Train Your Foreign Replacement = "Dig Your Own Grave?"

[Bricker]

In today’s USA Today, there’s an article about the horrors of workers who are laid off and then offered additional severance benefits or other payments to train their replacements. The replacements in these cases seem to be mostly Indian workers, who can be hired for substantially less than their American predecessors.

“It was very callous,” says Gentry, 51, of Auburn, Wash., a father of three who is still unemployed. “They asked us to make them feel at home while we trained them to take our jobs.”

“I was staring hard at my shoes and trying not to cry. It was hideously awkward. I felt forced,” says Bronstein, 48, of Mercer Island, Wash. She is still unemployed. "It was very deflating and dehumanizing to train your replacement. I felt sucker-punched. It was as if they handed us a shovel and said, ‘Here, dig your own grave.’ "

In 1998, Darrell Rathburn says, he was asked to train his replacements at a high-tech company, but the software developer says he quit voluntarily after training them.

“Their salaries were about a third of ours,” says Rathburn, of Columbus, Ohio. “They returned to India, and my project was given to them. There are so many people out of work who are very qualified. This is not right. This is not fair.”

Now, I certainly sympathize with someone who loses work.

But frankly, it is a mystery to me why these people seem to feel they are entitled to a job when others can do the same job for less money. They certainly don’t have to train their replacements, but if they choose to do so in order to get the better severance package or the extra paycheck, that seems like nothing more than another business deal to me. It’s certainly not “digging your own grave” – you have the choice of walking away.

The histrionics displayed in this article astound me.

A bill introduced in Olympia, Wash., would have required employers to give employees advance notice before asking them to train foreign replacements. The bill didn’t pass this year, but the sponsor, state Rep. Zack Hudgins, says he plans to bring it back.

“It’s a terrible thing to ask someone to train their replacement and ship the job overseas,” Hudgins, a Democrat, says. “This is way beyond election-year politics. It’s a shift in our economy. It’s not a partisan issue.”

This bill, and others like it, are a poor exercise of government power.

• Rick

[XT]

@Bricker

But frankly, it is a mystery to me why these people seem to feel they are entitled to a job when others can do the same job for less money. They certainly don’t have to train their replacements, but if they choose to do so in order to get the better severance package or the extra paycheck, that seems like nothing more than another business deal to me. It’s certainly not “digging your own grave” – you have the choice of walking away.

Agree completely with your sentiment here…and its a mystery to me too why folks feel entitled to a job. And you are right…its your choice. Personally I’d take the money an extra paycheck would give me plus the extra benifits for my severence and use the time to look for a new job.

@Bricker

This bill, and others like it, are a poor exercise of government power.

It’s politicians grandstanding in an election year basically. Of COURSE its partisan politics. Its also a healthy does of gloom and doom and smoke and mirrors. Its a fairly small minority of folks that have been layed off and asked to train people in other countries to replace them as far as over all percentages go (No, I don’t have a cite for this…look it up in the myriad threads about outsourcing that constantly hit GD if you are interested).

@Bricker

The histrionics displayed in this article astound me.

Bread and circus’s for the masses. It sells. Doesn’t surprise me one bit.

-XT

[Pashnish_Ewing]

Almost one in five information technology workers has lost a job or knows someone who lost a job after training a foreign worker, according to a new survey by the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers. The study is the first to quantify how widespread the practice is.

Emphasis mine.

Just how does this statistic quantify the problem?

Pash

[John_Mace]

I agree with 100% of what Bricker and XT have said. It’s a business deal, period. Workers can choose not to do the training if it offends them.

The one thing I would add is that Kerry seems to be playing into this whole deal with his “Benedict Arnold CEOs” statements and support for similar bills as mentioned in the OP. Can’t say I blame him, though, if he wants to get elected. Bush is doing the same thing with the gay marriage issue.

I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but Lou Dobbs (on CNN) is practically on a crusade (oops, there’s that word again) to reign in outsourcing. It’s shocking how a supposedly respected business commentator can dish out such rubish as has done recently.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Sure, it’s a business proposition; at the same time, it’s a particularly degrading proposition.

It would also be a business proposition if they said, “We’re laying you off, but if you’ll put on a tutu and dance like a monkey, we’ll give you $500 cash.” People who are in a bad economy and who have families to support may not be able, in good conscience, to turn down an offer like this.

I hope the folks making this offer won’t ever turn around and be sad when they discover their employees feel zero loyalty to them.

Daniel

[John_Mace]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I hope the folks making this offer won’t ever turn around and be sad when they discover their employees feel zero loyalty to them.

That’s a very good point, and part of the equation that management needs to take into account when deciding to outsource. I don’t doubt that many good, successful companies do exactly that.

[Kimstu]

Bricker: But frankly, it is a mystery to me why these people seem to feel they are entitled to a job when others can do the same job for less money.
xt: …and its a mystery to me too why folks feel entitled to a job.

I agree that there’s nothing in the fine print anywhere that actually says that anyone’s officially entitled to a job, and I think everybody knows that.

But surely it’s no mystery why people feel entitled to a job: namely, our society is set up so that they have to depend on a job for a huge amount of their needs, and they have been told all their lives that hard work is the way to success, that if you perform well at your job you’ll prosper, etc.

In our capitalist society, we bring people up and constantly train them to believe that hard work and ability will enable them to make a decent living. We kind of skim over the unpleasant fact that often, especially in economic downturns, hard work and ability aren’t enough. I don’t see how you can be surprised that many people then develop unrealistic expectations about jobs always being available for them.

I think we need to educate the workforce out of those rosy ideas by being more honest with them. Everyone from your high school career counselor on up should be telling you “Look, it’s quite likely that in the course of your working career you’ll spend from 1–3 years involuntarily unemployed” (or whatever the trend seems to be for a working lifetime these days). "And you may well spend long stretches at part-time or temporary jobs, or take some significant pay cuts. You have to take that into account when you’re considering your personal savings, education and training options, retirement plans, and so forth.

“You are not in any way entitled to a job, and if your employer can get someone to take your place for less money, the odds are very high that they will. You have simply got to face the fact that only x% of workers, on average, achieve a prosperous career without any serious employment setbacks. [And what does the number x look like, I wish I knew?] Hard work and ability simply aren’t enough to provide success for many people; don’t assume they’re a guarantee for you.”

This might make people feel a little less naively enthusiastic about our system, but at least they wouldn’t be living in a fool’s paradise until they got devastated by a rude awakening.

[Odesio]

…or, go ahead and boil that lamb in its mother’s milk.
If I were in that position I suppose I’d be a little grateful that I got advanced notice and an opportunity for a guaranteed paycheck for X amount of weeks. At the same time I’d also be a little insulted and more then a bit angered. Ah well, I guess that’s just the way things are and we’ve got to get used to it. Go into a field that just can’t be outsourced to a foreign market. Or at least one that would be cost prohibitive to outsource.

Marc

[John_Mace]

@Kimstu

I think we need to educate the workforce out of those rosy ideas by being more honest with them. Everyone from your high school career counselor on up should be telling you “Look, it’s quite likely that in the course of your working career you’ll spend from 1–3 years involuntarily unemployed” (or whatever the trend seems to be for a working lifetime these days). "And you may well spend long stretches at part-time or temporary jobs, or take some significant pay cuts. You have to take that into account when you’re considering your personal savings, education and training options, retirement plans, and so forth.

Oh great, another government program.

In all seriousness, I think it is naive to believe that people are that stupid. We’ve been living in the “Flexible Economy” for over a generation now. If you can show me a survey that deomstrate that the majority of Americans, even at the age of 18, think any job is secure, then we can talk. Educating people along these lines makes as much sense as Bush’s marriage education plan (that most of us laughed at).

[Duke]

I have not been through a situation like this, but I know plenty of people who have. It feels like a “slap in the face,” as one person put it to me. Like kimstu said, our country is built on the idea that hard work brings financial and societal rewards, and that employment is the goal of all.

My father was laid off several years ago, after 16 years in high-level positions in the aerospace industry. With his training, education and experience, he should have had no trouble finding a job, but he went through about ten months of applying for work with no success. Even though he had no financial burdens (there was a generous severance package), he was deeply depressed. His work had been his life, you see. Without it, he felt empty. When he was able to find work again, his depression lifted.

Reading the article, I get a sense of misplaced anger. These workers aren’t necessarily mad that they’re being asked to train their replacements. I’ve been asked to do the same, and I’ve had no trouble with it. The difference between me and them is that I was leaving willingly, so I had no reason to be upset. Put it this way–nobody’s going to be happy to be bounced out of their job, whether or not they have to train their lower-paid replacement. The statements in the article reflect that.

[ouisey]

How can they trust these people to train their replacements appropriately? Or not massively eff things up?

In the companies I’ve been in, people who are laid off get ushered out of the building immediately after being told they’re laid off.

[Kimstu]

JM: *Oh great, another government program. *

Joke, I hope and presume. I said nothing about our change of attitude in educating workers being implemented as a “government program”, and I don’t think it ought to be.

*If you can show me a survey that deomstrate that the majority of Americans, even at the age of 18, think any job is secure, then we can talk. *

Well, what Bricker seemed to be kvetching about was not that the people in the OP thought that their jobs were secure (I agree that most people no longer suffer from that delusion), but that they thought their jobs ought to be secure; e.g.,

“There are so many people out of work who are very qualified. This is not right. This is not fair.”

I think you’ll find that a lot of Americans do in fact feel that it is not “right” or “fair” for lots of highly-qualified people to be out of work. So either we change their expectations, or we shouldn’t be surprised when they take out their frustration and disappointment on their former employers at the voting booth.

[sibyl]

I wonder what the effect of strikes against companies who outsource would be?

For example, the major news outlets pick up a story about a strike against, say, Dell. Next quarter, Dell’s profits are significantly down. Does Dell bring their jobs back here and pay them more just because it needs them here to regain their lost revenue?

If unemployment got terribly high, I could certainly see a bunch of unemployed, angry people attempt to organize something like this.

[John_Mace]

@Kimstu

**Joke, I hope and presume. I said nothing about our change of attitude in educating workers being implemented as a “government program”, and I don’t think it ought to be.

My smiley was in hopes that you were not recommending another gov’t program.

So either we change their expectations, or we shouldn’t be surprised when they take out their frustration and disappointment on their former employers at the voting booth.

How? The only collective “we” in existence is the government. Newspapers aren’t doing it. TV isn’t doing it. It’s not going to happen unless someone mandates that it be done. You’ve ruled out a government program, so do “we” get this done?

I’ll say one thing, though. If I were laying people off, I wouldn’t hire them back to train their replacements. Too much possibility for sabotage.

Of course the layed off workers might try turning this into lemonade. Maybe there’s a business to be had in training outsource workers. Gain an intercultural expertise and offer it to employers who are outsourcing work.

[Orbifold]

@John Mace

We’ve been living in the “Flexible Economy” for over a generation now.

This is fairly obvious, yes. However, I think there is still a public perception that while the individual jobs may come and go, the industries as a whole are supposed to be forever. This is also demonstrably not true: witness what happened to manufacturing jobs, for example. But manufacturing as a whole had a much longer heyday than what we’re possibly seeing in the service and high-tech industries. Some of the software developers being laid off today quite likely entered the industry in its nascency, and that’s somewhat new: the idea that an entire industry can blossom and wither within the span of a single career.

I’m not saying that that’s necessarily happening, or even that it explains the bitterness that Bricker finds so mystifying. (Left Hand of Dorkness explained that pretty well, I think.) I’m just saying that even people who knew what colour their parachute was may not have been emotionally prepared for these events.

[Bricker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Sure, it’s a business proposition; at the same time, it’s a particularly degrading proposition.

It would also be a business proposition if they said, “We’re laying you off, but if you’ll put on a tutu and dance like a monkey, we’ll give you $500 cash.” People who are in a bad economy and who have families to support may not be able, in good conscience, to turn down an offer like this.

I suppose every person has to draw their own line in the sand.

For me, I can tell you that I mkae a comfortable living now, and if someone offered me $500 to don a tutu and dance like a monkey, I’d have no problems doing it. That’s $500 towards my wife’s new kitchen, or towards my son’s music lessons, or funding for 20 Bricker Challenges. Why not?

• Rick

[Finagle]

@Bricker

Now, I certainly sympathize with someone who loses work.

But frankly, it is a mystery to me why these people seem to feel they are entitled to a job when others can do the same job for less money. They certainly don’t have to train their replacements, but if they choose to do so in order to get the better severance package or the extra paycheck, that seems like nothing more than another business deal to me. It’s certainly not “digging your own grave” – you have the choice of walking away.

No offense, but this sounds like an OP written by someone who hasn’t had it happen to them yet, c.f. the old saw about a conservative just being a liberal who’s been mugged. Lawyers (such as Bricker) would seem to be immune, to the threat of outsourcing, at least, because their skill set is specific to a particular state and judicial system. So unless they are faced with an equally compelling job peril, perhaps telling victims of outsourcing to “buck up” and “walk it off” doesn’t ring as true as it might coming from someone with actual good advice to offer.
Walking away isn’t very easy when you’ve spent years learning a specific skill set, and when the demand for that skill set is about to be exported forever. It’s nice to have something to walk * to *.

I’m a bit dubious about the claims that outsourcing is ultimately a good thing – they seem to be based on the theory that eventually salaries will equalize as the talent pool overseas is consumed and the standard of living overseas also increases. I think it’s more likely that the amount of cheap overseas talent will prove to be inexhaustible, and the standard of living will drop for everyone whose talents are exportable.

[Bricker]

I don’t practice law anymore. I’m a contracts and program manager for a government contractor - a “Beltway Bandit” type job.

[Duke]

@Bricker

I can tell youthat I mkae a comfortable living now, and if someone offered me $500 to don a tutu and dance like a monkey, I’d have no problems doing it. That’s $500 towards my wife’s new kitchen, or towards my son’s music lessons, or funding for 20 Bricker Challenges. Why not?

• Rick

A little off topic, but if word got out that you’d done it you’d probably lose more than $500 in client fees. I would think that would be a good enough reason, myself. It’s like the dog with the bone seeing its reflection in the water, growling at its “rival” in an attempt to get what it’s got, and losing both.

Ah well. Where I work, I’ve seen very wealthy people do pretty dumb things in the name of getting just a little more money. More than one of them is now in prison because of it. I suppose Fitzgerald/Hemingway (delete depending on whose story you believe) was right about the very rich.

[Una_Persson]

@Bricker

But frankly, it is a mystery to me why these people seem to feel they are entitled to a job when others can do the same job for less money.

I hope you weren’t meaning to be condescending, because this line comes across as such. You’re assuming an even playing field, and it’s anything but. If someone from India comes over and stays in the US and takes the job for less money, I have little problem with that. But we’re dealing with global SOL inequities here.

Just how possible is it for an American to follow their job to India? And I’m not talking about just the different culture and SOL problems, I’m talking about legal immigration? I know from personal experience it’s not that easy.