Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Cloud Programming IT

A New Reality For IT: the 18-Month Org Chart 246

StewBeans writes: Finding and keeping IT talent is getting increasingly competitive and expensive. A recruiter for Bay Area and Seattle tech companies said in a recent New York Times article about the cloud computing skill gap. "Someone working deep inside Amazon is getting five to 20 recruiting offers a day. Compensation has doubled in five years." Beyond steep salary and benefits packages, the resources to train new IT talent is wasted if they jump ship for the next best offer. That's why some IT executives are focusing talent management inward and investing in their current employees who are loyal and eager to learn, adapt, and grow with their company. Curt Carver, CIO for the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that this approach led him to do away with the 10-year IT org chart and remain more agile as technology needs change. He argues that 18-month org charts and constant training are the new reality for IT, providing this example: "If you go back a couple of years ago, we were heavily involved in the storage business. Now I can buy unlimited storage from the cloud. I don't need a lot of people doing storage. In fact, I may only need one. Everybody else, I'm willing to retrain you, but you're going to be doing mobile, or you're going to be doing business intelligence, or you're going to be helping our organizations do gap analysis."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A New Reality For IT: the 18-Month Org Chart

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:41PM (#51659489)

    The gap between the expectation that technology would lead to a leisure society, and the realization that it just leads to a feudal, totalitarian regime where the billionaire beggars just take, take, take.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:17PM (#51659807)

      Technology doesn't make your job easier, it makes it harder. What it does is takes those mind-numbing jobs, away. And replace them with harder jobs, that requires creative thought, and out of the box problem solving.
      Our education system fails to stress this new type of thinking. So many people are caught off guard as technology replaces their work.
      Even if you are in technology, you need to keep an eye on what is happening for your job, if you find what you are doing is repetitive with a canned solution to a planned event, that means you are probably getting out of date, and will need to work on training for a change in your job.

      In IT you can't expect to be doing the same job in your career.

      • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:49PM (#51660055) Journal

        What it does is takes those mind-numbing jobs, away.

        And replaces them with mind-numbing jobs that can be done by people in third-world countries for 15% of what you're making.

        Well done, technology.

        • And replaces them with mind-numbing jobs that can be done by people in third-world countries for 15% of what you're making.

          Well done, capitalism.

          FTFY.

      • by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:50PM (#51660069)

        Technology doesn't make your job easier, it makes it harder. What it does is takes those mind-numbing jobs, away. And replace them with harder jobs, that requires creative thought, and out of the box problem solving.
        Our education system fails to stress this new type of thinking. So many people are caught off guard as technology replaces their work.
        Even if you are in technology, you need to keep an eye on what is happening for your job, if you find what you are doing is repetitive with a canned solution to a planned event, that means you are probably getting out of date, and will need to work on training for a change in your job.

        In IT you can't expect to be doing the same job in your career.

        I have seen a lot of jobs replaced by automation. I started work with 5 secretaries for a group of 120 people. There was one 5 years later. Because computers replaced things like scheduling meetings, sending information, email replaced notes sent to your desk inbox.

        I think the next great automation/outsourcing should be management. There is really no need for all these overpaid MBA types, when there are plenty of H1B eligible people with the same degrees who will work for pennies on the dollar. All the managers need to do is train their replacements. Shouldn't take long at all, and think of the immediate financial gratification of the shareholders.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Hognoxious ( 631665 )

        What it does is takes those mind-numbing jobs, away.

        It also makes you talk like William, Shatner.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @07:22PM (#51662429)

        Technology doesn't make your job easier, it makes it harder. What it does is takes those mind-numbing jobs, away. And replace them with harder jobs, that requires creative thought, and out of the box problem solving.

        So it makes life harder. Rather than a tedious but relatively secure 9-5 job with nights and weekends free to do whatever you want you have a tenuous, short-term contracted 9-5 job that leaves you feeling too drained to do anything at night or on weekends... if you're not doing (probably unpaid) overtime (and I include thinking about work problems in that) then because of fear you might lose your job or your skill-set might become outdated.

        And this is a good thing... how, exactly? Because we have more machines that go bing? Because apps? Because people are now so damn addicted to "social media" that they waste every free moment looking at it rather than, I don't know, having an original thought? Because the rich are getting richer than ever before? How?

        Don't get me wrong: I really do like tech. I find how it works fascinating. I actually enjoy programming. And the advances in medicine (aka not dying quite so soon) rock. But I absolutely, passionately hate what it is doing to society, and the missed opportunity it represents. It *should* be making our lives easier and our work hours shorter, but thanks to greed and the fucked-up priorities we make in politics and life it is actually making our lives suck more.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:41PM (#51659493)

    "The cloud computing skill gap" "Finding and keeping IT talent is getting increasingly competitive and expensive"

    Juxtaposed with "mass IT layoffs across the industry"

    I think it's pretty clear what we're seeing here. People are leaving the industry or the West Coast, whichever you prefer.

    • Training? (Score:5, Funny)

      by plopez ( 54068 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:59PM (#51659641) Journal

      What is this "training" of which you speak? I have never seen any.

      • Ditto. Where can I find one of these jobs?

        • Re:Training? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:51PM (#51660079)
          Every time I read one of these articles I expect to look in my local paper and find all kinds of wonderful enticements to leave where I am and expand my career elsewhere. Or even better, new local companies or companies willing to hire remotely. Alas, they are never there. And I am a person that is historically very loyal to the company that I work for.
          • Every time I read one of these articles I expect to look in my local paper and find all kinds of wonderful enticements to leave where I am and expand my career elsewhere. Or even better, new local companies or companies willing to hire remotely. Alas, they are never there. And I am a person that is historically very loyal to the company that I work for.

            Well, I think I see the problem you're having.

            You have to be willing to MOVE and go to where the good jobs are....

            You can't expect these good jobs to com

            • Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and trust that I'm a highly qualified developer, the type these places would love to have. Why should I move? I'm being made reasonably happy where I am right now but could be made happier. The problem these companies have is finding loyal people, shouldn't they be looking for solutions to that problem? Is it so inconceivable that one of those solutions could be to find people like me in various places; places that may actually work for them in the end because I won
          • by plopez ( 54068 )

            "I am a person that is historically very loyal to the company that I work for"

            That's part of your problem right there. I have never seen loyalty rewarded. Remember, it is a business relationship. You should use a company just like they use you. That at least is what economists tell us to do.

            A job is pretty much a McJob these days.

            • You misunderstand what I mean by loyal. By loyal, I mean that I look for a job once that I feel meets the needs of myself and my family, and then I go work there. Some people I have known constantly have their ear to the ground, never appreciating the job they have and always looking to move on, always moving around, always looking for that better money. I am not one of these people. I would rather just do my work, get paid fairly for it, and then get on with my life. It takes quite a bit of coaxing fo
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

          Ditto. Where can I find one of these jobs?

          Bangalore.

          • I haven't seen signs of the training you claim in my dealings with dot heads.

            You get a very occasional exception.

      • Re:Training? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:20PM (#51659827)

        What is this "training" of which you speak? I have never seen any.

        There are many employers out there who make a certain amount of training per year mandatory. But the training never seems to have anything to do with anyone's actual job. So for two weeks a year, you go downstairs or drive across town or squat in a conference room, sit way too close to your classmates, and learn something completely irrelevant. It's like taking an extra vacation, only you have to spend it in a hot crowded box watching Powerpoints, and neither you nor your employer derives any benefit or enjoyment from it.

      • I would tell you, but training about what training is costs $3,499 per seat.

    • by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:04PM (#51659687)

      Many businesses do not have cloud computing at their heart, and people who happen to be in IT do not necessarily have the skills for the Cloud computing world.

      Don't get me wrong, Cloud computing is not particularly hard, but it does require you to become up to date on the tools and mindset.

      It took me weeks, even months to find people for our positions. Now, it is important to point out that I'm in an area where there is very high demand, so that doesn't mean that they aren't out there. They're just not *here*. Or rather, they're somewhere around here, but already gainfully employed.

      However, in the midst of all of those interviews, I got plenty of candidates. The problem is that they had left or been laid off from $100k+ jobs where the government or some big company paid them to sit there and write policies or run some script that some "architect" wrote for them. In a smaller business, people like that are not needed and certainly not for that pricetag. I can run scripts myself, or use cron. Thanks.

      I'll pay someone good money if they have the skills and the interest in continuing to learn. I will not spend that sort of money for people who I have to write out a step by step process for everything they do.

      I am totally okay with someone branding themselves a "Cloud" or "DevOps" person if they can demonstrate their knowledge of the tools and the methodology, as well as showing that they are able to take the reins and not expect someone else to teach them. I don't care if you have a fancy CS degree, or even a college degree at all. I studied CS in college and I have worked with people who didn't spend a day in a CS class. I don't need a CS degree holder for everything. What I do need are people who can keep their skills up and know what they're there to interview for. The people who just want to point at some certificate or put jargon on their resume are welcome to go talk to the government. I hear they pay pretty well, if you can avoid committing suicide from the institutionalization.

      Are people leaving the industry? Maybe. However, I think there is a certain number of people who have left the industry before they even lost their jobs. The industry had already moved on, they were just continuing to collect a paycheck and hold on to their red stapler. And I totally understand how that can happen. I have to constantly overcome my curmudgeonly desire to not change what works for me right now. I looked at Cloud computing when it first came out as an interesting toy, but I watched it closely and realized that it stopped being a toy and soon the buzzwords were the reality. Someday, "the Cloud" will either be so obvious that no one pays top dollar for it anymore, or we'll have moved to the next buzzword. If you want to stay in IT forever, that is the price you pay.

  • by Zeromous ( 668365 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:42PM (#51659501) Homepage

    Even the slowest orgs have been doing this on a 12-18 month cycle. Plugs are lost to attrition, and those willing to retrain/refocus keep their jobs. Those who stop training become plugs.

  • That's why some IT executives are focusing talent management inward and investing in their current employees who are loyal and eager to learn, adapt, and grow with their company.

    Wow, were back to this again?
    Who would have thought!?

    • Considering that companies stopped being loyal to their employees somewhere around 1985, I'd like to know where they're finding this pool of selfless employees who are loyal and expect to be with the company long enough to grow with it.

      • by creimer ( 824291 )

        I'd like to know where they're finding this pool of selfless employees who are loyal and expect to be with the company long enough to grow with it.

        The people who spent 8+ years in the same position, collecting the same 2% raise each year, and are terrified of being laid off.

  • by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:47PM (#51659541)

    Everybody else, I'm willing to retrain you, but you're going to be doing mobile, or you're going to be doing business intelligence, or you're going to be helping our organizations do gap analysis

    Let me translate that to English:

    Everyone else, you're redundant. If you don't have pointless buzzwords on your resume you won't get one of the 3 do-nothing, fluff positions we're keeping open.

  • by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:50PM (#51659559) Homepage

    Depending on which bit of it you're in depends on how in demand you currently are. All the Kool Kids doing the latest new shiny will probably have job offers being thrown at them. But in 5-10 years time their skills will be borderline irrelevant (Ruby On Rails anyone?) so its retrain time again. And again. And again.

    Meanwhile those of us plodding along doing old style boring backend coding in (supposedly according to the Kool Kids) grandpa languages like C/C++/Java or even COBOL might not have recruiters kicking down the door to get us to an interview but we're unlikely to be out of work for the forseable future or need retraining other than to learn some new library now and then so long as our skills are good to start with.

    • by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:55PM (#51659611)

      What you say is generally true, the obsolescence cycle for those languages is longer than today's shiny new thing. But they will become obsolete.

      Keeping up with technology trends is the best way to ensure income security; you don't need to jump on every fad, but be prepared to move on when the moving's good.

      • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

        "But they will become obsolete. "

        Eventually. But C has been going for over 40 years and counting and C++ 30 so I'm not going to start worrying about it just yet. I doubt many people will even remember todays flavour of the month Cloud languages in 10 years time, never mind 30 or 40. Its 4GL all over again. Anyone remember Powerbuilder? That was "where its at man" back in the 90s for rapid desktop dev. That turned out well. MS Silverlight? etc.

        • by jemmyw ( 624065 )

          Ruby on Rails is 10 years old, and there's still plenty of jobs in it, and new projects. It's not something I personally want to do anymore, but it fills a niche well enough. JavaScript is 20 years old, and I don't think that's a language that will disappear any time soon. Frameworks may come and go, but surely the same is true of C/C++.

      • There are many things I have heard 'will become obsolete' in my IT career.. you know what, I don't think any of them have yet.
  • How often have we heard about the mass layoff and now the industry is surprised that people jump ship? The industry has shown a lack of loyalty to the employees the treated like replaceable widgets, it's no surprise that these employees are looking out for themselves. Add to that the various companies that replace their loyal employees with contractors (hmmm Disney etc) it shouldn't have surprised anyone that this would happen.
  • Or maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:52PM (#51659585)

    Or maybe if companies showed the same loyalty to their employees that they demand from them, this wouldn't be a problem.

    • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:12PM (#51659753)

      Or maybe if companies showed the same loyalty to their employees that they demand from them, this wouldn't be a problem.

      That's very idealistic and I respect the intent but it's just not reality and probably not sensible for either party.

      First off, it's a business transaction. The company needs work done and the worker needs money to do it. If the company no longer needs that work done or if the worker isn't doing it competently or efficiently it make no sense for the company to continue to employ that person. Paying someone to do no work or for bad quality work is idiotic. Conversely if the worker can do work elsewhere and get a better compensation package or a better situation then why on earth should he/she be expected to be "loyal" to company? Neither situation is a win/win. Loyalty between employees and companies only makes sense when both side benefit. That does happen sometimes but it shouldn't be a default expectation, especially in a competitive global economy.

      Second, even if both sides want to be loyal to each other economic reality sometimes makes it impossible. I have about 20 people who work for me. I would LOVE to pay them more than I do. But the industry I am in (contract assembly) is very competitive on labor costs so if I raise salaries for everyone we would be out of work faster than I can say "Chapter 11 bankruptcy". I do what I can for them but if one of them finds a better job somewhere else I just have to wish them the best and hope I can replace them with someone else who is competent. Demanding loyalty to the company from employees in that situation would be ridiculous of me.

      • by RabidReindeer ( 2625839 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:34PM (#51659955)

        Believe it or not, at one time, companies didn't lay people off at the drop of a hat. Because hiring them back again is expensive and hiring new people means that you not only have to train them to do the job the way your company needs it done, but they also have to learn where to go in the company to get things done.

        When 110% efficiency and rapidly gaining short-term share price was not the expectation, people would be reassigned, furloughed or sent off for training if their primary skills weren't required.

        That doesn't mean that people didn't get laid off. Just that the norm was that layoffs were a measure of last resort, not the first thing you did to boost quarterly profits. There was a certain noblesse oblige there. The company took care of you and you took care of the company. You worked until you retired, they gave you a gold watch and a pension. You were invested emotionally in the company and in the happiness of its customers. Or, if not, you got canned, but not because you weren't the perfect fit for the moment.

        Then they invented "perma-temping"...

        • Believe it or not, at one time, companies didn't lay people off at the drop of a hat.

          And now we don't because in many (not all) cases that is economically irrational.

          Because hiring them back again is expensive and hiring new people means that you not only have to train them to do the job the way your company needs it done, but they also have to learn where to go in the company to get things done.

          Hiring new people is expensive but keeping people employed when you don't have work for them can easily be more expensive.

          There was a certain noblesse oblige there. The company took care of you and you took care of the company.

          I think you have rose colored glasses there. The labor movement happened because there WASN'T any noblesse-oblige. Working conditions 100 years ago were atrocious, safety terrible, pay was low and heaven forbid you actually spoke out about any of it. Things moved slower and labor was less mobile so it was

          • Well, to be fair, I was more referring to mid-20th Century white collar workers there. 19th Century was pretty much shit to the point where job security was one of the lesser issues for most people.

            And for all the excoriation of unions, one thing that they did for workers is get the automakers to furlough during slack periods rather than fire everyone and make them start over from scratch every time business picked up. Which is more than most white-collar workers can brag.

            But even as late as the latter 1970

      • by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:38PM (#51659971)

        That's the thing. You're completely ignoring the emotional element, dismissing it as something valueless. But it's not just about a pay packet.

        Perfect example... I could be making a shit ton more money elsewhere, with my skill set. But I'm not leaving, cause the company I currently work for is one of the best places I've ever worked. Management does everything it can to not only make employees succeed, but make them *want* to succeed. And not in a, "Some consultant advised us to do team building exercises" kind of way... In the, "the leadership actually *cares*" kind of way.

        I've lost track of the number of employees that have left, only to humbly come back again after realizing that that greener pasture they found was a field full of cowshit. And we've welcomed them back, too.

        • That's the thing. You're completely ignoring the emotional element, dismissing it as something valueless. But it's not just about a pay packet.

          Companies by definition cannot have emotions. So any emotional attachment by an employee towards a company is inherently irrational. Either it is a good situation and you can be happy about that or it isn't good for your particular needs/wants and you should consider other options. Either the company gives you a reason to feel good about working there or they don't but there has to be a cause.

          I could be making a shit ton more money elsewhere, with my skill set. But I'm not leaving, cause the company I currently work for is one of the best places I've ever worked.

          There is more to a compensation package than just the salary. Working conditions, colleagues, enjoyment of work,

          • I suspect that "company" is sort of shorthand for "the other people there", but in any case I don't see why X not having emotions means you can't have emotions about X - for example when X is a painting or a piece of music.

            But then again, what do I know - I'm not a pedantic aspie fucktard and I don't play one on TV.

    • Exactly this! The employer-employee relationship isn't exactly equal:

      A company can fire you an a moment's notice but when you leave they want 2 weeks from you.

      And employers are surprised that since they aren't willing to invest into employees that employees optimize the "game" by changing jobs every ~2 years since that is the best way to get a pay raise !?

      Color me shocked.

      • While the relationship isn't equal financially, the leave/fire is exactly equal.

        You're not obligated to give 2 weeks and neither are they . You're given whatever the company is financially obligated to give you when you leave and vice versa. Etc.

        The relationship isn't equal financially in that they make financially a substantially larger amount of money than what they pay you - which isn't disclosed to you. If you make $100k but they're making $700k off of you (even after expenses), who is getting the bad d

        • The relationship isn't equal financially in that they make financially a substantially larger amount of money than what they pay you - which isn't disclosed to you.

          That is not necessarily true. Sometimes it is true and sometimes it very much is not. Believe it or not a lot of companies don't actually make much profit. Many actually lose money. People tend to have this peculiar notion that all companies are just raking in megabucks but for many of them that is very far from the truth. Furthermore in many cases the profit of the company is published. If I worked for Apple or Google I can look up exactly how much money they made during my tenure with the company.

          • Believe it or not a lot of companies don't actually make much profit. Many actually lose money.

            Then by the laws of capitalism they should not exist! They should pack it in, and leave room for other companies that can do the job successfully. If it cannot be done successfully then it just doesn't get done.

            • Then by the laws of capitalism they should not exist!

              If they lose money long enough to deplete their assets then they won't. But many companies lose money on a routine basis and have to adjust manpower levels to compensate. Sometimes it's because their industry is cyclical. Sometimes it's due to unexpected business problems. Sometimes it's just bad management. But companies can survive periods of losing money. They cannot do so indefinitely and continuing to employ surplus labor in the face of economic losses is a great way to ensure the company doesn't

              • But here we have companies complaining that it is too expensive to retain employees.. What I was trying to suggest is, if a company cannot have enough left over to make the employees happy and therefore stay, then obviously there is something fundamentally flawed with their business plan. Usually they float way too much money towards the top, not taking into account the longer term investment of retainment. How these companies even stay around long enough to complain about not being able to retain employe
                • But here we have companies complaining that it is too expensive to retain employees.. What I was trying to suggest is, if a company cannot have enough left over to make the employees happy and therefore stay, then obviously there is something fundamentally flawed with their business plan.

                  You are making the mistake of assuming that low employee turnover and successful business plans are highly correlated. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that this is not necessarily true. Sometimes it is too expensive to retain employees and the economically sane thing to do is to let them go and hire new as business conditions dictate. For an extreme example McDonalds has an annual turnover rate in excess of 100%. That means they will turn over more employees in the next 12 months than they currently emp

                  • Ok but if high turnover is what they want, why do they constantly complain about how hard it is to retain employees? Then they should just funnel a large amount of money into their recruitment tactics and get on with life.
      • A company can fire you an a moment's notice but when you leave they want 2 weeks from you.

        You can leave any time you want. The company is REQUIRED BY LAW to pay you for any time you have worked. The 2 week notice thing is nothing more than a courtesy. They cannot withhold pay (legally) nor can they require anything further of you unless you agreed to it in an explicit contract. The company can ask for two weeks notice but you are under no obligation to give it to them.

        My take on two weeks notice is that in two weeks they will notice I haven't been there in two weeks.

    • Oddly, this seems to be a big part of the message of this article. Right at the top:

      I believe a growing consensus exists in the IT industry that talent has become so expensive that it makes more sense to develop your own talent... Candidly, the people that have been loyal to the organization, that are active employees, that are eager and hungry to learn – those are the ones that I’m willing to invest in to keep.

      Clearly this is being repackaged as some kind of new managerial innovation-- complete with new buzzwords. But at its heart, it seems to be saying, "We've been acting like it's easy to just bring in new talent whenever we want, as though employees can be treated as nameless, faceless cogs in a machine, to be swapped out whenever it's convenient. But maybe it's better to invest in your employees and keep them around, as tho

  • by Rinikusu ( 28164 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:54PM (#51659599)

    This, on the surface, sounds great.

    What doesn't sound so great is it will probably end up being a gig-economy style hustle, always trying to get that edge to keep your job. "Oh, Bob, you got 3 certs last month, that's great!, but Susan got 4 and she paid for them on her own dime, sorry, bud, there's the door, get the fuck out."

  • by SenatorPerry ( 46227 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:01PM (#51659663)
    The article is looking from an internal perspective instead of the entire business perspective. Cutting ten jobs at $100,000 each by outsourcing to another company for $800,000 helps the entire business. Cutting the same amount of jobs and hiring a worker at $200,000 to manage the outsourcing to a cloud provider does not create new efficiencies in the organization. It is tough to really draw relevant data from the article without having a complete picture of the benefits to the organization, which is the context most of these articles need to be written. How many companies really judge the capability of their employees based on the salaries they could demand on the open market?
    • by poetmatt ( 793785 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:30PM (#51659925) Journal

      This is the very definition of bad math/outsourcing mistakes.

      Just because it costs less doesn't mean you're getting an equivalent service. If you save $200k but lose $500k in productivity then congrats you have outsourced to the detriment of the business. Likewise transition costs take out more productivity.

      • Also, a huge thing they have not factored in is the more companies that outsource, the worse the industry looks overall and you really harm your pick of local talent over the next many years. Who is going to an industry that will get rid of you at the drop of a hat? If I'm a student coming out of high school I'm looking to start a career that will be with me through to retirement as much as possible.
    • Cutting ten jobs at $100,000 each by outsourcing to another company for $800,000. No try for $300-500K with H1B's

  • How hard are they trying to reach out to the places where people actually want to live?
  • "If you go back a couple of years ago, we were heavily involved in the storage business. Now I can buy unlimited storage from the cloud. I don't need a lot of people doing storage. In fact, I may only need one."

      After seeing "I can buy unlimited storage from the cloud" somehow I'm having a hard time taking the rest of the article seriously.

    • by asylumx ( 881307 )
      I'm with you! Not to mention the "I may only need one" comment -- as though the money you're paying for the 'cloud' doesn't pay for all the manpower they need to manage all that storage. Yes, it is their core competency and they can do it better than you, so they very well may be able to do it cheaper than you can in-house, but pretending it's whittled down to one person is ridiculous.
  • by Pollux ( 102520 ) <speter@tedata.n e t . eg> on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:25PM (#51659881) Journal

    The most insightful thing Curt Carver says is at the very beginning of his article:

    Candidly, the people that have been loyal to the organization, that are active employees, that are eager and hungry to learn – those are the ones that I’m willing to invest in to keep.

    What he doesn't get is that Silicon Valley is the antithesis of that. There was a time where Silicon Valley didn't exist, and IBM and Bell Labs were king. According to this PBS Documentary [npr.org], the culture at that time was that talent was nurtured, not bought. You got your desk, you were a pencil pusher, and if you had ambition, you climbed the ladder, but you remained loyal to the company that provided for you. Then William Shockley broke away from Bell Labs, ventured out to California to make them a reality, and formed Shockley Semiconductor Laboratories. In a twist of irony, the very people he recruited to break ranks from Bell Labs (The "Traitorous Eight" [wikipedia.org] as they came to be called, quit to form their own company, Fairchild Semiconductor. (And exactly 18 months later, interestingly.)

    Silicon Valley has always been about venturists who seek opportunity wherever they can find it. If that's Silicon Valley's own undoing, so be it. Let the snake consume its own tail.

  • IT recruiters are becoming a victim of their own quarter to quarter short sightedness. Success breeds success. If you want successful people to come into the industry you are hiring for, you must make the current people in the industry successful. You must also sustain this quality for long enough for kids to go through grade school and see it as a good choice to make it their career. It's kind of funny how they talk like the game is all changing, when it is really their failure or refusal to participat
  • As opposed to the rest of the world, where most of will never see double-digit raises? And training - do mean something other than online stupid courses, with content we already know?

                    mark

    • I think the time of double digit raises in IT is past, except for really special circumstances. You have a point about training. Last year I worked for a company that had a training budget but didn't allow travel. So you could train, if you could do it with online classes you took at your desk in the (loud, distracting) bullpen area. It worked about as well as you could imagine.

      • by creimer ( 824291 )

        I think the time of double digit raises in IT is past, except for really special circumstances.

        I could make 40% more money if I took a job in the private sector. The nice thing about working for government IT is that benefit package is sweet and the prime contract is fully funded for the next four years. So I'm taking a break from the rat race of hustling for a new job every year to earn my technical certifications while I got job security for the next few years. When I do re-enter the private sector, I'll be making two to four times what I'm making now.

  • reality (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Well, as a 40-year worker in technology, I can definitely say that HR, managers, and CXX have all contributed to any problems they have.
    In 2001 I saw an ad for a .NET programmer with 5 years experience. HR.
    In 2005 I saw an ad for a linux programmer with VBA experience. HR
    Golden Parachutes. Managers and CXX...
    Outsourcing: Managers and CXX and MBAs . ( also, any in-house workers from some-unnamed-country ).
    17 to 119 page employment contracts - HR extravagance and ego.

    Sorry. I will not feed your machine any m

  • by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @01:52PM (#51660083) Journal

    If I'm understanding TFA correctly, we've come full cycle. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. In the nineties, the thing was to hire bright individuals and grow them. Later, the paradigm changed to "IT is plug and play" so hire the talent you need at the time and lay off the people with training you didn't need anymore. Now we're back to the more healthy paradigm of growing your current employees to meet new challenges. This is a good thing. I wonder how long it'll last.

    I also wonder what this will do of the paradigm of laying off locals and substituting green cards.

    • If I'm understanding TFA correctly, we've come full cycle. ... Now we're back to the more healthy paradigm of growing your current employees to meet new challenges. This is a good thing. I wonder how long it'll last.

      ...until the next business cycle and the suits have to "do" something.

  • The article is greater than recent? Are they still writing it or something?

  • Here's the basic problem:

    For most corporate management, IT -- particularly infrastructure -- is simply a black hole of cash. They don't understand what we do, they don't understand the value we bring to the company, and they don't know why they're paying us. It's just money going somewhere, and they don't understand where.

    There's no way to make them understand. They lack even the basic computer skills necessary to do anything beyond everyday work on a PC. They have not spent years or decades in the fiel

  • Tech Enclaves (Score:4, Insightful)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot AT keirstead DOT org> on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @08:54PM (#51662991) Homepage

    The thing you need to realize is aritcles like this are talking about SPECIFIC ENCLAVES in the world - namely the Seattle area, the Bay area, the Austin area, and a few others... areas with huge concentrations of high tech companies. This huge concentration of companies combined with a huge concentration of very intelligent labour, results in a very competitive labour market. People in these markets routinely will work for 3 different companies in a 5 year timespan... they have no loyalty, they go where the money and/or opportunities are. As a result salaries are high and benefits are good. When you are competing against Google, Facebook, Twitter, Salesforce, and Uber for employees, you have to pay well.

    The thing that people who live in these areas DO NOT realize is that this is a UNIQUE situation to these enclaves, and does not translate to other places in the United States, let alone the world. People who work on the east coast or midwest do not have anywhere near the hypermobility of those on the west coast because the labour pool competition is not there.

    The base message - if all you care about is a job and IT and money, move to the bay area. I can basically guarentee you you will find tons of well-paid work. Will you be able to afford to live there though? That is a different problem.

"If you don't want your dog to have bad breath, do what I do: Pour a little Lavoris in the toilet." -- Comedian Jay Leno

Working...