-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
WDW IT Layoffs 1/30/2015
- Thread starter wogwog
- Start date
We aren't talking about just layoffs, but replacing current workers with an outsourced overseas contractor to save a few bucks, and forcing the current employees to train your replacements, even when you find out that they don't even know the job. Wrong on every level. Were the people that they replaced that bad at their jobs? If so, then get rid of them. I just can't believe that there were that many "bad" employees that the had to layoff so many. There have been way to many discussions here about how much penny-pinching Disney is doing, all the while making record profits. Sorry, but a company needs to be more about just the money, especially a company like Disney that is held to a higher standard.
I don't believe in recognizing employees with a "gold star" or some such nonsense. Simply treating them all the same as valued members of the corporate family is what makes the difference. If an organization like Disney is going to replace workers like they did, then the first person that needs to be replaced is the CIO, followed by the CFO (oh, that's right - he is leaving!).
Yes, hiring is hard because you need to find qualified personnel. You hire engineers. Do you have a technical call with a prospective new employee that challenges their skills? I have been on technical calls that last 2 hours, just to ferret out those that "claim" to know, as opposed to those that really know what they are doing. I have been on both ends of those calls, but then I know what I am doing in my career field. I have had technical calls that lasted 10 minutes with a prospective employee who obviously lied on their resume, as it became evident that they didn't have a clue once you started asking pointed technical questions. Please tell me that you at least do that!
If Disney didn't have some sort of technical call evaluation with the prospective IT employees, well again, the CIO needs to go, because he obviously has no clue how to run a world-class IT organization.
Oh, and to add to this. Once a company outsources to a contractor, they have little to no say in who gets hired. Sure they can ask that a person have certain certifications, but that doesn't mean the person has a clue about the job. Anyone can get a certification by reading a book for a day, and taking a test. Doesn't mean they know what they are doing, and I guarantee that the people that the contractor is hiring are nowhere near the caliber of people that Disney laid off for one very good reason - the contractor isn't willing to pay true market value for them. Simple as that. They want to make as much money on the contract as possible, so will pay the absolute lowest salary they can get away with, which means lower caliber people. I have seen this way too many times to count. It never ends well for the company that decided to outsource, and pretty much always costs them more in the long run.
righttrack
Well-Known Member
It's even simpler. Companies do not want to pay market rate wages, so they outsource.
Additionally, these companies bring scalability. If there is a large project, these outsourcers will scale up and bring more workers, versus the company who would hire and then dismiss later. All at a lower cost, of course. I'm not saying it's right, but it's how it works.
Additionally, these companies bring scalability. If there is a large project, these outsourcers will scale up and bring more workers, versus the company who would hire and then dismiss later. All at a lower cost, of course. I'm not saying it's right, but it's how it works.
BernardandBianca
Well-Known Member
I consider it especially horrible since the whole rationale behind the visa program was that there were no U.S. citizens/residents with the necessary skills to do the job, so that they needed to import skilled personnel.
If you've ever tried to use any Disney WDW site, you'll realize how completely accurate your statement is. I have complained for some time now that Disney's IT work product is the worst I've ever encountered by a customer-facing organization. Nothing that they put out seems to work correctly, except for Dining reservations, and they've messed that up in their last update.
NelsonRD
Well-Known Member
I understand the passion. I also think there is pressure in an attempt to convince me this is a bad idea. I never made the claim it was a good idea. I just suggested reasons why this happens, and I do not believe every decision made is strictly to 'save money'.
I also understand why/how tornadoes happen, but I am not promoting tornadoes.
I would have no problem with contracting out for a specific project that might need surge hiring, but that is not what happened here, since Disney laid off employees and had them train replacements. If the employees had been hired simply for a specific project, and then let go, then no problem.
Companies do not lay off employees, ask them to train replacements that are working for a contractor company, and aren't looking to save money. There is absolutely NO reason other than money.
rob0519
Well-Known Member
You said it as simple as can be. Companies do not want to pay market rate, but I would amend that to say, they do not want to pay market rate plus a benefits package.
The cost to a company of having a staff member work for an hour is not that person's hourly rate but also includes the cost of benefits, payroll taxes, insurance, vacation time, sick time, maternity leave, facilities costs (office space, heating and cleaning, computers etc.), background checks, training, and the many other costs associated with having that person employed. Commonly, the fully loaded cost of an employee is at least twice his or her salary. It's easy to see why outsourcing is the new favorite child of CIOs and CFOs across the country.
I was with a company for over 20 years when management decided to outsource multiple departments. The manager who was brought into replace me was making 40% less than I was and it was considerably less than he was making in his last job where he was also outsourced. He took the job at that salary because it was still more than being unemployed. I was told that if I didn't train him and fix all the initial problems caused by the changeover, I would be fired and not receive my severance package. Fast forward six weeks from that time; I was interviewing for positions paying 30%-40% less than I was making. And the outsourcing, money-saving, shareholder value cycle continued.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Chasing pennies while dollars fly over their heads
Sure you can buy cheaper components for a solution... but do you save money in the long run when those components require so much rework or rejection or failures?
Employees are the same way. Everyone should agree that managers like employees that are motivated, make good choices, adapt to changing situations, exceed expectations, and deliver quality 'product'.
Failing to do those things requires hiring more people... to either bump up capacity.. or to manage/oversee those people that can't operate on their own... or hire multiple times because the person didn't work out. Having more people in any solution slows it down. So now you are spending more time and more money "managing" bad employees vs hiring the right people to begin with. If all you are watching is your expenses... you probably look like a hero. If you are actually measuring the quality, success, velocity, and impact of your product... you're probably at best, treading water.
Having quality employees means you need to attract the right people, they need to be motivated, and they need to buy into what management is leading with. RETAINING quality employees means they must feel valued, they must feel they are contributing, and they must feel they are being made whole. If they have fun and enjoy what they do, its even better because they will tend to work better and survive dark periods with less long term impact. Doing these things can be done in many ways... the least effective of which is simply 'pay them more'.
Offering more money for the sake of making it sweeter just attracts the people that are fixated more on the dollar than the effort. People leave high paying jobs all the time because the company SUCKS and they want a better work experience.
There are lots of reasons to do things like temp labor, or outsource things, etc... none of that changes how you should be attracting and retaining quality employees. But when you start chasing the expenses more than you are chasing your successes... that's when people start making decisions based on money instead of results... and results always suffer. We forget the entire reason these people have jobs is to deliver on results... keep the focus where it should be.
Sure you can buy cheaper components for a solution... but do you save money in the long run when those components require so much rework or rejection or failures?
Employees are the same way. Everyone should agree that managers like employees that are motivated, make good choices, adapt to changing situations, exceed expectations, and deliver quality 'product'.
Failing to do those things requires hiring more people... to either bump up capacity.. or to manage/oversee those people that can't operate on their own... or hire multiple times because the person didn't work out. Having more people in any solution slows it down. So now you are spending more time and more money "managing" bad employees vs hiring the right people to begin with. If all you are watching is your expenses... you probably look like a hero. If you are actually measuring the quality, success, velocity, and impact of your product... you're probably at best, treading water.
Having quality employees means you need to attract the right people, they need to be motivated, and they need to buy into what management is leading with. RETAINING quality employees means they must feel valued, they must feel they are contributing, and they must feel they are being made whole. If they have fun and enjoy what they do, its even better because they will tend to work better and survive dark periods with less long term impact. Doing these things can be done in many ways... the least effective of which is simply 'pay them more'.
Offering more money for the sake of making it sweeter just attracts the people that are fixated more on the dollar than the effort. People leave high paying jobs all the time because the company SUCKS and they want a better work experience.
There are lots of reasons to do things like temp labor, or outsource things, etc... none of that changes how you should be attracting and retaining quality employees. But when you start chasing the expenses more than you are chasing your successes... that's when people start making decisions based on money instead of results... and results always suffer. We forget the entire reason these people have jobs is to deliver on results... keep the focus where it should be.
Sonconato
Well-Known Member
I really hope all this publicity makes Disney realize what it's doing. Look at what came up in today's Orlando Sentinel: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-disney-layoffs-visas-beth-kassab-20150608-column.html
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Another publication.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/09/disney-blacklisted-displaced-american-workers/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/09/disney-blacklisted-displaced-american-workers/
Arthur Wellesley
Well-Known Member
This is reaching a whole new low.
Last edited:
gbruenin
Active Member
This has been published by one of the major IT journals today:
Disney ABC TV cancels plans to outsource IT jobs
http://www.networkworld.com/article...bc-tv-cancels-plans-to-outsource-it-jobs.html
The article cites the backlash from the P&R job action as the possible reason.
Disney ABC TV cancels plans to outsource IT jobs
http://www.networkworld.com/article...bc-tv-cancels-plans-to-outsource-it-jobs.html
The article cites the backlash from the P&R job action as the possible reason.
Some days news is just better. Coincidence? I think not. Now Burbank should state they are opposed to this type of employee treatment and all fired IT folks are welcome back with back pay. Yeah right. Now we need the congressional puppets to stop their nonsense.
mikenatcity1
Well-Known Member
is it a true black list or a list of people that can't work for that industry for a certain amount of time? It's common in many industries to block people from working in that industry or for competitors if they are let go (for a specified amount of time). (I'm just curious, not wanting to stir up anything- I'm not wanting to defend anything that anyone is doing).
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
It's not a black list. The laid off folks can go work for other companies in the industry. What they cannot do is work for a company that Disney has contracted to perform IT services and then work on the Disney engagement. There are various regulatory requirements of what is and is not an "employee." Disney would get in a lot of trouble if they laid people off and then had those same individuals back in-house as non-employees doing contract work. Basically, there are certain rules that companies must follow with regards to their employees (chiefly concerning benefits and overtime), and those rules do not apply to contractors. But the regulators won't let you call someone a "contractor" if they look, feel, and function as an employee and are really contractors-in-name-only. That's all this is. It's not Disney being evil, it's Disney following labor laws.
gbruenin
Active Member
Perhaps. Of course, a media company that fiercely tries to control negative press may not like the spotlight they're under.
Another press item today where Disney is not shown favorably:
http://www.financialexpress.com/art...s-for-h1-b-visa-violations/83696/?SocialMedia
On many other topics lots of folks here say 'Disney will change when the public pushes back'. They'll never admit it, but perhaps.......