
Tech workers at UCSF face layoff, training their low paid replacements - prostoalex
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/03/after-pink-slips-ucsf-tech-workers-train-their-foreign-replacements/
======
pcurve
"We’re under a great deal of pressure,” Joe Bengfort, chief information
officer at UCSF, told employees at a staff meeting"

Should probably start with this guy's pay first. He was paid over $460,000 in
2013.

[http://compensation.universityofcalifornia.edu/reports/2013-...](http://compensation.universityofcalifornia.edu/reports/2013-annual-
report-executive-compensation.pdf)

The number of administrator jobs and their outrageous pay in public school
system is shameful. Just look through the above PDF.

~~~
cellis
I'm sorry, but why is that salary out of the question? Assuming he's actually
worth his salt, he could make that at Google, probably easily, as an
executive. Do you propose replacing him with someone who's worse, simply
because they're paid less?

~~~
njovin
According to PayScale [1] he's making 3x the median for a CIO. In understand
that $150k seems crazy low but even at the high end of those numbers he seems
overcompensated.

[1]
[http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chief_Information_Of...](http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chief_Information_Officer_\(CIO\)/Salary)

~~~
caminante
1\. He's not just CIO, he's also a Vice Chancellor.

2\. Median pay for the US is a poor proxy. Using your same site, the median
pay for Software Engineers is $80K/year. It doesn't reflect market (CA) or
expertise (healthcare).

------
SnakePlissken
I rarely see in coverage of these mass replacements what kind of positions are
being affected, just "IT workers". The article says they're mostly back-office
staff but I don't know what that means at UCSF. Are these software engineers,
systems admins, middle-managers, etc? Are they low level help-desk positions?
Or is it a broad mix across the entire IT hierarchy? How does the answer in
this case compare to other recent incidents (e.g., Disney)?

I don't ask to insinuate "lower-skilled" workers deserve to be replaced or
should have prepared for it; I'm merely trying to get a better grasp on the
scope of these recent outsourcings.

~~~
mc32
It probably means some of their developers, the ones who glue systems together
--also maybe the sysadmins for mundane things but will probably keep key
people like LDAP/Auth dev, InfoSec, network architect and then move all the
other routine operational stuff off-shore.

------
modarts
> In a move that could spread to other universities, about 80 information tech
> workers at UC San Francisco are facing layoffs and have begun training their
> replacements — lower-paid tech workers from an Indian outsourcing firm.

This should work out well...

~~~
pekk
Is there any evidence that paying more for IT workers results in better
quality of service?

It probably won't succeed to complain about this on the basis that the result
might be poor, if the real problem is that outsourcing firms are abusing the
H1B visa to reduce wages.

~~~
velocitypsycho
What happens is that those with the skills, even in India, demand enough that
they aren't working for these outsourcing companies.

This is why there are different connotations between "outsourcing" and "remote
workers". One implies the lowest bid.

------
thejerz
I have worked in many companies with H1B workers, and the old adage always
applies: "You get what you pay for." I don't mean this as a dig against H1B
employees, but UCSF will definitely notice a substantial drop in quality of
H1B work quality compared to their American counterparts.

~~~
markonthewall
That's my experience as well. Considered opening an office in Bangalore as I
was thoroughly impressed by some candidates I had interviewed. Performance on
the job was significantly different... like by several orders of magnitude.

Taught me a lesson. Interviews can be gamed!

------
jmspring
Simply... public funded jobs should remain public not offshored.

The UC system should face significant fines for this move.

------
padiyar83
When US companies (and universities) can operate and profit by operating in
other countries, like India. Why should we not allow employees from other
countries (like India an China) to seek employment in US, if they can do the
job better and at a competitive price point. Why should it be just a one sided
gain model that always benefits US employees.

~~~
markonthewall
Because those companies are US companies, their very existence is a byproduct
of this political community's stability, of the infrastructure that was paid
with taxpayer money, sometimes of the direct subsidies of the US states and
their federal government and generally speaking by the direct or indirect
economic activity that US citizens generates.

Simple as that. There is a social contract that exists and that holds together
the civic tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try
cheating it. That's fine, it is the reason we also have law enforcement
agencies.

In the case of UCSF, a public University that almost exclusively relies on
public funding to survive. I think people have an overwhelming amount of
reasons to be pissed off.

~~~
padiyar83
> Because those companies are US companies, their very existence is a
> byproduct of this political community's stability.

Engineering talent (in US and other countries) is also a byproduct of that
society's investment into educating its children. Arguably graduate education
is also funded by tax payer money in these countries. So when US firms hire an
engineer from India or China, they essentially are getting an engineer without
funding his education.

> There is a social contract that exists and that holds together the civic
> tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try cheating
> it.

Seeking merit (searching for a person who can do the job at a competitive
price point) is not cheating. If UCSF does not offer good courses at great
prices someone else will. That someone else could very well be a Indian or a
Chinese university.

------
carsongross
Well, if we want to see the long declines in healthcare costs we all love so
much continue, we are going to have to accept these sorts of capital
efficiencies, now aren't we?

------
dmode
As someone on an H1 visa (although not working for an outsourcing company, but
rather in a product org), this makes me mad. Not only due to the job losses,
decline in quality, but also it will ruin a lot of people's lives who now have
to attend daily status meetings at 9pm PT. In addition, these outsourcing
companies don't even bother to hire local folks for the "onsite" positions.
Even those positions need to be imported from India. That doesn't make any
sense and I am not sure why the USCIS do not reject those applications.

------
jakelarkin
surprised to learn courts threw out the lawsuit against Disney for their
similar H1B scandal

[http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/brinkmann-on-
busines...](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/brinkmann-on-business/os-
disney-visa-lawsuit-dismissed-20161014-story.html)

H1B applier must certify no current American employees harmed by the visa. But
that isn't transitive from the outsourcer to Disney. :(

~~~
thaumasiotes
It's a fairly nonsensical concept, though. There's always _someone_ who's
harmed, and someone else who benefits. Why focus in particular on current
employees? What makes them so much more deserving than future employees (who
are hurt by the visa), or current customers (who benefit)?

~~~
jakelarkin
the intent and spirit of law is that the companies are hiring H1Bs for
positions that could otherwise not be filled in sufficient quantity by
Americans. Companies and Customers win, and American labor should experience
no measurable harm. Not that I would but one could even argue that the way
that AppleGoogleFacebookMicrosoft use them to hire students is even okay since
they probably cannot fill the volume they need with American STEM grads.

This end-run with the outsourcers is a particularly egregious perversion of
the law because they're bringing H1Bs with the _intent_ to fire and replace
Americans. There's also an angle of age-ism where they are firing older IT
professionals in their 40s, 50s, 60s who have accrued higher pay-grades , and
replacing them with less productive but much less costly young foreigners.
Only losers are employees who need quality IT help, but who cares about that.

------
chaz6
Why does the company not consider offering pay cuts in the first instance
before jumping straight to outsourcing?

~~~
calvinbhai
my guess: unions

------
product50
What I don't get from these articles is why are they only talk about
outsourcing IT services and how it hurts US employees? Outsourcing
manufacturing to countries like China also hurt employment - I don't see this
to be much different than that. Comoanies should do whatever it takes to keep
them profitable and in this era of globalization, the competition is not only
from companies based in US but worldwide.

As an aside though, I do feel that H1-B visa is being misused. I know a couple
of friends who recently completed their MBA from reputed colleges in US but
weren't able to get the visa due to the cap since Indian outsourcing companies
nabbed majority of them. I feel there should be a separate category for visas
for students who study in US so that they get a fair chance to participate in
US workforce. Also, this will encourage talented folks worldwide to come to US
since their future no longer will be decided based on a lottery

~~~
lvs
On your first question, I think the issue is that Americans have gotten
accustomed to the loss of manufacturing sector jobs, but the argument had
always been that we were slowly switching to a service and/or "knowledge"
economy. The kind of outsourcing described in the article challenges the claim
that Americans are competitive even in those employment sectors.

As an aside, UCSF is not a company, so your point about anything-goes
competition is in this case a non-sequitur.

~~~
zanny
It isn't a skills problem, its a salary problem. Cost of living in the US is
astronomical compared to any of the nations you import IT labor from. The only
leg up the US (still) has is that there is no accountability in bad business
done overseas - if you get crap products from your outsourced developer team,
you don't have a floor to go down the elevator to where you can yell at a
project lead in person.

