Plot gets thicker in the Disney IT layoffs...

[gsimpson]

While Disney's actions toward their IT staff is completely repugnant they have every right to treat their long time employees anyway that suits them. Having said that, since 1978 I have gone to Disney parks every year, multiple times a year to WDW, once or twice a year to DLR, and every few years to TDR. Most of my trips to WDW range from 3500 to 6000 dollars. While I still feel that Disney has the superior product I have stopped going since they decided, in the midst of record earnings and profits, to increase their margins on the backs of their employees like this. I know that my paltry money means absolutely nothing to their bottom line if everyone who feels this behavior is unacceptable would do the same it might have an impact. To the person who asked the question "are you going to boycott every company that does this" I can answer yes I will and yes I do. The "Everyone does it" answer became unacceptable on about my 4th birthday. Of course keep in mind the only reason this continues to happen is because the politicians (both parties) we elect have created a set of rules that benefits the people who pay for their re-election. I'm sure you've all heard the lie "we can't find qualified US works so we need more H1-B visas". This is factually a lot of equine fertilizer as having to have the "under trained" US workers train the "more highly skilled" foreign workers suggest.

 

[Dean Marino]

Pretty old posting - but it DOES contain a gem of information that every IT worker (Disney or not) should pay attention to....

A little background? Sandy and I retired from IT Research positions at a Fortune 500 that I will not name in 2007. I managed several IT groups.

Some secrets:

1) EVERY corporation will stress that you must teach everyone everything you know.
2) See 1) - then NEVER do this. It is Career Suicide.
3) Always posture yourself as complying with 1).

Why would I say this? Well, it's because Corporations RENT your skills - they do NOT OWN your skills. Your brain is your livelihood - KEEP IT, and never EVER give it away.

When a corporation DEMANDS that you give away your brain? QUIT. This is the equivalent of a Landlord demanding his "rights" to sleep with your wife. Yes, that would be 11th Century English Law.... about time we put an end to that .

 

[Pop Goes the Weasel]

I think it's important to keep in mind that Disney has created a lot of opportunity and employs a heckuva lot of folks across a variety of skills and professions. Not only has this company had a cultural impact, but also a profound economic impact that has clothed and fed a lot of families. Whether business strategy or imagineering, I don't agree with every choice Disney makes, but I can't argue that in the grand scheme, they usually get it right.

I have a 20 year background in the software industry - the same industry as the application developers who were let go. For several years, I've been a contractor and run my own small companies. I've even been brought in to clean up after the mess made by outsourcing to cheap foreign labour.

The software industry is a very fast changing environment that requires its professionals to be creative and constantly evolving. It is very common for people who are good at their jobs to be rendered irrelevant even though they might receive positive reviews for their performance. A whole development group can be good at their skillset, but if they don't innovate they can damage the company. In these cases, it's common for management (especially newly installed management) to resort to a massive shakeup to get new results. I'm not saying this is always good or that nobody gets hurt, but it's common.

Ultimately, Disney will not thrive and hire a lot of people if it stagnates. Disney employee families pocketbooks depend in its ability to be creative and innovative.

If Disney is simply replacing any employee it can with cheap imported labour, then boo on it. However, if Disney is making changes that allow it to better innovate and succeed, then good for them - even if some of their employees are talented individuals from around the world.

And maybe, just maybe, they will fix online check in.

 

[Alice Sr.]

[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.

The company I work for has had this policy in place for 5 years. You are not allowed to come back as a contractor for 6-12 months (I can't remember the exact timeline). Unfortunate that they implemented the policy in the middle of a downsize/restructure after taking the steps to set you up with a vendor. They should have just waited but that is the nature of the corporate beast, whatever is best for the bottom line.

 

[Eoghann]

The company I work for has had this policy in place for 5 years. You are not allowed to come back as a contractor for 6-12 months (I can't remember the exact timeline). Unfortunate that they implemented the policy in the middle of a downsize/restructure after taking the steps to set you up with a vendor. They should have just waited but that is the nature of the corporate beast, whatever is best for the bottom line.

It's a pretty common policy and there are legitimate reasons for it not least of which is avoiding a certain amount of nepotism where people are let go and then brought back in a more highly paid "consultant" position.

Working in subcontracts I see a lot of this stuff where someone leaves for another company and suddenly there's talk of working with that company...

 

[ChallengerHK1]

I've been subject to several non-compete clauses over the course of my career, primary with auto makers, and in each case the clause only applied if I voluntarily left the employer. If I was let go the clause was not applicable and I was free to seek employment anywhere.

 

[Eoghann]

I've been subject to several non-compete clauses over the course of my career, primary with auto makers, and in each case the clause only applied if I voluntarily left the employer. If I was let go the clause was not applicable and I was free to seek employment anywhere.

That is generally the case with non-competes I agree. The not-rehiring an employee as a contractor is different and would apply whether they left voluntarily or were let go (regardless of reason).

None of which is to say that Disney was doing the right thing here, just that there are legitimate reasons for both types of restriction.

 

[Josh Hendy]

Ultimately, Disney will not thrive and hire a lot of people if it stagnates. Disney employee families pocketbooks depend in its ability to be creative and innovative.

That's true ... generally speaking. But the statements in all of the articles that I've read about this - especially this most recent one at breitbart - don't sound like this policy has anything to do with getting more fresh, innovative or skilled employees.

Among other things, it's hard to see why the supposedly old, stale employees would not just be told to train the newbs, but to be videotaped so that the newbs can learn and copy every detail of what they do.

Disney is pretty honest and fair company for the most part, as far as I can tell from reading stories from current and former employees online. But in this case, it looks like they've decided to throw a lot of IT employees under the bus in a very underhanded way.

What I find most disgusting is that apparently a large company can lie on US visa applications with complete impunity ... but if you, me, or anyone other individual got caught telling lies it would mean arrest, detention and possibly a criminal trial and hard time for US citizens, and for non-Americans certain deportation possibly after also doing hard time.

 

[Alice Sr.]

That is generally the case with non-competes I agree. The not-rehiring an employee as a contractor is different and would apply whether they left voluntarily or were let go (regardless of reason).

None of which is to say that Disney was doing the right thing here, just that there are legitimate reasons for both types of restriction.

Totally agree. Disney may have a claim on their hands though. It appears, they held a chair out for the departing employees (by hooking them up with a vendor) and then pulled it out from under them at the last minute. Could have been handled better and I hope whoever's decision it was to change policies midstream learned a lesson (if that's what happened here).

 

[Dean Marino]

Just a personal opinion - and as such? Really holds no weight at all....

I believe ANYONE'S "non compete clause" is nothing more than slavery, 2015. I believe this because it prevents people from seeking honest employment. I personally believe that a lawsuit, properly focused, and taken to the Supreme Court, would verify this personal opinion. Yes, I DO understand that all of that would require one, DEDICATED Hero - and significant financial backing. I, for one, would back that person's claim - in spite of the fact that I am retired, and would have NOTHING to gain, either way.

 

[ChallengerHK1]

I can honestly say that when I've had a non-compete clause, it's been because I was given knowledge that would allow a competitor to gain an edge in the market place, so it made sense to keep me from working for a direct competitor. On the other hand, my attitude has always been that a contractor should never have critical knowledge of that nature, and that, if the job required that knowledge, the contractor should become an employee.