3 ms·
TBH, I've seen a lot of companies doing this recently. Cargill has been going through the same thing and they've been actively culling people who are close to b
by at-fates-hands 11y ago
TBH, I've seen a lot of companies doing this recently. Cargill has been going through the same thing and they've been actively culling people who are close to be fully vested (20 year mark I believe). One friend who got their job "moved to the India office" said she lost over 400K in pension money because she was let go 6 months prior to her 20 year mark. After she started talking to other employees, she found close to a dozen mid-level managers who were all within 2-5 years of hitting the same mark.
Also, I've seen a LOT of companies to do this and it never ends well. This is usually a harbinger of metrics slipping, profit goals missed and shaky investors getting out. Which in turn means the company is in a slide. Moving their stuff overseas is a way to show investors they're trying to cut costs.
It never works. I can name a half-dozen companies off the top of my head that did this and it actually made the situation worse not better. Some of those companies are still struggling to make it back.
Here are some off the top of my head:
1 - IBM
2 - Honeywell
3 - Cargill
4 - Thomson Reuters
5 - Best Buy
6 - Wells Fargo
- ChemicalWarfare 11y agoFord and Chrysler too. I'm actually somewhat surprised by this move by IBM. Most companies I know of wised up to the fact that the total cost of ownership of the system goes up with outsourcing and you get a sub par product and as a result stopped outsourcing any kind of core development en masse. I myself have seen a few of the outsourced projects fail as well with a couple of exceptions where the core team was not outsourced but some of the "busy work" type development - CRUD etc - was outsourced and then integrated into the core product. Still was painful logistically and savings weren't all that great at the end of the day.