#offshore

Am I reading this LinkedIn post correctly? Where did they find so many open offshore positions within 6 months, with so many layoffs here in the States?

Welp, good luck, ya'll.

Is there an end in sight?

Any next offshore president intel now that BG is moving up the ladder?

Half our department gone today, all moving to offshore India where the rate is 30% but takes 4 to do one job.

while other american businessess are expanding and increasing CAPEX in US soil, once again Nike is going in the opposite direction due to incompetence and is destroying thousands of jobs across the nation.

The irony is the pivot to bangooluru is announced on the same week that the federal government took severe action and banned indian IT firms:

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-bars-tata-hcl-infosys-among-8-it-firms-from-green-card-filing-what-it-means-for-indians-12159380

The intent of the admin is protecting American jobs, not creating perverted incentives to run offshore sweatshops.

Feel free to report to either DJT or JD, if enough of us file a complaint the admin would take action as they also hold little to no love for Nike.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

I doesnt take more than 5mins, just do it.

Is engineering slowly being shown the door in Webster or will they have future roles with Lexmark machines? It seems not much is mentioned anymore with what is going on there.
Last I knew they were doing a few controllers for fuji engines, is that phased out now? Are the software groups staying put or being offshore.
HCL did most of the work I believe onsite, has that changed?

I don't have any co-workers at my office (or state) but am required to come into office 4 days per week. My co-workers in India, who do have other workers at their sites, are only required to come in 10 days per month. Is this discrimination against the US workers to get them to quit? When I ask AI, it says yes and gives online fed agencies to enter in complaints to. Has anyone done this? Which agency did you lodge your complaint? Even if it goes no further, I'd like to enter in a complaint about this company's H1B and offshore Anti-American worker policies.

Home and Community Care Transitions, Care Coordinators: While our Preservice colleagues are being replaced by Optum Global Preservice I can't help but think we are being short sighted by only worrying about the Humana sunset. Remember when we got that "lift" of our UHC members' discharge record Predicts being completed by the Global team? What a "lift", teaching offshore nurses to do the Predict Discharge Assessment. My prediction is the next logical step for Optum will be to have these Predict assessment trained global colleagues to do the Initial Predict. And the name change to "care journey guide", alongside the removal of Applied Cognition score, and the updating of the disclaimer are all to soften that transition to Global. Applied Cognition is very difficult to score and requires more digging and understanding to get correct. It also can't be pulled by the AI models from the evaluations. The disclaimer is going to soften it and water it down to meet whatever legal/compliance issues are in the way with transitioning to Global. Be prepared for layoffs and downsizing and shifts even after the Humana dust settles. Care Coordinators, get ready, we are next if they've figured out how to replace PCRs.

I don't think any of us are safe from it. At some point, only the C-suite will be based here.

Memo to Board of Directors: you may want to sell the company now before it gets way worse. Check this out from recent TIAA employees on The Layoff about their failed experiment with A~S~S~Centure. Buckle up ! This is what MoA is in store for.

Headline
Massive layoff after Accenture falling out Having lost millions due to Accenture outsourcing not going as planned the management is now planning layoffs and even more offshore and outsourcing instead of taking responsibility.
Shitstry should be ashamed n be immediately fired!

#Accountability #Layoff#Management #Offshore #Outsourcing
6d ago by Anonymous
20 replies (last 19h ago ) | Reply
1970 views | 13 reactions (+11/-2)
Post ID: @OP+1m327nxmv

•••
@zs The irony in all of this fiasco is that TIAA CREF did have the money to transform & modernize internally without the need to seek out & outsource cheap, untested labor. We were already on our way to many JD Power Awards on pur own ! With our own people ! Talented Stateside people !
When sales executives flash dollar signs, charts, spreadsheets, and power point presentations saying they can save 30%-40% on labor & employee benefit costs, & promise better quality & the same productitivty, it is a natural adrenaline rush. Euphoria. They got sold & took the bait. Instead of running parallel systems for a few yrs & testing a few areas, TIAA went all in.
Then, compounding the mess was the miscalculation of the success in Frisco, and the loss of Jacksonville & Denver. You are spot on that in order for the Accenture relationship to exceed in the first place, EVERYTHING had to be mapped out right to the last decimal point & that didn’t happen. You have to optimize your processes first before handing over a half baked and broken process to Indians who have absolutely no clue about how anything worked. The one offs. The special rules. Nothing could have prepared them for the disaster.
What we should have done is built is spend the money, bring it the best IT Engineers for 5 yrs stateside, pay 50 of them $500K each & they would have absolutely figured out how to do this in stages over 10 yrs instead of cramming it into 2-3 yrs. Quality has suffered & for the people who are left, they have had to train, retrain, pick up more work. All those 30%-50% cost savings are eaten up in errors, rework, mistakes & lost clients.
It is going to get far worse with the Shroeders deal w/Nuveen. Schroeders has some insanely antiquated systems.
The only thing that can change the ship from a direct iceburg hit is a new Board of Directors & the filing of all the EC including the NY Liberty’s #1 fan, TBD.
19h ago by Good night & Good luck.
8 reactions (+8/-0) | Reply
Post ID: @12d+1m327nxmv
 +8 

All of this goes back to budgeting decisions made with Roger followed by incorrect analysis from the new C-suite on why we were behind other companies. Strategic projects under Roger’s leadership were funded on an annual basis. This created a ton of half-built upgraded processes increasing the number of systems being used. We definitely had a deficiency in good people leading these major projects, but a lot of the overall issues were tied to never having money to fully finish strategic work.
T and Sastry came in, looked at these issues and decided it was all our people that caused this. It was a “we thing”, we didn’t know what we’re doing and we couldn't handle these major changes. Now as we started doing major projects that were fully funded such as Toggle, somehow internally we were able to handle it. However complex operational process projects were viewed as a TIAA people issue. This turned to us making the deal with Accenture.
Moving our complex issues to a group that didn’t understand the issues or processes shockingly turned into a bigger mess. We also didn’t show them all the existing complexity. By moving to Accenture we effectively moved backwards a decade+ because they need to learn all of these one off situations before they can even attempt to take out waste and automate.
The Accenture savings aren’t materializing but it’s not all Accenture’s fault. We don’t have processes easy to automate. If we spent half the money we spent on Accenture to fix the processes before we moved work to Accenture we’d be in a much better place. Instead the C-Suite is once again proving they don’t know the reason for the issues and our going to keep fumbling by removing people who understand and couple fix these issues.
1d ago by Anonymous
7 reactions (+7/-0) | Reply
Post ID: @zs+1m327nxmv
 +7 

We now have some Offshore Temp employees being trained and working in PHCO correspondence. That didn’t take long and more to come I am sure!

Why most hires in india wont code and just do confluence updates . Are they hired as per ppl manager friendships

Having lost millions due to Accenture outsourcing not going as planned the management is now planning layoffs and even more offshore and outsourcing instead of taking responsibility.
Shitstry should be ashamed n be immediately fired!

Heard the budget is cut 30%, layoff likely impact both onshore and offshore but likely more onshore

Layoffs are going to come in waves. First a general headcount reduction and a focus on simplifying systems and documentation as we go, then more and more layoffs as they bring on more and more Indians to hopefully maintain what shell is left hoping the company doesn't go under.

And of course by the time Kroger realizes their mistake and the future of work is going towards AI with competent leadership both in the business and in tech guiding it, not hordes of offshore Indians who couldn't manage a childrens soccer tournament, it will already be too late.

Bumping from an older thread for info. The OP is @bj+1ky4x9xft.

Almost every jtech ob is going to either an offshore person or an immigrant here. Especially in Charlotte and Dallas area. Shame of the hiring managers and the bank HR.

Does anyone know if CGHB is doing layoffs? They’ve hired so many offshore employees lately, and now it kind of looks like the U.S. employees might be the ones getting let go. Has anyone heard anything?

I am wondering how our Strong US based even SBA feel about their data being potentially viewed by off-shore folks. To me, this was a big uproar when it came to TikTok. So how can we as PUBLICLY TRADED IN US , allow offshore folks to have access to US Trust account, assets, etc. This is me saying THIS IS WRONG! I hope investors see this.

Doesn't fix the offshore problem, but this is a start! https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/25/2026-17324/fee-for-certain-h-1b-petitions

Doesn't fix the offshore problem, but this is a start!

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/25/2026-17324/fee-for-certain-h-1b-petitions

Why I have been hearing is a bit concerning. May be everyone already knows this. But they want to move the entire engineering teams to Offshire. Fully functioning teams. There will be an onshore counterpart for every team.

Schlumberger figured out modern well logging. Nearly a century later, I have to deal with sh---y OSDU standards and .ZGY files pushed by Indian project managers with no understanding of what we’ve actually been doing. Completely failing company... Also, no one likes SLB. Stop pushing your offshore Indian storage architecture on everyone.

I am training offshore replacements and hoping this preserves my job. Anyone have insight?

The company is hiring in offshore locations but not in onshore.
Townhalls are in India. PIP is in action with more to come.
Why are you training your replacements?
How do onshore employees see a future here? I’m not seeing it. Help me understand the logic to stay.

Mission Simplify: layoffs, outsourcing, and offshore hiring (through Alorica and JobHai). Employees ask: who's really benefiting?

Mission Simplify cuts jobs while offshore hiring grows. Employee trust and morale continue to erode.

As U.S. jobs disappear and offshore roles expand, many see Mission Simplify as anything but simple.

$365M in severance. Offshore hiring expands. Employees question the direction of Mission Simplify.

The bridge between leadership and employees weakens when layoffs and offshore expansion occur together.

Mission Simplify: American jobs out, offshore jobs in. Workers and members are taking notice.

Someone in India is more valuable than you right now.
Londons Bridges Falling Down!

Texas Protects Your Medical Records. Your Job's Insurance Doesn't.

Somewhere outside the United States, a man with administrative access to an American health insurer's systems is looking at a screen full of patient records. Names. Dates of birth. Member identification numbers. Diagnoses. Years of claims.

He may be at his kitchen table, on home wifi, with his phone beside him. He may be in a windowless facility that took a badge and a fingerprint to enter, where the phone cameras are taped over and nothing reaches the outside internet.

No federal rule distinguishes between those two rooms. None has ever been written.

For nearly three decades, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act has been the public's shorthand for medical privacy, invoked at every pharmacy counter and on every clipboard. What the law says about the physical circumstances in which health
records are actually viewed amounts to a single sentence, and that sentence requires almost nothing.

The provision is 45 CFR 164.310(b). It obliges a covered organization to maintain
policies describing "the physical attributes of the surroundings" of any workstation
that can reach electronic health information. It does not say what those attributes should be. It sets no minimum. It names no control. A secured operations center and a laptop on a sofa satisfy the requirement equally, so long as a document somewhere describes each arrangement.

The rule was written in 2003, when remote access to a health plan's production systems was rare and mostly stationary. It was last substantively amended in 2013. It has not been revisited since the work of maintaining American health data became something that can be done from anywhere on earth with a broadband connection.

What federal law does not require is easier to state than what it does. There is no
requirement for multi-factor authentication on systems holding patient records. No requirement for a controlled or supervised workspace. No restriction on access from a private residence, or from outside the United States, or on privileged administrative access from a foreign country. No prohibition on cameras in the room where records are displayed. And no obligation to tell patients, or even the insurer's own corporate customers, that their records can be reached from abroad.

Each of those decisions belongs entirely to the company. Some organizations impose all of them. Others impose none. Under current law, both are in compliance.

Nor does it matter, legally, who employs the person at the keyboard. Much of the
oversight that does exist was designed around outside vendors: the written agreements a hospital or insurer must sign with a business associate, the assessments it performs before hiring one, the attestations required when a Medicare plan hands work to a subcontractor abroad. None of that machinery engages when the person is on the company's
own payroll.

American insurers and health technology firms have spent two decades building wholly owned subsidiaries overseas, employing tens of thousands of engineers directly. Those engineers are workforce, not business associates. No agreement is required between a company and its own staff. The nationality of the employee is irrelevant to the law, as it should be. What is not irrelevant, and what no rule addresses, is that the entire apparatus of third-party scrutiny simply does not apply to the arrangement that has become the most common one.

There is one exception, and its origin is telling. The strictest rule anywhere in the
country governing where American health records may be handled was not written by a privacy regulator. It was written by a state purchasing office.

Texas requires, through the contract every managed care organization must sign to do business with its health and human services agency, that work be performed and information maintained inside the United States. The same contract bars remote access to the state's systems and data from offshore locations. It does not ask a company to describe its safeguards. It tells the company where the work may happen.

A handful of other states have reached similar conclusions by different routes, several of them through governors' executive orders barring state agencies and their subcontractors from sending work abroad. The restrictions are real, they are enforceable as contract terms, and they demonstrate that the question is neither novel nor unanswerable.

They also reveal the shape of the gap. These rules exist because a state was buying something and could set its terms. They protect the residents of those states, in those programs, and nobody else. A Texan enrolled in Medicaid is covered by a rule that a Texan with employer insurance is not, over the same records, in the same city, held by the same company. The protection follows the contract, not the patient.

There is one federal mechanism that touches the question, and it is regularly mistaken for supervision. Since a series of memoranda issued in 2007 and 2008, Medicare Advantage and prescription dr-g plan sponsors that use offshore subcontractors with access to
beneficiary health information have been required to file an attestation with the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The form is more demanding than most people assume. A sponsor must describe the information involved, explain why sending it is necessary, and state what alternatives it considered and why it rejected them.

Then the form is filed, and nothing happens. The agency does not approve it. There is no review, no license, no conditions, and no authority to refuse. A company decides, and then reports what it decided. The requirement also reaches only Medicare plans. For commercial insurance, covering most working Americans, no comparable notification exists at all.

That the government is capable of writing a firmer rule is not in question, because it
recently did, on the same data, in a fraction of the time.

In February 2024, an executive order directed the Justice Department to restrict foreign access to Americans' bulk sensitive personal information. The resulting regulation took effect in April 2025 and became enforceable that July. It names the countries it covers. It sets numerical thresholds: health information on more than 10,000 Americans,
or genetic information on more than 100. It reaches employment and vendor arrangements explicitly, and one of its own published examples treats foreign technical staff with access to encrypted health data as a prohibited transaction. Records stripped of identifying details under HIPAA can still fall within its scope.

Fourteen months, from executive order to binding rule.

The distinction was never the data. It was the framing. Asked whether foreign
adversaries might obtain American medical records, the government wrote an enforceable prohibition in a little over a year. Asked whether patients' medical records are handled carefully, it has produced, in twenty-eight years, one form that nobody reviews.

If any event was going to change that, it should have been what happened at Change Healthcare.

The company processes a substantial share of the nation's medical claims. On February 12, 2024, intruders logged into a remote access portal using stolen credentials. The portal did not require a second form of authentication. They moved through the network
for nine days before anyone noticed. By the time the company confirmed that data had been taken, it was March.

Pharmacies could not fill prescriptions. Physician practices went months without being paid. Congressional committees convened hearings, and the chief executive of the parent company testified that security procedures had not been updated after the 2022 acquisition. The company reported to federal regulators that approximately 192.7 million
people were affected, close to two thirds of the United States population. It is the
largest medical data breach ever recorded.

Two details from the aftermath have drawn less attention than they deserve.

Before the breach, Change Healthcare held a HITRUST certification for its enterprise
infrastructure, an assessment the industry treats as evidence that an organization's
security is sound. The company had publicized it. It was certified, and the portal still
had no second factor of authentication. Certification is the principal way American
health care organizations satisfy themselves that a vendor's environment is adequate, including vendors operating overseas. It did not detect the failure that brought down a third of the nation's claims traffic.

And no federal penalty has been announced. For scale, the largest fine in the history of the medical privacy law remains a $16 million settlement reached in 2018 over a breach affecting 78.8 million people, about twenty cents a record. In the first part of this year, federal regulators closed six enforcement matters with penalties totaling roughly
$1.3 million across all of them.

The formal response to the largest breach in the sector's history was a proposal. In
January 2025, regulators published a draft update to the security rule that would, among other things, require multi-factor authentication. Public comment closed that March. The proposal has not been finalized. The federal regulatory agenda now lists July 2027 as
the target. A second initiative, a set of cybersecurity performance goals, is voluntary.

More than two years on, the missing control that caused the breach is still not required by law.

There is a structural reason none of this has generated sustained pressure, and it is
not indifference. Nobody is counting.

No law obliges a vendor to disclose that it permits access from outside the country, or from employees' homes. A hospital or insurer must have a contract with its business associates, but is not required to know, and often does not know, which country a subcontractor's subcontractor is working from, or what that room looks like. Patients cannot find out. Regulators do not collect the information outside the Medicare program.
Researchers cannot measure what is not recorded. The result is a category of risk that produces no statistics, and policy in the United States rarely moves against risks that produce no statistics.

Every legal obligation in American medical privacy law attaches to the information. Not one attaches to the room.

A health plan is fully responsible for records that an employee of a subsidiary, or a contractor three tiers below it, may be reading on a personal laptop in a country nobody
at the plan could name. No rule requires the plan to know this, to prevent it, or to
tell anyone that it is so.

The law punishes the theft after it happens. About the conditions that would make it easy, it says nothing at all, and has said nothing since 2003.

Like seriously, acting like we have a culture at all that cares about healthcare when we have people's data in a snag of wires outside of an offshore building in India and forcing people with decades of experience to report to folks in India might be part of what is tanking the culture. Why not talk about that? You guys mention being genuine.

I regret coming here, toxic manager yells at me openly in meetings. My whole team is also not US based. I'm a US citizen working mostly on C++ doing bug fixes feel like this is so hard to sell even as a Sr Swe. I'm trying to leetcode/system design review but I feel so far behind. Grad school? Getting a cert? No idea how to sell this place

It’s official. A manager officially announced they installed software to monitor offshore folks. Ended up cutting 6 of them. Stated not watching FTEs but that’s a bold faced lie. If you go to the bathroom too long you’ll start being micromanaged be careful out there!

Over on the Centene Health Insurance Layoff site, they said Centene just announced that they are offshoring Medicare business.

I wonder if the same will happen here at Humana.

I just found this. There are proposed rules in the making via the FCC but the comment period has ended.
https://www.ictbroadcast.com/fcc-offshore-call-center-rules-2026/

this week everyone got to see the quality of resources from offshore during a sev1 issue call in the CSO/EdHayes Org. These folks from India cannot speak a line of English correctly, cannot articulate the problem nor the impacts, and don't even have the technical understanding.... These folks in India get hired thru recommendations, caste or region feeling or thru bribery... almost all of them who joined the bridge were remotely even qualified for the job. There is this girl who joined the call who would not understand basic instructions and the onshore experts had to come to her rescue!! Yet these crooks at the top want to ship jobs to India laying off quality talent here in the US and eventually backstabbing the american people who pay the bills for AT&T products and services!! Just crazy unbelievable that this is happening!!

If you want to curtail the bank's efforts to ship jobs overseas, push your respective critters in Congress to revive S.409: No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s409/text). Anything short of a huge public outcry or financial cost will not stop GK the MC from replacing us with offshore labor. And it's a better use of your time than donating to the PAC.

How long before we open the inevitable offshore “service center” to replace all the offices we just shut down with cheap foreign labor? I give it 18 months tops.

Last year, 85% of my team was laid off and replaced with an offshore team in India. Watching so many talented colleagues lose their jobs was incredibly difficult, and now it feels like I'm slowly being pushed out too. It's hard not to feel uncertain about my future. Has anyone else been through something like this or felt the same way?

Had a “business update” meeting. Gave essentially no information, saying layoff coming but not saying who or when. Just to expect trainings with offshore. This was weird as it involved a few different teams and they suggested that some teams will have little to no impact. Seems off that we are getting an earlier notification instead of just the one call with a definitive timeline. Why would they even tell us? I’ve heard before of departments training replacements but being told it was for additional workforce. Are they sensing that that wouldnt fly today?

I'm planning to switch jobs soon anyway, but a big reason is that as more of my team has been moved offshore, working with my newer teammates has become a lot more frustrating. The newer male hires in particular constantly interrupt me during calls, second-guess what I say, question my judgment, and never apologize even when they end up being wrong. It's gotten so bad that the people on other teams that I regularly work with on these calls have noticed and started asking me what's going on. I see the same behavior directed at our new female offshore hires, but they're much more timid and less likely to call out bad behavior like I have so they get it worse than I have. One of them keeps getting backlogged tasks pushed onto her from another male employee who keeps saying he's "delayed" on his simple debug task that he's been working on for two sprints now.

My manager was recently replaced with an offshore manager too. They said they'd talk to the new hires because they've also been on a lot of these same calls and have seen what I've brought up during our one on one meetings, but nothing has changed, quite frankly.

For about the last month I've been documenting these incidents and talking with an HR representative after submitting a ticket. So far I've mostly been told to work through my management chain or try resolving things directly with the people involved. HR has suggested it might just be cultural differences that I need to navigate. I don't think "cultural differences" explain people repeatedly dismissing my work or questioning my judgment when I've been on this project for much longer than they have. It also doesn't explain the general disrespect. I also don't think management would be very receptive to the idea that the culture of their own employees is contributing to s-xist behavior. At this point, I'm kind of fed up but already planning on leaving anyways. I was just curious to see if anyone else regardless of gender has been brushed off by HR or management regarding navigating these "cultural differences" which is being used an excuse to ignore horrible work practices by offshore since I can't imagine that's good for the long term of this company.

The offshore contractors will start getting on boarded as Full time US Bank employees. That means layoffs starting August.