Plot gets thicker in the Disney IT layoffs...

[dinolounger]

The Disney IT layoffs are attracting the attention of the investigative press, who are beginning to dig up new and potentially very unflattering details, If the below is accurate, the PR people in Anaheim may well be calling in the cavalry (consultancies like LEVICK that specialize in PR crisis management).

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/09/disney-blacklisted-displaced-american-workers/

 

[jlundeen]

If I'm reading this correctly, it COULD be the case that, like many companies' do, Disney's contract of employment with these folks included a clause that said they couldn't work in the same capacity for a competing organization for a specified amount of time...that's pretty common. If I'm reading it correctly....haven't have much coffee yet...

 

[7series]

I'm sure that it said they are on a black list. It's called a "non-compete" clause and they're as common as bogus, sensationalized reporting like this. I have signed them with more than one employer. They typically last from 1 - 5 years. Disney's is apparently only 1 year.

 

[dinolounger]

If the article is correct, you are both mistaken. Let's briefly review dismissal caveats 10.

A non-compete clause states one cannot work for a competitor of a firm one has left (either permanently or for some stated period of time). Again, a competitor. Like Universal. Or Six Flags, etc.

In this case, there is no competitor element, Disney is retaining vendors, not competitors, and a recruiter for at least one of the vendors is reported to have said Disney does not want it to retain any ex-Disney staff to do work on a Disney assignment for some specified period of time. If that is accurate, it again is not in any shape, matter or form a non compete request, it is what the article stated ("blacklisting"). The situation a little murky, given the article also states a Disney spokesperson initially refuted that there is any blacklist clause that but subsequently didn't respond to requests to confirm that.

 

[Castle2Castle]

If that is accurate, it again is not in any shape, matter or form a non compete request, it is what the article stated ("blacklisting").

Ignoring completely the clarification put forward by the Disney spokesperson, a policy of waiting a year to a year and a half for any employee to be rehired is not a blacklist. It's just a sensationalist headline.

 

[7series]

If the article is correct, you are both mistaken. Let's briefly review dismissal caveats 10.

A non-compete clause states one cannot work for a competitor of a firm one has left (either permanently or for some stated period of time). Again, a competitor. Like Universal. Or Six Flags, etc.

In this case, there is no competitor element, Disney is retaining vendors, not competitors, and a recruiter for at least one of the vendors is reported to have said Disney does not want it to retain any ex-Disney staff to do work on a Disney assignment for some specified period of time. If that is accurate, it again is not in any shape, matter or form a non compete request, it is what the article stated ("blacklisting"). The situation a little murky, given the article also states a Disney spokesperson initially refuted that there is any blacklist clause that but subsequently didn't respond to requests to confirm that.

Vendors are often included in non-compete clauses because they often have business with direct competitors. Vendors that serve very specialized businesses like theme parks are very likely to have business with Universal and other local attractions. Vendors are not all under exclusive contracts with Disney. Someone who takes an IT job with a vendor could easily end up working IT for a competitor, and is in fact, very likely to.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

No hire clauses are becoming as common as no compete clauses these days...

No laws restrict a person from earning a wage...but employeers have started to write limits on individuals regarding what they can do to earn a wage and wait periods.

Yeah, capitalism!!!

 

[Dean Marino]

Gotta comment... Please forgive me.

I worked for 27 years in IT research for the Dow Chemical Company. Within my first two years, I learned something very important....
Firms of this size don't "Get" IT. They consider it to be a commodity. If you are in IT? You will hear that you need to train, or otherwise reveal, to others, what you know.

NEVER do this. Your value is your brain. NEVER give away your value - that being your brain. Instead? QUIT. Yup - just walk out.

Sounds harsh, but if this is what you do for a living? Be aware - you don't need to cooperate in your own execution . Just leave.

 

[cjbcam]

So they get laid off after having trained their replacements and are now not allowed to get another job? That's crazy. I would understand if they got fired not being able to hire them back but geesh.

 

[Josh Hendy]

In my experience, one of the reasons why "no rehire" clauses came into effect was because certain contractors went crying to the courts to claim that they were a "de facto" employee during the time they were a contractor. And the courts went along with it and walloped the company with a huge bill for backdated benefits ... to which the contractor was never entitled and had specifically agreed not to receive in a written contract. Not to mention the contractor had got all kinds of extra cash in his pocket with tax writeoffs available to contractors but not to ordinary wage slaves. The wallop to the local hi-tech companies was so severe that they implemented strict limits on length of contracts, and strict "no rehire" periods.

It wasn't a case of "yeah capitalism". It was "yeah government courts tearing up voluntary and mutually beneficial contracts and creating chaos and financial problems for dozens of companies and thousands of contractors who were happy with the tradeoff of benefits for tax writeoffs."

 

[HMANSION LOVER]

Dean Marino you are spot on!!! I manufacture lenses for optical companies. I was working for a guy who told me I either teach his son how to do my job ( I did not learn my trade while I was working for this less than reputable person, so the skills I possessed at that time belonged to me) or I will be fired. I handed him my lab coat and walked out. Total ***----. I gotta tell felt like a million dollars when I saw the look on his face as I walked out of his establishment. I agree never give knowledge to anybody, let them put in the time and sweat, like we did, and learn it on their own. WELL STATED!

 

[dinolounger]

Vendors are often included in non-compete clauses because they often have business with direct competitors.

Point taken, thank you, but based on what was reported it clearly appears that is not the explanation for what happened here.

For a Disney spokesperson came out and said there was no such "they can't work for X" clause for ex-employees in place. Why would she have done that if there was?

 

[7series]

Who knows, but do we really believe that an employment agency informed someone that they are on a "black list"? Or that Disney would be stupid enough to do such a thing?

 

[Castle2Castle]

The article quotes the e-mail that was provided to the anonymous former employee, and notably does not contain anything about a blacklist. All it shows is their understanding -- what Disney calls a misunderstanding -- of a policy about waiting 1 to 1.5 years before rehiring former employees. The reporter (maybe being generous) is just spinning that as blacklisting in their headline to generate clicks.

 

[keithbarrett]

[Disclaimer: I'm not the anonymous person mentioned in that article, but I was laid off because of the Disney outsourcing]

The article is correct. In all previous Disney tech layoffs (in the 10+ years I was there), the people impacted were allowed back as contractors, many for the firm that the work was outsourced to. This is common in IT everywhere, and is often a win-win for the people losing their jobs (they get to stay, but under different arrangements) and the contracting firm (they get to use the experienced people already performing the work). Its also a win for customers.

In this situation we were told it in our Q&A sessions it would be the same, and Disney even set up talks between me and contracting firms. Then 2 weeks after the 1/31 end date (back in Feb mind you), I also heard from a firm they'd been told they aren't allowed to submit the people let go in Jan (even if their status of termination was retirement) and that "no explanation was given". All my existing conversations with firms came to a sudden silence with "no longer open". There are no non-complete clauses or conflict of interest involved here, and since the employees were not previously contractors there is no "avoidance to hire" time restriction. I called HR (in Feb) and they claimed there was no such ban policy, but obvious for a story to talk about it as recent news means it's been in place for months now. official or not, it's preventing tech people from working.

I can envision several reasons why their new CIO would do this; none very flattering for the company. Disney did take on-going needed roles filled by employees, mostly older or long-term staff with good performance reviews, and turn them into contracted work to save money. They're taking a PR hits now for using the H-1B Visa system for eliminating staff instead of hiring hard to find skills, forcing staff to train their own career inexperienced replacements under threat of loss of severance, then being prevented from returning even in "best fit" circumstances, and doing all this during record profits.

 

[insureman]

[Disclaimer: I'm not the anonymous person mentioned in that article, but I was laid off because of the Disney outsourcing]

The article is correct. In all previous Disney tech layoffs (in the 10+ years I was there), the people impacted were allowed back as contractors, many for the firm that the work was outsourced to. This is common in IT everywhere, and is often a win-win for the people losing their jobs (they get to stay, but under different arrangements) and the contracting firm (they get to use the experienced people already performing the work). Its also a win for customers.

In this situation we were told it in our Q&A sessions it would be the same, and Disney even set up talks between me and contracting firms. Then 2 weeks after the 1/31 end date (back in Feb mind you), I also heard from a firm they'd been told they aren't allowed to submit the people let go in Jan (even if their status of termination was retirement) and that "no explanation was given". All my existing conversations with firms came to a sudden silence with "no longer open". There are no non-complete clauses or conflict of interest involved here, and since the employees were not previously contractors there is no "avoidance to hire" time restriction. I called HR (in Feb) and they claimed there was no such ban policy, but obvious for a story to talk about it as recent news means it's been in place for months now. official or not, it's preventing tech people from working.

I can envision several reasons why their new CIO would do this; none very flattering for the company. Disney did take on-going needed roles filled by employees, mostly older or long-term staff with good performance reviews, and turn them into contracted work to save money. They're taking a PR hits now for using the H-1B Visa system for eliminating staff instead of hiring hard to find skills, forcing staff to train their own career inexperienced replacements under threat of loss of severance, then being prevented from returning even in "best fit" circumstances, and doing all this during record profits.

I posted this yesterday. Maybe Disney is rethinking this.

http://www.disboards.com/threads/abc-tv-rescinding-it-layoffs.3418949/

 

[Planogirl]

[Disclaimer: I'm not the anonymous person mentioned in that article, but I was laid off because of the Disney outsourcing]

The article is correct. In all previous Disney tech layoffs (in the 10+ years I was there), the people impacted were allowed back as contractors, many for the firm that the work was outsourced to. This is common in IT everywhere, and is often a win-win for the people losing their jobs (they get to stay, but under different arrangements) and the contracting firm (they get to use the experienced people already performing the work). Its also a win for customers.

In this situation we were told it in our Q&A sessions it would be the same, and Disney even set up talks between me and contracting firms. Then 2 weeks after the 1/31 end date (back in Feb mind you), I also heard from a firm they'd been told they aren't allowed to submit the people let go in Jan (even if their status of termination was retirement) and that "no explanation was given". All my existing conversations with firms came to a sudden silence with "no longer open". There are no non-complete clauses or conflict of interest involved here, and since the employees were not previously contractors there is no "avoidance to hire" time restriction. I called HR (in Feb) and they claimed there was no such ban policy, but obvious for a story to talk about it as recent news means it's been in place for months now. official or not, it's preventing tech people from working.

I can envision several reasons why their new CIO would do this; none very flattering for the company. Disney did take on-going needed roles filled by employees, mostly older or long-term staff with good performance reviews, and turn them into contracted work to save money. They're taking a PR hits now for using the H-1B Visa system for eliminating staff instead of hiring hard to find skills, forcing staff to train their own career inexperienced replacements under threat of loss of severance, then being prevented from returning even in "best fit" circumstances, and doing all this during record profits.

This is extremely sad. Thanks for sharing and I hope that you can move happily beyond this.

 

[Tiki Mark]

The only way this makes sense to me from a Disney perspective is if they're afraid these laid-off workers will exact revenge somehow through their work with the contractor. I don't understand how you lay someone off and then restrict their ability to work.

 

[dinolounger]

Who knows, but do we really believe that an employment agency informed someone that they are on a "black list"? Or that Disney would be stupid enough to do such a thing?

I agree with "who knows," but the way that also comes across is almost excusing not just the Disney spokesperson (and her management) but the entire enterprise for not having its act together. So I think I've answered your "would they be stupid enough" question, ergo:

Yes, they apparently are.

 

[soniam]

Here's an interesting take. I don't think I have seen this posted yet. If it has been, sorry for the repeat. I tend to find this journalist pretty fair and knowledgeable about how the tech industry works. He could also be wrong as well about some things. I don't want to discount that people have lost jobs; that's always difficult no matter what the circumstances or results. It will be interesting to see what he says in subsequent articles.

http://www.cringely.com/2015/06/12/disneys-it-troubles-go-beyond-h-ibs/