Thread regarding IBM layoffs

6 senators say U.S. firms are hiding their offshoring

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3170899/it-industry/6-senators-say-us-firms-are-hiding-their-offshoring.html

Many U.S. tech companies don't report U.S. headcounts, but those that do may fit the model described by Beatty and Liao in their research paper.

Microsoft, for instance, discloses its U.S. headcount in its annual reports and increased its domestic workforce last year. In 2015, the company reported 118,000 full-time employees globally, 60,000 of them employed in the U.S., and 58,000 internationally. In 2016, Microsoft's overall workforce declined to 114,000, but its U.S. workforce increased to 63,000, and its international workforce declined to 51,000.

But another company, IBM, stopped providing its U.S. headcount in 2010. It's U.S. workforce had been declining as its overseas workforce increased. It now only provides a global headcount in its annual reports.

by
| 1209 views | | 4 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+LUO0NXf

4 replies (most recent on top)

Forgot to add that Honeywell also has been attempting to off-shore all development with extremely mixed results, mostly failure. One reason why they virtually have no new products to offer in more than one business segment.

This relegates U.S. workers to being lower-paid paper-shuffler & shipping middlemen who simply answer the complaints from the customer base and keep a minimal amount of older tech workers around to fix the hard problems that off-shoring can't.

I'm fairly certain this model will continue, even under Trump until the entire U.S. middle class is gone.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2qjw+LUO0NXf

Don't leave out Honeywell who is gaming every opportunity to bring in foreign workers or off-shore anything including all manufacturing technology.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2sfu+LUO0NXf

Dell EMC, HPQ are all guilty as well. These companies have deemed Americans are disposable to pay themselves a higher bonus every year.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2jgy+LUO0NXf

That's because IBM management are c---s---ers.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tnw+LUO0NXf

Post a reply

: