61–70 of 428 posts
There have been a couple folks on Facebook reporting that the H1-B folks they trained are staying while they are let go (ala Disney et al).
What advantage does that give the company?
The H-1B part comes in when the contractor hired H-1B holders to fill those slots.
That is a good sign. It means the ship is slowly turning around. It sucks for the employees being laid off, no doubt. However they have to do this. There is no other way. They bet big on support and services in early 2000s. So they have lots of those employees. Could they all start to learn new things adapt to the new environment, yeah, some will but not everyone will. Heck, if they didn't lay off people, they'd stil…
Otherwise, it's just a very speculative assumption, repeated by many, that firing people must be good. Management must be acting in the company's best interests - they couldn't be biased or selfish or just making a mistake - and employees are generally a burden and a commodity.
I'd like to repost something maceo posted last year, that I saved:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9502757
Human labor is not a commodity.
This was the common sense amongst all working people for most of the 20th century. Samuel Gompers, maybe the most conservative labor leader of his time, said "You cannot weigh the human soul on the same scales as piece of pork." And working people, along with the management class for the most part, understood this to be an undeniable truth. In fact, this piece of common sense was enshrined into US law with the Clayton Act of 1914, which stated "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." But in the last 20 years, as capital has gained the firm upper hand, the common sense understanding has shifted towards the idea that labor is in fact a commodity.
The ideas behind the so-called "on-demand workforce" further solidify the notion that labor is a commodity. After all, you can order an uber ride just as easily as you can order vitamins online.
It's so pervasive that even I, someone born into a union family and a firm believer in the idea of worker solidarity, have to force myself to believe that labor is not a commodity. Why? The business class treated labor as expendable in 1915, just as they do in 2015. Why did working people understand this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.
I read a recently released sociology book earlier this year (going crazy looking for the title/author, can't find it), that posits millennials are far more likely than any recent generation to blame themselves for the problems they face. It's part of the reason that the self-help industry is bigger business than it's ever been. It's not always your fault. Our modern economy is built on rotten ideas like labor = commodity. If we want to do something about inequality, it's time that we subject fundamentally unjust ideas like these to a serious critique.
There have been a couple folks on Facebook reporting that the H1-B folks they trained are staying while they are let go (ala Disney et al).
This is probably heresy. No one talks about the H-1B worker who got laid off - it is only about the ones who stay. Not sure if everyone in this thread is aware but if an H-1B worker is laid off, he/she gets only 30 days to find a new job. If he is not able to land a new gig within 30 days, they have to leave US for good. So I will not judge here based on a couple of FB comments.
That is a good sign. It means the ship is slowly turning around. It sucks for the employees being laid off, no doubt. However they have to do this. There is no other way. They bet big on support and services in early 2000s. So they have lots of those employees. Could they all start to learn new things adapt to the new environment, yeah, some will but not everyone will. Heck, if they didn't lay off people, they'd stil…
That's what it could mean, if this were some other company. You're right in saying that sometimes layoffs are an unpleasant but necessary part of some larger plan to refocus and turn the company around. But this is IBM we're talking about: there is no plan. There's not the slightest shred of evidence that there's a real mission underway to make them relevant again, a la "the new Microsoft". It's just an endless cycle of layoffs and stock buybacks until the whole thing winds up and just goes poof in a handful of dust. It'll take a while because IBM is still huge, but 2025 is my estimated date for when it's no more.
There have been a couple folks on Facebook reporting that the H1-B folks they trained are staying while they are let go (ala Disney et al).
This is probably heresy. No one talks about the H-1B worker who got laid off - it is only about the ones who stay. Not sure if everyone in this thread is aware but if an H-1B worker is laid off, he/she gets only 30 days to find a new job. If he is not able to land a new gig within 30 days, they have to leave US for good. So I will not judge here based on a couple of FB comments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You may be right, but a good sign for whom, exactly? For the people who lost their jobs? For shareholders? For fans of IBM the company? For IBM. It's good when you consider the alternative where a great company is slowly destroyed and everyone loses their jobs.
I'm finding it hard to understand how the current situation differs from that situation. Like so many other big corps, IBM did some questionable things because of bad management and got into avoidable trouble. Now the innocent employees - the ones who didn't get a chance to steer the ship - are being thrown into the ocean. In a sane world, those employees would sue the board for some of its decisions. Those decisions…
How does that even work? I understand if there is discrimination, or they didn't get paid for their work but sue them for betting on services for such a long time? Yeah, I don't see how that works. Moreover, didn't most of those employees make the same bet by getting hired to provide consulting services.
Besides, employees are not the owners of the company (unless they are also major share holders). Shareholders can potentially sue, no doubt. But not sure about employees.
Meanwhile, IBM's CEO Ginny Rometty not only pocketed a salary of $1.6M in 2015, but also took a bonus of $4.6M. Not bad for 16 straight quarters of shrinking sales, evaporating profits and a falling stock price. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-ibm-s-ceo-w...
That doesn't sound like all that much for the CEO of an IBM-sized company.
Meanwhile, IBM's CEO Ginny Rometty not only pocketed a salary of $1.6M in 2015, but also took a bonus of $4.6M. Not bad for 16 straight quarters of shrinking sales, evaporating profits and a falling stock price. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-ibm-s-ceo-w...
That doesn't sound like all that much for the CEO of an IBM-sized company.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ibm-ceo-ginni-rometty-gets-a-...
[1] http://data.jobsintech.io/companies/ibm-corporation
[2] http://data.jobsintech.io/companies/ibm-india-private-limite...