Plot gets thicker in the Disney IT layoffs...

[craigkerstiens]

It sounds like all the laid off employees now have their jobs back according to http://orlando.suntimes.com/orl-news/7/135/176830/walt-disney-world-backs-layoffs-250-tech-workers

 

[3DisneyFanz]

I believe I read somewhere that they received a letter of congressional inquiry. I'm sure from their perspective it would be much better to scrap this plan that to face scrutiny of various branches of the government. McDonald's and Home Depot found themselves in similar situations a couple years back with Rockerfeller and then found themselves receiving inquiries about all types of issues from other agencies.

 

[Castle2Castle]

Here's an interesting take. I don't think I have seen this posted yet...

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

Hadn't seen his article but had read about the previous IBM outsourcing which transferred 1,000 jobs. However, where he says they took things back in house after the IBM contract, the information I came across was that they replaced IBM with HCL for approximately 2,000 jobs that IBM had previously been doing over the course of their seven year contract. One of the former Disney employees replaced this go around worked for IBM during that outsourcing effort though before working directly for Disney later; so there does indeed seem to be a steady rotation and it's not new.

It sounds like all the laid off employees now have their jobs back according to http://orlando.suntimes.com/orl-news/7/135/176830/walt-disney-world-backs-layoffs-250-tech-workers

The headline of that article doesn't seem to reflect the actual content. The 250 IT workers were let go months ago and the 120 were rehired months ago. Only the ABC IT people are now not being let go (separate topic on it).

Not entirely sure about Disney IT, but some of these news orgs certainly seem to have some skills gaps...

 

[Dean Marino]

You know, we've seen a LOT about Disney IT staff - and very LITTLE about Disney IT.

Following - all opinion... to date, Disney has HAD no IT. Their Website is a joke, backend infrastructure old and failing, NO form of Change Control - it's been a complete failure.

Now - lest you think otherwise? It's highly unlikely that this is the fault of any Disney IT Line Worker.

All of the above smacks of a total failure of whatever excuse for a CIO Disney has chosen to pay. No leadership, no knowledge of current Best Practice in the IT arena... nothing but "get the donuts" at some meeting.... Sorry, insource, outsource - it all has to start with an empowered Board Member with something RESEMBLING an alignment to the interest of the corporation, and best practice in the industry.

For reference? 27 years in IT Research with a fortune 500 that I'm not going to reference. I WILL reference THIS - that CIO would have been out the door a good 10 years ago, given their performance track record, in MY company.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

1) Disney announce today, 6/17/2015, that thirty-five (35) of those laid-off can return.
2) Of course, they did not say the job they will return to . . .
. . . could be IT
. . . could be hourly CM's
. . . could be turnstile ticket-takers
3) My hunch is that Disney is trying to stall off any official inquiries of replacing USA workers with foreign employees.

 

[Dean Marino]

1) Disney announce today, 6/17/2015, that thirty-five (35) of those laid-off can return.
2) Of course, they did not say the job they will return to . . .
. . . could be IT
. . . could be hourly CM's
. . . could be turnstile ticket-takers
3) My hunch is that Disney is trying to stall off any official inquiries of replacing USA workers with foreign employees.

How LOVELY . Guy's (and Ladies).... take the deal, and GO FIND A NEW JOB NOW. Trust me on this one.... 27 years dealing with the same issue in IT. These folks can no longer be trusted.

 

[loutoo]

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.

Actually this is not blacklisting. What is described is an anti poaching clause. The purpose of the clause is not to prevent laid off Disney employees from finding jobs. It's purpose is to prevent a vendor company from developing a relationship with a Disney employee and then convincing them to quit Disney and come work for the vendor. It is anti poaching. These clauses often times include language excluding employees let go by the company in Disney's position And even when they dont, they are never enforced in a situation like this. It's not Disney blacklisting, it is Disney trying to protect their talent

 

[achinfeet]

[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.

 

[achinfeet]

[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 am a 50+ IT worker whose company signed a contract with TCS (Tata) to provide off shore technology resources (coders). Currently we can apply for a new position in IT and all have been accomodated, but this is only the 2nd year in a mult-year contract, so I don't know what to expect. I will retire and take my pretty extensive business / systems knowledge with me before I re-train anyone to replace me in a lay off situation, but I have this luxury while most do not.

My kids love Disney, so I am hoping they re-think this short sighted policy. If they don't, I will return to Florida - and may even return to one of Disney's Parks - but, I will make sure I spend 80% of my entertainment dollar in Universal and elsewhere next time.

I am truly sorry to hear about what Disney has done to it's IT staff. I saw the news report of people walking out of the building with their boxes - it did piss me off.

 

[jimmyzluck]

my wife signed one of these clauses years ago when working for a tax firm.I could be wrong but if I remember correctly they could not get rid of you and inforce these.It is to stop you from leaving to work for competitors for more money,benefits ect.

 

[dinolounger]

Actually this is not blacklisting. What is described is an anti poaching clause.

And if you are correct, the issue still stands because the original article I referenced describes a situation that has absolutely nothing to do with poaching. Disney laid off a worker and then the worker applied for job with a vendor who was doing business with Disney. In that scenario, the vendor is not "hiring away" a worker from Disney. They are hiring away a worker Disney decided to terminate because their position was being "eliminated" (where "eliminated" is increasingly a corporate euphemism for "we are going to replace you with someone younger/cheaper."

 

[Castle2Castle]

Anti-poaching or not, it's still not blacklisting either. The original article was more clickbait than actual journalism.

 

[dinolounger]

Anti-poaching or not, it's still not blacklisting either.

How so? Report says vendor told ex-Disney employee job applicant that Disney did not want them utilizing any any staff who recently terminated from Disney. A Disney spokesperson denied that (or -- given her use of the term "misunderstanding" -- may have been implying there might be some prior employment criteria Disney had for the staff vendors could deploy on Disney assignments, but that it wasn't being described properly by the vendor) but subsequent inquiries to the firm to clarify said "misunderstanding" have gone unanswered.

So unless you or someone else comes back with confirmed proof that the vendor is incorrect, the possibility remains that there is a blacklisting policy.

 

[Castle2Castle]

Already explained in the fourth post. Even ignoring Disney saying it was a misunderstanding of policy, the policy quoted from the vendor is not blacklisting. The Disney spokesperson didn't deny such a policy as described exists (only the circumstances and employees to which it's applicable), but whatever the reason for it (non-compete, anti-poaching, etc), it isn't blacklisting.

 

[dinolounger]

Already explained in the fourth post.

I wrote the fourth post in this thread, which explained that if the quoted vendor was describing things accurately (i.e. there was a list circulating of ex Disney employees that Disney had told IT vendors working for it they could not hire) that was indeed absolutely blacklisting. It is by no means a non-compete or non poaching clause.

 

[Castle2Castle]

I should have said fourth response rather than post.

A company policy of waiting 12-18 months for rehire within the same company, regardless of which former employees it does or doesn't apply to, is not a blacklist. That is what is laid out in the quoted e-mail from the vendor to the former employee. It's only the article writer who tries to sensationalize a non-story by claiming that's equivalent to a blacklist being circulated before regurgitating most of what had already been reported by the New York Times and Orlando Sentinel.

 

[larandtra1990]

When you accept a job with a corporation and know their procedures and that a Non-Compete is required, you also are made aware that industry partners are not going to hire you for a period of time after termination. And if you fail to ask those questions, that is your own problem. Noone makes you take a particular job. Akin to the Mcdonalds workers wanting 15$ an hour. If you dont like your job , quit. If you take a job, know what the agreement you enter into says and dont whine about it later. Its not personal, its business, and its done this way in every industry.

 

[Bob Haller]

I guess I came late to the party. just heard about this a couple weeks ago, and had troubles posting here

Now disney is my favorite place and i was saddened to hear they terminated 250 americans to replace them with cheaper contractors from foreign countries just to save a buck......

so where does this stand today? If disney hasnt done the right thing then it universal for us. jan 2016 looks like 15 people this time

in jan 2014 10 of us did disney, rented a 5 bedroom off site home with a private pool and 4 bathrooms. spent nearly every day at disney had a great time.

but if disney is screwing the america people i will never spend another dime on anything disney. earlier today I deleted the ABC channels from our tivos. I believe the ABC shows we normally record will not.

So is disney a responsible AMERICAN COMPANY? or a crap biggest profit grabber at all costs?

incidently i took the print out of the original article and found 4 members of our group had similiar sucky experiences.

 

[Bob Haller]

since i am totally confused

did disney do the right thing and rehire all the terminated workers.

i need to know since i am ready to send a blasting letter of disquist,,,

anyone have the CEOs physical mail address?

if this isnt corrected soon disney will try to contract everything, just to make a buck without regard to the american workers

 

[Josh Hendy]

Maybe you can contact one of the reporters who has covered this story? They often have an email address listed at the end of the article, and if it's their local beat they might be still following what's happening even if they haven't written an article. Or they can use the contacts they developed when writing the original article(s) to get an update and forward the information to you.

Good luck. I appreciate your taking an interest and trying to get to the bottom of the story and do something about it if it hasn't been corrected.