Re: I disagree. A compromise needed

Post #72,797 by gdaustin 1/5/03 8:26:59 PM Reply	Re: I disagree. A compromise needed > But they manipulate the system. They put skills in there that the target H-1B has, regardless of actual need. The chance of a citizen being an exact fit for a large list of languages and buzzwords is astronomical. The more AND clauses in your WHERE statement the smaller the result set. > And how many people manipulate their resumes to put in as many buzzwords as possible to make them pass the resume shredder? Then a real person looks at the resume and decides we are lying. > That is bull. Companies just don't want to bother retraining. IBM fires 500 COBOLer's and hires a different set of Java programmers through another door. This is the kind of shit that unions should protect people against. > Your asessment is bull. I've seen the retraining situation actually be WORSE because of union involvement. Union involvement causes management to narrowly define job categories and place all workers into these narrowly defined categories. You're a Level 1 airframe mechanic, and don't you dare touch those avionics! This whole no-retraining thing occurs union or non-union doesn't matter. Companies want to treat people and jobs like cogs, when everyone knows full well that "real life" doesn't work that way. Unions cause companies to treat employees even MORE like cogs, because management can no longer deal with people as "individuals", but must deal with an arbitrary job category of people as "all the same", even though they aren't. > I agree that unions go overboard, but I think some sort of compromise needs to be made. For example, make it illegal for unions to dictate job function (within reason). > Unions must dictate job function in order to properly negotiate wage rates. When you play the "people are cogs" game, you have to play the game completely. If job categories aren't narrowly defined, then wage rates can't be established. > You are missing the point. The US is becoming a nation of managers. All non-management work is slowly going overseas. Thus, an education system where students goof off and shmooze all day is a good fit for the future of US employment. Since management is mostly a social function, it is harder to export to cheap-labor countries. Thus, the educational system is a better fit than you think. > ________________ We are becoming a nation of managers because people in other parts of the world are telling our bosses that they will do our jobs for 1/2, 1/3, or even 1/4 of what we are being paid now. We need to educate our bosses to our value, that someone with a 10 year old computer in India, with a two hour commute each way, and power outages 4 hours a day, with crappy half-ass training in Oracle, CAN'T really do our job. We need to prove to our management that other people are LYING to take our jobs. That is what I saw when I dealt with overseas contractors and I would say that most here would agree with that assessment.
Post #72,859 by bluke 1/6/03 3:58:27 AM Reply	And what if they really can do the job ... as well as you, or, even if they can do the job good enough, then what? The US does not have a monopoly on smart talented individuals. There are talented people all over the world these days, and many of them are willing to work for less money then you are. To say that people abroad are lying to steal your jobs is just not true. I can tell you from personal experience, I worked for 5+ years in IT in the US and now work in IT in Israel, the level of talent here in Israel is not any less then in the US. We work alot with people from India, they are also are pretty talented and have written some good code. To dismiss their talents out of hand is to stick your head in the sand.
Post #72,867 by ben_tilly 1/6/03 8:35:36 AM Reply	One of the major development costs is communication overhead I don't care who you are. If your sleep cycle is off by a half-day from the busy users that you need to get requirements and feedback from, you are going to take longer and take more of that user's time to finish the job than someone halfway competent who is local. Whether this dynamic is a key arbitrator of costs depends on what you're task is. But a lot of companies that try to save costs by exporting IT work overseas only succeed in digging themselves into a money and development pit. Of course this is hardly the only money and develpment pit people dig for themselves. Oddly enough, though, many of the others are also related to communication overhead. See The Mythical Man-Month for a discussion of some of them... Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #72,879 by bluke 1/6/03 10:05:49 AM 1/6/03 10:22:27 AM Reply	Believe me I know ... It is not easy coordinating meetings between Israel (GMT +2), India (GMT +5.5) and California (GMT -8). There is no question that it requires alot of coordination and procedures. However, I have found that if both sides are willing to make the effort not only can it work, but you get the advantages of people working almost around the clock. It clearly also depends on the kind of work that you do. If you are writing user business applications, it makes alot of sense for the development team to be near the users and have alot of interaction with them. My team, does system level/middleware type work which doesn't require nearly as much user interaction. This kind of work can be done in a remote location much easier. Edited by bluke Jan. 6, 2003, 10:22:27 AM EST Expand All History
Post #72,973 by ben_tilly 1/6/03 2:47:59 PM Reply	Sounds like we are on the same page then I just think that it is a far bigger issue than most PHBs realize. That said, there are three fundamental issues. The first is the principle of relative advantage. If some kinds of development can be done more easily locally than remotely, and some more easily remotely than locally, then economic theory predicts that we are both better off in the long run by trading - no matter what our relative absolute costs are. The second issue is that that economic theory ignores the inevitable pain of dislocations. While on the whole we are all better, internally on our side there will be winners and losers - and it sucks to be a loser. The third issue is that a large part of the US lifestyle probably is unsustainable long-term. The coming acceptance of this fact is not something to look forward to... Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #73,340 by tablizer 1/8/03 2:27:44 AM Reply	Corporate lying, not individuals And how many people manipulate their resumes to put in as many buzzwords as possible to make them pass the resume shredder? Then a real person looks at the resume and decides we are lying. I am not talking about individuals, I am talking about companies doing this to work around the written intent of the H-1B laws. The law states that they can only hire H-1B's if they cannot find a citizen who fits the requirements. They pull it off by making rigged reqirements. We need to educate our bosses to our value, that someone with a 10 year old computer in India, with a two hour commute each way, and power outages 4 hours a day, with crappy half-ass training in Oracle, CAN'T really do our job. Their next meal depends on doing just that. 2-hour commute each way? Sounds like the 405 LA freeway to me. ________________ oop.ismad.com

Welcome to IWETHEY!