7 ms·

One example of this, and it happens too often, is when people are training their replacements. Jobs are sent elsewhere (outsourced, off-shored, or both) and th

by timv 11y ago

One example of this, and it happens too often, is when people are training their replacements. Jobs are sent elsewhere (outsourced, off-shored, or both) and the people currently doing those roles need to train up the people who will be taking them over. I know one government department that decided to relocate a particular job function to another location as part of a broader "regionalisation" strategy. The people doing that job at the existing location were all going to be made redundant once the new team was ready to take on the work. The old team had an economic incentive to make the handover take as long as they could. The new team didn't have a lot of incentive to make it go fast. Sure, they were keen to do some real work, but they were also reasonably happy to only have 50% of the case load, and leave 50% back with the original team. Since only the people at the top had any real desire to see the project succeed, you can probably guess how well it went.

berntb 11y ago
As an external I asked a question on a task today: "Can you give me an example on where you store tracking information in orders? I haven't been into the relevant subsystem yet." I was answered "We only need to store that when the supplier sends the order". (Which of course was why I asked for -- and the task was about.) That non sequitur was a step up -- I got an answer. :-( I think I'm seen as a potential replacement. [Edit: No more Mr Nice Nerd, if I'm not answered tomorrow I won't trawl the code base again for a couple of hours but send this to the project leader directly. :-( ] (Yeah, I'm Hellbanned. Too easily trolled.)
pluma 11y ago
To be fair, training your replacements when an entire division is being outsourced to off-shore is incredibly cruel. My father in law works at an industrial manufacturer where several departments (including IT) are being outsourced to Southeast Asia. The company has been operating locally for nearly a century and a lot of the people who are being made redundant have worked there for decades and are now being kicked out at a point where they are too young for retirement but too old to find new jobs. I know that a company isn't a welfare organisation, but if you employ upwards of a hundred people in a small town you can't deny having some social responsibility. It's easy to see why the workers told to train their cheaper replacements are having a hard time staying professional.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Why does a company have a "social responsibility" towards a bunch of wealthy Americans, but none towards the very poor southeast Asians who were denied for decades even the opportunity to apply for work at the US facility?
  - pluma 11y ago
    I'm not talking about the US. And the social responsibility arises from shaping the local economy in such a way that a large number of people become dependent on the company. If a company becomes the main employer in a small town, it automatically takes on some responsibility. This is less true today when most people know they're not going to work for the same employer until retirement but it is still true for traditional companies with that kind of legacy. It's not about some theoretical ethical responsibility for the greater good of mankind but about taking responsibility for your actions and the effect they have on people you have built a relationship with. If Industrocorp, Inc builds a factory in Podunk and the labour demand raises the number of residents by an order of magnitude, then relocating operations and firing a large number of staff will ruin the local economy the company created. I'm not sure how that concept is difficult to understand: your actions have consequences, ergo you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Large corporations may be amoral, but the CEO of a privately owned company deciding to offshore half the employees isn't. Especially when the company periodical repeatedly claims that the employees are valued and their families are important. This makes the CEO an asshole. Period.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      The consequence of not shipping jobs to southeast Asia is that folks there will be vastly poorer than unemployed Europeans. That isn't theoretical, its simply a fact. Why does a non-contractual relationship change things? Are you applying the Copenhagen theory of ethics or something? http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi... Also, why dont the workers who became dependent on a company deserve responsibility for that action?

by timv 11y ago

berntb 11y ago

As an external I asked a question on a task today: "Can you give me an example on where you store tracking information in orders? I haven't been into the relevant subsystem yet." I was answered "We only need to store that when the supplier sends the order". (Which of course was why I asked for -- and the task was about.) That non sequitur was a step up -- I got an answer. :-( I think I'm seen as a potential replacement. [Edit: No more Mr Nice Nerd, if I'm not answered tomorrow I won't trawl the code base again for a couple of hours but send this to the project leader directly. :-( ] (Yeah, I'm Hellbanned. Too easily trolled.)

pluma 11y ago

To be fair, training your replacements when an entire division is being outsourced to off-shore is incredibly cruel. My father in law works at an industrial manufacturer where several departments (including IT) are being outsourced to Southeast Asia. The company has been operating locally for nearly a century and a lot of the people who are being made redundant have worked there for decades and are now being kicked out at a point where they are too young for retirement but too old to find new jobs. I know that a company isn't a welfare organisation, but if you employ upwards of a hundred people in a small town you can't deny having some social responsibility. It's easy to see why the workers told to train their cheaper replacements are having a hard time staying professional.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Why does a company have a "social responsibility" towards a bunch of wealthy Americans, but none towards the very poor southeast Asians who were denied for decades even the opportunity to apply for work at the US facility?
- pluma 11y ago
  I'm not talking about the US. And the social responsibility arises from shaping the local economy in such a way that a large number of people become dependent on the company. If a company becomes the main employer in a small town, it automatically takes on some responsibility. This is less true today when most people know they're not going to work for the same employer until retirement but it is still true for traditional companies with that kind of legacy. It's not about some theoretical ethical responsibility for the greater good of mankind but about taking responsibility for your actions and the effect they have on people you have built a relationship with. If Industrocorp, Inc builds a factory in Podunk and the labour demand raises the number of residents by an order of magnitude, then relocating operations and firing a large number of staff will ruin the local economy the company created. I'm not sure how that concept is difficult to understand: your actions have consequences, ergo you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Large corporations may be amoral, but the CEO of a privately owned company deciding to offshore half the employees isn't. Especially when the company periodical repeatedly claims that the employees are valued and their families are important. This makes the CEO an asshole. Period.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The consequence of not shipping jobs to southeast Asia is that folks there will be vastly poorer than unemployed Europeans. That isn't theoretical, its simply a fact. Why does a non-contractual relationship change things? Are you applying the Copenhagen theory of ethics or something? http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi... Also, why dont the workers who became dependent on a company deserve responsibility for that action?