Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

California Can't Perform Pay Cut Because of COBOL

Posted by kdawson on Tue Aug 05, 2008 02:41 PM
from the handwaving-only-gets-you-so-far dept.
beezzie writes "Last week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered a pay cut, to minimum wage of $6.55/hr, for 200,000 state workers — because a state budget hadn't been approved yet. The state controller, who has opposed the pay cut on principle and legal grounds, now says the pay cut isn't even feasible because the state's payroll systems are so antiquated. He says it would take six months to go to minimum wage, and nine months more to restore salaries once a budget is passed. The system is based on COBOL, according to the Sacramento Bee, and the state hasn't yet found the funds or resources, in ten years of trying, to upgrade it." The article quotes a consultant on how hard it is to find COBOL programmers; he says you usually have to draw them out of retirement. Problem is, if there were any such folks on the employment rolls in California, Gov. Schwarzenegger fired them all last week, too.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Why COBOL Could Come Back 405 comments
snydeq writes "Sure 'legacy systems archaeologist' ranks as one of the 7 dirtiest jobs in IT, but COBOL skills might see a scant revival in the wake of California's high-profile pay-cut debacle. After all, as Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister points out, new code may in fact be more expensive than old code. According to an IDC survey, code complexity is on the rise. And it's not the applications that are growing more complex, but the technologies themselves. 'Multicore processing, SOA, and Web 2.0 all contribute to rising software development costs,' which include $5 million to $22 million spent on fixing defects per company per year. Do the math, and California's proposed $177 million nine-year modernization project cost will double, McAllister writes. Perhaps numbers like those won't deter modernization efforts, but the estimated 90,000 coders still versed in COBOL may find themselves in high demand teaching new dogs old tricks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • i knew it (Score:5, Funny)

    by halfEvilTech (1171369) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:44PM (#24483959)

    This brings back memories of when we picketed our COBOL professor christmas party with signs of:

    "COBOL raises taxes"

    we couldn't have been more right

  • COBOL. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:44PM (#24483971)
    There are plenty of COBOL Programmers out there, the problem is nobody in IT wants to hire old people.
    • Re:COBOL. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by taniwha (70410) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:47PM (#24484047) Homepage Journal
      no - the problem is that no one wants to be paid minimum wage to program COBOL
    • Re:COBOL. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:58PM (#24484261) Journal
      Define old. My Step Grandfather was a COBOL programmer. He's 86 now. You really shouldn't let him near anything electronic. He retired in the early eighties and hasn't kept up with any developments in the field. He doesn't know what a database is. Or Unix. He knows the IBM 360 pretty well though. So if they develop on it using IBM cards, he might be able to help.

      If you ask me, this is all payback for the original design of COBOL. If they had just extended FORTRAN and required any one interested in looking at code to have a 3rd graders grasp of math, California wouldn't be in this position and existing COBOL programmers wouldn't have to lie about their development language when talking to other developers.

      Actually, this story is about how California can't screw their state workers to make a political point, right? I guess COBOL wins after all, but they really should have made the syntax a little more like befudge.
  • Programmers? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SgtPepperKSU (905229) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:44PM (#24483973)
    Why would you need a programmer to change people's pay in the system?

    Oh, wait; you don't. This is just more politics...
  • by mveloso (325617) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:45PM (#24483987)

    The programmers of California have created the greatest payroll application of all time. You can only raise salaries, not lower them. Ingenious!

  • rule #1 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pak9rabid (1011935) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:46PM (#24484001)
    If you're going to pull a lame excuse out of your ass for why a decision can't by fulfilled, don't make it known that you're against said decision.
  • by Missing_dc (1074809) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:46PM (#24484003)

    I need a COBOL programmer, who is your daddy and what does he do?

  • Uhh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jhfry (829244) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:46PM (#24484009)

    I have never seen a payroll program that has the wages hardcoded in it... there is no reason that this can't be done... she simply doesn't want to.

  • by janeuner (815461) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:47PM (#24484025)
    ...expect minimum wage results.
  • by snkline (542610) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:47PM (#24484031)
    The problem is not lack of Programmers. The problem is managers who think a developer needs many years of experience with a specific language or technology to be able to work with it. I am sure many programmers would be willing to work on their COBOL systems, but without the required "10 years of experience with COBOL" on their resume, they would never be hired.
    • by gfxguy (98788) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:54PM (#24484191)

      The problem is this person is lying. Seriously, wages change all the time; probably at least once a year people get reviewed and get raises; you're going to tell me there's a 9 month backlog?

      And why on earth would it take 50% longer to raise them back up again? That makes absolutely no sense.

      There's only one obvious conclusion: the state controller is lying.

  • Take ours (Score:5, Funny)

    by otacon (445694) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:47PM (#24484043) Homepage

    We have about 20 Cobol programmers. We still run CISC and what have you. You can have them. Cheap.

  • by Critical Facilities (850111) * on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:47PM (#24484051) Homepage
    OK, no one likes programming in COBOL, but to argue that these systems can't be updated because the language is obsolete is just an all out lie. Plenty of major corporations still use COBOL/CICS because it just works.

    If (as someone above stated) a programmer is required to update what should undoubtedly be database fields containing salary information, then it sounds like a problem of implementation, and not one of technology/language of choice.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:49PM (#24484093) Homepage Journal

    Its because of poor coding skills.

    Convenient scapegoat there they have.

  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:50PM (#24484103) Homepage Journal

    It's a lot easier to just fire them with the software is what they are telling us.

    Seriously if California is in a budget crisis how will they pay firefighters and hospital staff? You can pay everyone full wage now and in 10 months stop paying EVERYONE entirely.

    In a business with this kind of budget problem you simply lay people off. People who work for the state are up in arms over this, but I've been laid off a number of times. You just fill out your unemployment insurance paperwork and get like 1/4 to 1/2 your salary after a few weeks, and look for a new job in the meantime.

    I'm not sure why unions act like every person should be guaranteed a job. What universe you have to live in for things to be so certain?

  • by the_duke_of_hazzard (603473) on Tuesday August 05 2008, @02:50PM (#24484105)
    "Forrer said the system has tens of thousands of lines of code, so it is time-consuming to find and replace salaries for each job classification on an individual basis." Ummm...... they should have a look at the 30million line codebase I support. I'd love to give _that_ excuse.