Laid-off IT workers muzzled as H-1B debate heats up
Source: Computerworld
IT workers are challenging the replacement of U.S. employees with foreign visa holders. Lawsuits are on the rise and workers are contacting lawmakers. Disney workers who lost their jobs on Jan. 30, 2015, are especially aggressive.
...
The Disney severance package offered to them did not include a non-disparagement clause, making it easier for laid-off workers to speak out. This is in contrast to the severance offered to Northeast Utility workers.
...
The utility employees left their jobs with a severance package that included this sentence: "Employee agrees that he/she shall make no statements to anyone, spoken or written, that would tend to disparage or discredit the Company or any of the Company's officers, directors, employees, or agents."
That clause has kept former Eversource employees from speaking out because of fears the utility will sue them if they say anything about their experience. The IT firms that Eversource uses, Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services, are major users of the H-1B visa.
...
Read more: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3027640/it-outsourcing/laid-off-it-workers-muzzled-as-h-1b-debate-heats-up.html
So Disney made the mistake of not having laid off employees sign statements restricting their ability to speak out on their experiences with the outsourcing efforts at those companies.
This is interesting to me personally, since I've recently had other unemployed people tell me of similar experiences at another company that I won't mention here. I won't say any more to protect their privacy and I think the details are probably a bit different than the ones mentioned here, but it struck me as being a similar situation. It is likely that there's a lot more out there in this category that we don't hear about that we're hearing with the Disney situation, where Disney didn't try to muzzle its employees.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)charge the state to give away a publicly owned company and then OUTSOURCE JOBS?
where is the public outrage
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)If the TRUTH about what a company DID is disparaging, it seems the company disparaged itself.
Mister Ed
(5,944 posts)If a person just stuck to the bare, verifiable facts, would they have violated their agreement not to disparage their former employer?
Probably not. If they were sued for it, they probably wouldn't lose the lawsuit. But! They probably don't have the time, money, and stamina to defend themselves against the suit, while the corporation they used to work for has plenty.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)They don't let you make the choice between good and bad comments. They simply ban you from talking about them.
A few years ago I coded for a SV company that had a standard non-disparagement clause in its separation agreement. Because it was an amicable separation, I was only offered $2500 to avoid speaking about them publicly for 5 years (I never had a problem with them and left because I found another job, so the $2500 is a bonus). Aside from listing them on my resume for future employers, the clause prohibits me from even mentioning that I'd even worked for them in any kind of media or press, or on any kind of social networking platform. If I so much as post on Facebook that I'd seen the inside of their building, the money goes away. There is an exception that allows me to put up reviews for them on companies like Glassdoor, but ONLY if I submit the review to the company first, get their approval, and post the approved review verbatim. I doubt many people would bother going through that. At the end of the five year period, I can post anything I want.
This isn't an unusual thing in modern corporate America.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Laid off workers can decline to take the package. Or even if they take the package, they can later renege on their agreement, but then, as you say, the money goes away.
So you know, what's the expression about everyone having their price...?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
mtasselin
(666 posts)This is going to get worse if tpp ever becomes law. American people need to fight back and call your congressperson and US Senator's here is the number 202-224-3121. America you have been warned so please fight back.
quickesst
(6,283 posts)... being laid off, or losing jobs because foreigners would do the same work for less. When we complained, we were accused of being racist for "denying poor brown people the opportunity to make a better life for their families." ( other people's words, not mine)
Funny how things changed when it went from blue collar workers to IT workers. I don't suppose that has anything to do with people's perception, and opinion of class.
Just to be clear, I didn't like it then, & I don't like it now. It's just an observation.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)In a massive Fortune 50 company. They're slowly replacing their IT staff with these H1-B employees, and the new guys, while their credentials look great, are unable to do the jobs assigned to them. A computer science degree from India or China doesn't seem to be as comprehensive, and once the productivity numbers go way down and they start losing money they'll change their tunes. That may be me being naive, but it's been my experience that the bottom line always affects hiring decisions.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)As I am sure everyone knows software specs & requirements docs are rarely well written, and there were constant misunderstandings over what was really needed. I am not sure if the coders & engineers in India were simply less good, or if the problem came because they couldn't just walk down the hall and ask us for clarification, but after three years the plug was pulled and engineers here took the work over.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)BUT, and it is a huge BUT... They accept the job for far lower salary than the American worker they replace. This is especially true in my field, where to save money companies are hiring inexperienced H1b workers to be trained by their American counterpart, who is then let go when the company downsizes. The H1b worker is retained. Also H1b workers tended to be contract workers, so no health care or paid holidays.
In my city I actually had an HR manager show me what the scale of pay was for my position, and even for a very experienced person the pay rate was lower than I was making. H1b workers (through no fault of their own, it is the companies fault) drive down wages for everyone.
The fellows i worked with were great guys, but they lived four or five to an apartment to make ends meet.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)debts that mysteriously seem to mount with every week ...
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,343 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)The "Mitt Romney" of the Democratic Party.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,343 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and note that Tata was mentioned in this thread's article as one of the companies being used by Eversource.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-was-for-outsourcing-before-she-was-against-it/
...
However, as a senator, Clinton played a key role in bringing outsourcing companies to Buffalo. She helped Tata Consulting, an Indian company, set up an office in the struggling upstate New York city.
“They’ve actually brought jobs to Buffalo. Outsourcing does work both ways,” she told then-CNN host Lou Dobbs in 2004.
The new headquarters did not bring about the hiring boom that Clinton predicted.
“The company [Tata], which called the arrangement Clinton’s ‘brainchild,’ says ‘about 10’ employees work here,” the Los Angeles Times reported in 2007.
Clinton is tied to Tata and Infosys, another leading outsourcing firm. The companies have contributed between $35,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Those companies have also been linked to controversial outsourcing measures in which companies force American workers to train foreign workers in the United States on temporary visas before outsourcing the jobs. The Department of Labor is investigating both companies after a bipartisan request from the Senate.
...
I do believe that the alliance of H-1B lobbyists' goals are the following:
1) to continue the move of most employers in IT and other affected industries to move towards a contract work model for all workers rather than to hire many more full time workers at all. This goes hand and hand with limiting and minimizing unions from organizing, etc. to keep the American worker from speaking out against this sort of transition.
2) to have the nature of the H-1B program to still be in as much "stealth mode" under the radar of most American consciousness as they can. They also wanted that for TPP and other free trade deals as well, but they've been less able to keep populist movements' attention away from those efforts, which have forced many like Hillary to "acknowledge" that perhaps TPP should be rejected after she's been for it earlier or kept silent about it. She's successfully been able to keep it silent.
Republicans have been less able to do this with Trump (not as beholden to corporate lobbyist) leading his more populist following to reject both free trade TPP stuff as well as H-1B visas. That has lead Cruz to switch gears to reject them too, and subsequently Rubio to criticize Cruz for flip flopping there too, since Cruz is probably the most "bought" candidate on the Republican side.
3) I believe that if H-1B becomes more visible to the American voter, the H-1B lobbyists will try to lobby the movement's campaign against this program as being "xenophobic" in its motives, since the longer term and more visible resistance to this program has been the Republicans such as Cruz and Trump, who also have a lot of xenophobic campaign slogans as well that some will try to equivalence. I think that probably this is why the corporate media punditry managing debates have "allowed" the H-1B questions to be asked in the debates for the Republicans up to this point, so that they can make the rationale later trying to equivalence objection to H-1B program as being motivated by xenophobia later. Avoiding that being a topic in the Democratic debate currently keeps it under the radar, and avoids someone like Bernie making it more of a high level objection on the more legitimate notion that H-1B hurts all workers (those outside and employed by the program) and only helps the wealthy elites that manage employees under this program.
I also think that Bloomberg's potential entering this race might be more about this H-1B issue than realized. As another thread I posted earlier this week pointed out, shortly after Bloomberg made noise that he might run if Bernie wins the nomination, there was also an article that Bloomberg wanted to remove quota restrictions on the H-1B program as well. I think for these different candidate scenarios, this is what the H-1B lobbies want:
1) Hillary Clinton vs. Trump or Cruz
- H-1b will be made to appear to be xenophobic, and if Hillary supports it she's supporting "immigration" and rights of foreigners, when in fact H-1B is indentured servitude for these foreigners, and at American workers' expense.
2) Hillary Clinton vs. other Republican
- H-1B will most likely be kept quiet and not mentioned at all, as H-1B lobbies will figure they own whoever wins then, and the less the American people put pressure on candidates to reject it the more it works for their interests.
3) Bernie Sanders vs. Trump or Cruz
- H-1b lobbyists will have a big problem as both candidates will be interested in shutting it down. This is why they will want to introduce Bloomberg in this situation, as they would then hope to bring back the xenophobic label for it too and try to push a xenophobic label to the motives of Bernie Sanders' opposition to H-1B as well, so that they can hopefully have the two major party votes split, and the corporatist votes as well as those that are persuaded to support H-1B as being a means to "help immigrants" not be victim to "xenophobic efforts" by the two major parties to shut down H-1B.
4) Bernie Sanders vs. another Republican
- Will first try to keep the issue quiet in this case and put more effort in to supporting the Republican here. If Bernie starts to beat this Republican, then they would try to make Bernie's campaign appear to be xenophobic on this issue. They might feel Bloomberg will help them here, but might serve to split the Republican vote with Bloomberg, and help Bernie win in this case.
TheBlackAdder
(28,220 posts)Ugh, another Star Wars reference... as Disney offshores millions using a tax dodge to Luxembourg.
.
Disney and Koch industries have one major thing in common, they both use E&Y to dodge US Taxes!
How much of this movie's profits will get parked offshort at 0.75% tax, while lobbying for a tax amnesty to repatriate it?
http://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg-leaks/new-leak-reveals-luxembourg-tax-deals-disney-koch-brothers-empire
http://www.reuters.com/article/luxembourg-tax-disney-idUSL6N0TT4EM20141210
.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,219 posts)If you screw over your employees you should expect some blow back.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)At that point it isn't just in the legal realm of whether they can sue or not. It is whether they can survive without a job or not.
The more that many have to go through the same consulting firms for other company jobs in IT, etc. if your known to have "caused trouble" questioning the policies of the company that laid you off, you can be blackballed in to not being able to get jobs at other companies in your area, and be kept out of work. Even if former employees may have the right to complain how they were terminated, etc., many who feel threatened if they do so will keep quiet, especially if forced to sign statements that specifically talk about how an employer or contractor is using H-1B. Like I noted at the top, I've heard of such statements others I've talked to have said to have been forced to sign. I don't want to provide more details of what kind of language they had in them until I can clarify the details accurately, and know if I should or not, but there are such pressures given to people leaving jobs in many places here in our economy now. I think it is probably a lot larger than this article hints it is too.
24601
(3,963 posts)what these bottom-feeding, anti-American worker scum-suckers are doing."
And sign language is neither spoken nor written.
But Eversource can't stop them from filing suit or a DOL complaint over that clause.
And I believe the Constitutional provisions for contacting members of congress would override it as well.
Perhaps ditto for protections contained in whistle blower laws if the company made false statements to the government about displacement of American workers.
