Stating the obvious: layoffs are direct hires losing their job. Ironically, outsourced labor is often low quality and sometimes justified because it is “easier to fire a contract worker”. Yet I am not seeing a directed reduction in this labor pool. What gives?
7 replies (most recent on top)
HCL.
Here
Comes
Layoffs.
The writing was on the wall …
Xerox is reevaluating the HCL contract and a good percentage of them will be removed from Xerox roles. Expect announcements January.
No HCL does not move employees to other roles. They simply get rid of them.
What’s left of this place is like an anemic Radio Shack with no battery of the month club. It’s only a matter of time before they follow Tandy’s footsteps.
Because there are still too many XRX direct to fire. Work is moved offshore because the labor rate is 1/10 of the US, not because offshore workers are easier to fire.
Example:
HCL person is hired for a contract for one year. Year is up, they are still working for HCL but the contract with Xerox simply expires. HCL person is moved to another role supporting a different company. No one is fired.
Just an example, not saying this is how it works for Xerox but it's why outsourced help isn't counted as layoffs
When outsourced labor is removed, it doesn't make the news in the same way. Nobody really cares when the contract workers lose their jobs. Well, except for the contract workers that lost their jobs.