Thread regarding CSC layoffs

Heard that the Pittsburgh office went remote. What gives?

by
| 3124 views | | 7 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+KgS1Y28

7 replies (most recent on top)

The rumor was that management expected a large percentage (20%) of people to take the offer to move to Pittsburgh and some city in Texas. They were off by a factor of 10. Then they utterly failed to meet recruitment targets in Pittsburgh.

Relocation offers were terrible and not communicated very well.

They got a great tax break in Pittsburgh and decided that it's up-and-coming tech industries made it a good fit. They failed to somehow notice that Carnegie Mellon doesn't graduate people who work in IT support, but go into advanced robotics instead. Waltham, which they did close, would probably have been a much better fit. It was even down the street from a tech college.

by
|
Post ID: @3wzx+KgS1Y28

The pod concept will live on in cheaper offshore and near shore locales. Hint hint. Best of luck to the Pittsburgh workers.

by
|
Post ID: @2tei+KgS1Y28

The inexpensive POD labor part is alive and well and moving further south. The intent is to keep the POD concept.

by
|
Post ID: @1jbw+KgS1Y28

The huge building was to house all of the inexpensive POD labor and allow for collaboration. A 20% occupancy rate, and now shutting the building down would be indicative of a major change in direction. So concept of PODs are dead?

by
|
Post ID: @1siv+KgS1Y28

How is that writing on the wall? Only 20% of the building was actually being filled so why pay for a huge building if you're not going to use all of it?

by
|
Post ID: @1dwr+KgS1Y28

3 year lease and not renewing. Writing on the wall.

by
|
Post ID: @1mwc+KgS1Y28

Pittsburgh was told to work remote because the lease was up on the building and didn't have another building.

by
|
Post ID: @ylu+KgS1Y28

Post a reply

: