[earthian]

In my opinion, forming Unions would be a blunder.
You guys would not come under the 'workman' definition and hence no protection. Secondly, even presuming that the Management 'recognises' the Union, the appraisal system would get progressively averaged out, with few qualifying for progress in the management echelon. Level of ownership and competitive spirit would reduce and it would not augur well for the company or its employees.

[Chetan_Rao]

Typical case of digging wells after fires breaking out.

Our labor laws have always been laughable at best (a large chunk of IT workers don't even qualify as 'workmen' for protection under labor laws), but like Samurai says, the good times had everyone busy making money every dime they could get, hopping jobs like nobody's business, caring neither to keep themselves skilled nor protected for the bad times. Everyone scoffed at the 'few' unjustly terminated 'good-for-nothing, low-lives who probably deserved it', and the prevalent attitude was and to a large extent still is 'rather them than me'.

The time for 'something ought to be done about this' is long gone, at least from the IT industry's perspective. Given where technology stands today and how fast our legislative process moves, jobs will be gone LONG before any protectionist laws are brought into existence.

Union-baazi never really helped anybody, quite the opposite more often than not.

[hothatchaway]

Originally Posted by earthian

You guys would not come under the 'workman' definition and hence no protection. .

Beg to disagree. The definition of 'industry', as laid out in the Industrial Disputes Act of 1948 and upheld by a seven judge bench in the landmark Bangalore Water Supply case of 1978 still stands. This case had amplified the definition of 'industry' not restricting it to manufacturing alone, but also to hospitals, educational institutions, clubs etc. The Parliament, in 1982, amended the IDA to exclude many types of establishments, in view of the dynamic nature of various new age industries, however, this was never notified, which means the original IDA definition of what constitutes an industry and ipso facto, who are workmen, still holds. One of the reasons for the amendment not being notified was that it was felt that there needs to be a grievance redressal mechanism for employees. Generally speaking, if you earn Rs 10,000 PM and above AND are in a supervisory position, you are NOT defined as a workman. Currently, while most would satisfy the first condition even at an entry level, the labor commission will still evaluate the complainants roles and responsibilities to determine whether the conditions of being a workman is met, notwithstanding the pay drawn. In a nutshell, an engineer who is an individual contributor does have a compelling case.

Specifically to the IT industry, companies planning large scale retrenchments/lay offs need to present a compelling narrative for such actions. Sitting on huge cash piles and offering obscene severance packages to a select few in senior management positions do not fit that narrative. Also, if the court deems an employee to fit the definition of a workman, the employer pleading 'poor performance' does not help either as the IDA only provides for misconduct as grounds for dismissal (see this - http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/...cle8582566.ece)

This is a technical perspective of where the labour laws of our land stand on this subject and not who is right or wrong. Looking to form unions now when the going has gotten rough after years of ra ra growth obviously exposes a particular type of mindset. However, if there are rampant dismissals with a slew of complaints, the government will investigate.

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by aargee

But sir, may I ask why? What's wrong in learning, adapting & staying technical & doing the actual work rather than getting the work done?

Ooh! I love this question.
It is only in India that people set such store by 'Management'.
If you're inherently a 'doer' and enjoy 'doing', 'Management' is hardly the best place in the world.
That one grows only through People Management is another myth. One can easily grow even as a sort of 'Commando/ Consultant' rather than as a 'Regular Army' sort of person!

Originally Posted by ramki067

Recession... has hit me. Reason given by management is "Orders given by higher command!"
Have provided with a 2 months notice period(May end).
Now looking for a job in Testing. Intense screening, interview calls, interviews.
For a single senior level position, around 50 candidates appear.

Can you send me a private message with your coordinates?

[androdev]

Are we seeing a case of workforce replacement by advanced technology (like robotics in manufacturing), or just poor business environment forcing the companies to get rid of the flab?

It would be great to hear from people in these industries with firsthand knowledge about specific technologies causing large scale disruption (not future predictions/google-research).

[centaur]

I feel, in India atleast, its the companies to blame for people at senior levels not having technical skills they can put to use. The reason? The mentality here is that as you reach around 8-10 years of work ex, you ARE supposed to take up the responsibilities of a team lead. Here you code but lesser than what you do as a developer.

When you are around 15 years of work ex, you ARE supposed to manage a team and a project A.K.A. Project manager. You become more of a people and project manager than a coder. You actually dont have enough time even if you want to code and are pulled into numerous calls and meetings. Over a period of time you lose touch with code and coding.

Another problem is again with the mindset. If at say 15 years of work ex, you are coding, you are actually looked down upon. "Common dude, you should have been a manager by now and looking at delivery than sit and code. That's fine for the first few years when you are a fresher. Not now. Switch your role into a managerial one". Many give in to this peer pressure as well

In the west that is not the scene. You can grow in the technical line itself than get pushed into program/project management and if you want to get into program/project management, then you do accordingly.

One question people may ask - why cant someone say they want to stay technical and grow in a technical line. Here, your designations are generally based on the work you do (mostly, exceptions are always there). So if you want to be a manager - you have to "Manage". Also if after a particular time you dont reach a particular level, you are considered incompetent or having some problem because of which you have not reached a certain level after so many years of work ex.

So its really a double edged sword. You work hard and grow - you get axed because of not having "the required skills". You work hard and prefer not to grow so fast - you get axed thinking there is reason because of which you have not reached that particular level.

Also companies cry big saying that the majority of the workforce is not having latest skills or cannot be cross trained. How many of them have given opportunities for the people (at the managerial level) to cross skill or develop latest skills? There is no learning path defined even for people who might be interested to do so. So basically the IT industry gets lions, gives them the work of a donkey and later fire them saying they no longer hunt.

I know I will be getting a lot of brickbats for this post of mine from many here but I solely blame the industry for these job losses and not the technology advancement.

EDIT - P.S. I am speaking strictly of the IT services industry. Not sure of others

[benbsb29]

Originally Posted by centaur

I know I will be getting a lot of brickbats for this post of mine from many here but I solely blame the industry for these job losses and not the technology advancement.

EDIT - P.S. I am speaking strictly of the IT services industry. Not sure of others

No point tiptoeing around the elephant in the room. You've hit the nail on the head.

[sgiitk]

@centaur; I agree with you. It is indeed interesting that most of the chaps being put to grass are at the senior level, while the recruitment in the US etc. is at the entrance level. The capabilities, or lack of them are obvious.

The fat days are over!

[Rajiv0909]

My response may sound out of context but very well relates to the headline. Of course we are headed towards a deeper recession. When people lose jobs to machines, they also lose ability to spend, in turn economy takes a beating. Companies will have difficulty recovering their technology investments due to low utilization. Revival maybe painful, much similar to industrial revolution

[aargee]

Originally Posted by centaur

In the west that is not the scene

Reason being the payscale not being a wide gap between a sr tech guy & PM

Originally Posted by centaur

One question people may ask - why cant someone say they want to stay technical and grow in a technical line

Like you said, they're looked down or rest of the geniuses think there's something wrong staying as tech person the whole life.

Originally Posted by centaur

Also companies cry big saying that the majority of the workforce is not having latest skills or cannot be cross trained

Even if training are provided, even a 1 year experienced guy wants to do "negotiation skills", "effective leader" & worst of all PMP!! Here PMP is not worst, but the, one year experienced guy wanting, not aspiring, to do PMP. And all the time I've seen managers skipping the tech training stating they've an important meeting or walking off from training. So the problem is not company alone, but with staffs as well.

Originally Posted by centaur

There is no learning path defined even for people who might be interested to do so

Very true & agree to a great extent here. Most of the learning paths are defined only for product companies while majority in India are service oriented.

Originally Posted by centaur

I solely blame the industry for these job losses and not the technology advancement

Add to that folks failing to keep up with the technology

And to be honest, in my 19 years in IT, I've hardly come across anyone who's passionate about technology, not verbally, 99% of the folks whom I've met are in IT industry by accident, chance or to make money. I recall a joke that was circulating in mid 2000 that goes like this...

person 1 : What's your Son doing?
person 2 : Oh!! he failed 10th again
person 1 : Ah!! Then send him to learn computers, that's the fashion now

These are the kind of jokers who're in the industry these days. Most blokes don't know what's command prompt. They only know document & folder, they don't know what's file & directory.

Also its a general myth that the higher one climb up in corp ladder the lesser they've to learn technically but have to "manage" things which is much easier than learning & earning more. But what most jokers don't realize is risk increases proportionately which is way way less riskier to learn & do the actual work.

Finally, I recall a quote here...

[ajayclicks]

Originally Posted by pratyush6

Are there any Statistical Analytics professionals here? I am in that area for a long time now. Though I consider myself to be somewhat of a guy who stitches the Business to Solutions more.

I would like to hear about your thoughts. Though the Analytics industry has more or less remained insulated to downturns as the demands outstrips the supply.

I met a guy who lives in the same society and heads the European Markets Analytics Initiatives, and he insisted that they are moving away from Stats - while I keep scratching my head - Analytics without Stats?

I am a market researcher who has made a few polite attempts (and failed) at entering the analytics industry

I wonder if this person is meaning that they are trying to move beyond just data crunching and are looking to provide analysis/ reports etc. The reason I say this is because I have a few friends who are analytics professionals and they candidly admit that bulk of the work is limited to preparing dashboards and tableau files.

[Chetan_Rao]

There's enough blame to go round the table, several times over.

Companies do what's best for their bottomline, employees do the same, so it isn't really fair to lay the blame entirely on either side.

Indian IT services has always been a race to the bottom dollar, and what's hurting them now is a two-fold problem. They neither have the necessary skills to move up the value chain, nor are cheap enough to move downwards and compete for volume. Qualitative work is shifting westwards, volumes shifting further east. China is ramping up rather quickly, and and an English speaking Chinese workforce isn't far off in the future. Latin America is another competitor nobody took seriously.

Indian IT had a healthy headstart, but everyone chose to take the easier path and squandered it. Consequences follow, naturally.

[earthian]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

They neither have the necessary skills to move up the value chain, nor are cheap enough to move downwards and compete for volume.

Another factor is the increasing use of 'automation' in conventional IT industry, as i understand.

[centaur]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Companies do what's best for their bottomline, employees do the same, so it isn't really fair to lay the blame entirely on either side.

It isn't about the dollar here actually but the urge to push people into roles they are not happy with just because their designation warrants so. I personally know atleast 3 people in my very close circle who did not want to get into a managerial role and wanted to stick to coding but any company that hired them pushed them to managerial work and tagged reportees. As a result, all of them changed companies within a year and here pay wasn't even a factor.

Unfortunately majority of the folks bite that bullet and go with the flow because most often, they do not even get an option. Like I said, its a double edged sword. If you aren't there, then you aren't worth (capability), and if you are there, then too you aren't worth (skillsets).

[aargee]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Indian IT had a healthy headstart, but everyone chose to take the easier path and squandered it. Consequences follow, naturally.

Yes, this is also another reason. In 2004/5/6 I remember when there was second huge inflow of IT (and BPO) jobs, most nincompoops had 3-4 offer letters in hands. They went to company A in the morning, attended induction & simply leave by lunch to company B & then they would do the same on second day at company C & D and chose whichever they liked.

Some folks never bothered about consistency; I knew a guy who switched 6 jobs in 2 years!! An average of 4-6 months per company!! Atleast this guy kept moving towards what he wanted to do. There were some clueless jokers who wanted only money & least bothered about what they do. Give them Rs 5K more PM & they're ready to shift their loyalty. And there were even talks going around that the industry standard of pay scale is 1 Lakh per year of experience. So a guy having 6 years of experience has to get 6-7L per annum & this was 12 years ago!! All these guys can be pardoned, the highest atrocity being, some creatures join a company sit on bench for 3-6 months on training & by the time the get a project, they switch the company just because they don't want to work!! All they want to spend their time is on training & bench!! And when they jump their payscale goes up. And this is how most of the cost went up just because of the demand.

So those sunshine days being gone, we've to wake up to reality.