craigkerstiens
Mouseketeer
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2014
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
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.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/
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).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
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.
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.
[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.
[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.
Actually this is not blacklisting. What is described is an anti poaching clause.
Anti-poaching or not, it's still not blacklisting either.
Already explained in the fourth post.