won't be doing that any more. They'll either be unemployed, or have their wages depressed to third world levels.

              Fortunately the Chinese and Indian workers whose incomes are increasing are stepping up to replace the American worker. So all is well, right?

        • It's probably too late to go back to mostly companies instead of corporations but we could still make some sensible changes that would alter behavior. A good start would be double liability.
          • Most companies are corporations. It cost me $35 to start my own corporation a few years ago and have started a few since then. When you start a corporation, you fill out a couple pages of forms, pay the license fee, send it in and the state (corporations are all at state, not national level) sends you back a license that you have to have displayed at the place of business and a million shares. There are at least 2 officers, president, vp, treasurer and secretary. One officer may hold more than one position
      • Because the sole reason for corporations to exist is to maximize profits for the owners.

        False. Corporations exist to provide a product or service. Profits are a byproduct which allows the business to continue to provide the product or service.
        • Because the sole reason for corporations to exist is to maximize profits for the owners.

          False. Corporations exist to provide a product or service. Profits are a byproduct which allows the business to continue to provide the product or service.

          Yeah, sorry wrong. If it were consumers creating the companies so that they could have products and services that statement might actually be logical.

          I know that's what you've been fed in school, because it is what I was fed in school, but the reality is that the only reason they exist is to make the most profit possible by realizing 'economies of scale' and applying the knowledge resource to achieve the greatest reduction of costs such as taxes and human resources.

          If corporations didn't make profit, they

          • If corporations didn't make profit, they wouldn't have been created and they wouldn't continue to exist because no one would invest in them to start with.

            That or there would be more not-for-profit public benefit corporations [wikipedia.org], whose earnings stay in the company's foundation. You might remember one that was created out of the BUCK FETA scandal on Slashdot: SoylentNews [soylentnews.org].

            • If corporations didn't make profit, they wouldn't have been created and they wouldn't continue to exist because no one would invest in them to start with.

              That or there would be more not-for-profit public benefit corporations [wikipedia.org], whose earnings stay in the company's foundation. You might remember one that was created out of the BUCK FETA scandal on Slashdot: SoylentNews [soylentnews.org].

              Possibly, although such can still be misused as many 'not for profit' organizations are used by the wealthy to shelter income and avoid death taxes.
              http://www.economist.com/node/... [economist.com]

        • by Sique ( 173459 )
          It's exactly the other way around. Corporations exist to reap a profit. A legal way to achieve that to provide a product or service. That's why many companies actually do so. Holding companies often don't provide a product or service, their raison d'être is to manage the profits.
        • False. Corporations exist to provide a product or service.

          That may have been the original intent when a grant of corporate charter was unusual and limited, but nowadays I don't think that holds true.

      • by ttsai ( 135075 )

        So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

        Because the sole reason for corporations to exist is to maximize profits for the owners. There is no such thing as 'insignificant' when it comes to profit and greed.

        Because the decision makers only benefit from an increase in the profits. The bulk of the decision makers' compensation is dependent on a rise in the stock price, and the stock price depends on increased profits. Stable or slowly increasing profits are not sufficient.

    • And I guarantee you that they'll be standing in line right behind Zuckerberg and every other tech/media company before Congress complaining that they need more H1B visas because they can't find American workers.

    • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @09:55AM (#50993419) Homepage
      Business schools in the last 20 years have really been a disaster. It's the progressive idea that things should always be improving. They teach the role of a businessman isn't to create value, it is to maximize value. A staid old company with the same employees for 30 years and a steady profit? Out the window! This maximizing progressive attitude goes towards everything, all the way down until they finally get around to skimping on toilet paper.
      • by Slashdot Junky ( 265039 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @10:54AM (#50993897)

        That often is my gripe. Too many companies and executives aren't satisfied with making a reasonable profit and keeping good people employed. Instead, they want to pursue unreasonable profit and goals with a shortsighted mindset and no concern for how such a business strategy is to affect their employees and society as a whole.

        We all can't profit. One's gain is only made possible by another's loss.

        • > Too many companies and executives aren't satisfied with making a reasonable profit and keeping good people employed. Instead, they want to pursue unreasonable profit and goals

          That's because the "companies" (boards) see others doing it and want their exciting slice of the pie so they hire executives to make it happen and give them bonuses for hitting target numbers. The execs will do whatever it takes to get their bonus because frankly they don't expect to be around in a couple of years anyway, so who

      • Business schools in the last 20 years have really been a disaster. It's the progressive idea that things should always be improving. They teach the role of a businessman isn't to create value, it is to maximize value.

        Is there no end to the evil caused by liberals?

        If they're not trying to destroy the economy by introducing socialism, they're trying to destroy society by seeking the maximisation of profit!

        Un-fucking-believable.

      • Wait, when did that become a progressive issue?
    • by khallow ( 566160 )

      So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

      It's not a decision made once or in vacuum. A large part of the reason they've making those record profits is because they make those "few bucks" decisions a few orders of magnitude more often.

    • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @10:19AM (#50993589)

      So why try to save a few bucks outsourcing? I don't get it, the money saved is literally insignificant to them.

      I can suggest some reasons why.
      1) Disney's primary business is not IT related. We'll just say it's "other stuff". Sure, there is an IT component, but it's not the primary reason the company exists. I work for a Fortune 500 company who's entire business is IT. We're out of business or darn close to it without our IT component. My company actually treats its US based IT workers pretty well and while we do hire H1B people and do some outsourcing of work to India, neither is what I would call a primary chunk of our business. My experience as a career IT worker is that a lot of companies don't really value IT work at all and they always look at it as something anybody can do and it can be as well for cheap by using foreigners. So I think that Disney has never really valued their IT work very much and they look at it as costing too much because they have a bunch of benefit sucking Americans doing it.
      2) The workers were all in Orlando if I remember correctly and I'll just simply say that Disney has always treated its Orlando employees as being superfluous. IT employees in California may at this time be under no danger at all, so there is some component of it being in Florida because they are far away from where the big shots are in California who made this decision.
      3) Nobody at Disney wants to admit this, but ESPN's revenues are going down. To keep or get sports content, ESPN (which Disney owns) had to pay astronomical prices. In order to keep gouging the TV providers and charge them for carrying ESPN and its related channels, Disney had to agree to lower the number of customers who get their channels to keep the price they get per customer the same. This agreement shocked many industry watchers as they thought Disney would never agree to this. So the reality is that ESPN is going to be spending more and bringing home less. Shaving dollars off IT costs is one way to deal with that reality. Maybe it's a stupid way but again, many or most businesses don't value IT work, so to them it's an easy thing to cut. And note that ESPN recently had some fairly brutal job cuts related to this.

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        You've never been to Disneyworld, have you?

        The entire fucking place is one giant network, down to the RF wristbands ("magicbands") used by guests to do everything from unlocking their rooms, paying tabs everywhere throughout the entire resort, getting on rides, entering the parks, everything.

        And let's not forget that pretty much every ride and attraction runs or is directly dependent on computers. It's like Steam, but connected to animatronics.

        Disneyworld is the most IT-driven place I've ever been to.

    • Someone in accounting wants a promotion. His job has nothing to do with the sales, all he does is control costs. The better a job he does, the better his bonus. So he tries to cut everything to the bone.

      Which means the real problem is his boss. His boss has put saving money above getting the best employees and cares less about retention/hiring costs/PR then he does about his budget.

    • The math behind a public company is that they need more. There is no such thing as balance, sustainability or being the right size to address a market there is only more and more and more. It is the same pattern as a junkie. There is never enough smack for a junkie and there is never enough for a money for a corporation. This junkie mentality is what the Ayn Rand crowd believe should go unchecked and run our society.

      That is why corporations are a corrosive disease in our society.

    • Because executives are no longer paid wages. ALL of their compensation comes in the form of stock options that are then sold at HUGE profits with little to no taxes.
      The lawyers that are representing these employees will almost certainly win. I am hopeful that they will continue on and sue the board and executives for paying the executives in this fashion. By paying them with publically traded options, and not money, or ESOP stock, they encourage the executives to destroy the companies for short-term gains
    • Maybe to build up the economy in wherever and open a park there.
  • You gotta fight
          for your right
              to wooooooork

  • Mickey Mouse Alma Mater 2.0

    Now it's time to say goodbye
    to all our company.

    M-I-C
    Spoken:
    see you in Court real soon
    K-E-Y
    Spoken:
    why? because we're replacing. you
    M-O-U-S-E.

  • by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @10:17AM (#50993581) Homepage
    Technically anytime a company hires an H1B1, and you believe you have the qualifications for that job, you can raise hell. Hell, maybe you could even sue for lost wages. Because that is not supposed to happen. Period. To actually get fired over a H1B1 is completely ridiculous, and in this case the company has no recourse to saying that they looked for qualified professionals in America, but could not find one. The case is cut and dry, the company brazenly lied to the government, and the government rubber stamped the H1B1, like always. Like how Google, et al, got a non-competitive business practice suit brought against them for agreeing to not snipe each others employees. Americans need to come together and launch a major lawsuit against H1B1 users and their government lackeys.
  • I just love how companies that do stuff like this always like to have a list of "Core Values" of the company and they always list something like "Our People Are Our Strength". Ha!
  • I was replaced by a consulting company that was 100% made up of H1bs. They slept 6 people in a 2 bedroom apartment and shared a car. I had to train them to do my job and when I was done, I was let go.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Does it bother anyone else that these laid off employees gave an interview to Disney owned ABC? The news story really spun the story towards how STEM degrees are worthless rather than suggest any regulations on outsourcing jobs.

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @11:46AM (#50994331)

    I've been working in IT for 20 years now and have been through a couple of these outsourcing/offshoring exercises. The truth is this - there is no way to convince executives that IT is a strategic investment opportunity unless the company's only business is IT. Therefore, outsourcing will happen in most big companies the first time the MBA's spreadsheets show a big enough paper cost savings. And in Disney's case, it's not the money -- I have 2 little kids. Disney could fill several of Scrooge McDuck's money bins with just the daily cash flow from their parks. They must carry all the cash out of Disney World in dump trucks. So, there's proof that they're not doing it for cost savings.

    The thing that needs to be attacked is the IT service providers' use of H-1B and offshore labor for inappropriate tasks. Go after Cognizant, Tata Consulting Services, Accenture, IBM, HP, Infosys, Tech Mahindra, Xerox, etc. for bringing in H-1B labor for purposes that don't meet the original intention of the program. H-1B was designed to import specific high-end skill sets for a limited time to fill in actual gaps in education/experience. These service companies use the H-1B to bring in "job shadowers" who train the offshore teams, and low-level DBAs, developers and other roles that could easily be had locally without the communications or quality issues. The problem is that this will never get popular support until the vast majority of white collar workers are out of a job or underemployed. IT is still seen as a hot field, and we are all still considered well paid, so we don't get any political attention.

    Do I think outsourcing is a good idea? No, I think companies need to have some FTEs who at least have a connection to the company. When you go down the service provider route, the provider has to make money at the rate they bill you. The only way they can do this is reduce labor costs and reduce service levels to the absolute minimum to keep you from invoking breach of contract clauses.

    I have no idea how it will work out for Disney, but I've worked on both sides of the outsourcing fence. In the company doing the outsourcing, the FTEs left behind are stuck in a stagnant IT department behind a wall of change management process, 2 AM conference calls and incompetent newbie offshore guys that keep rotating. The outsourcing company is forced to cut so many corners that being an on-site employee of the company is not a fun job -- you get to tell people why they can't have things, why projects are late, etc.

    • by moeinvt ( 851793 )

      "So, there's proof that they're not doing it for cost savings."

      Their positive cash flow and profits "prove" nothing about their motivations. To a corporation, profits are never high enough.

      "bringing in H-1B labor for purposes that don't meet the original intention of the program."

      The federal government publishes a set of "guidelines" and describes the "intentions" of the program for sure. Unfortunately, neither the guidelines nor the intentions are codified in actual LAW. Therefore, corporations

HOLY MACRO!

Working...