Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Disney initially 'got away with it' because they kept the whole thing at an arms length by outsourcing to Cognizant. "Oh that's what you did, hire H1B? Yeah that wasn't us... We just outsourced to Cognizant so you should ask them about what's going on".

Super shady, but it was a fleeting attempt at plausible deniability on behalf of Disney execs.



sort by: page size:

They hired them through a third-party, thus Disney had to justify nothing. Look at the list of H1B awards and you'll see the big body shops.

Within the last 5-10 years, Disney outsourced entire technology divisions using the H1-B visa program and forced employees to train their replacements for their last 90 days or forgo severance.

A former Disney IT employee testified before Congress, at times crying while he recounted the experience of being let go and having to personally train his replacement.[0]

Whatever Walt Disney was doing back in the day doesn't seem to apply anymore, at least based on your description of what a successful creative company looks like. To me, this looks ruthless and manipulative.

0: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3038292/former-disney-...


Can you cite specific instances? I have not dealt with Disney but most established American companies put effort into avoiding this kind of liability.

Can you be more specific about what happened with Disney?

What's with the fake obfuscation? Any reason to avoid saying simply "I worked for Disney"?

What exactly happened here?

Reading between the lines it sounds like Disney are executing an outsourced IT transformation involving offshore IT application delivery (maybe maintenance, IT ops etc.)? Flying in staff from offshore teams to shadow/train with the team being reorganised is standard practice from what I've seen.

It isn't pretty but it's not like Disney are breaking new ground here...


So Disney contracts out the work to these body shops. The H1-B guy is an employee of the contracted-to firm, not of Disney. Disney is simply contracting out the work to a cheaper company. The contracted-to company says they can't find the workers, has enough lawyers to actually prove it, hires H1-Bs, and then contracts them to Disney.

What makes this even more outrageous is Disney's history of outsourcing IT jobs.

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10969721


I remember a fairly recent story about Disney laying off a bunch of IT folks.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2915904/it-outsourcing/...


I'd believe this more if it wasn't alleged that they were going to _LinkedIn_. Who the heck uses LinkedIn? And of those that do, how many of them are the target audience for Disney?

I'm interested how long it took you for a huge company like Disney to get back to you. Did they charge you anything?

Monetary risk, that's why. Cross the wrong people and you'll find yourself extradited to another country and tried for copyright laws you didn't even know existed. I'm honestly surprised OpenAI models know about Disney properties.

Because Disney is enormous and extremely well-lawyered

The entities are different. Disney moved the contract to an outsourcing company. 8The outsourcing company8 then could not find an American national to perform the work.

How did that work out for Disney?

While the originals were still employed at Disney, they weren't available to be hired at Disney. So Disney was forced to hire H1Bs, as there were no Americans to be found for those seats; they were already in those seats.

Disney works with 3rd party contractors and design agencies. If a design was claimed to be original artwork by one contractor, there's only so much that Disney can do. I'm not in any way defending them, but the possibility is there that this was either an honest mistake or a 3rd party that cut corners. I'm fairly certain there will be repercussions internally and externally due to this.

Disney and Affinity Consultants are both currently looking into whether this is true or not.

It's very possible. Simply outspend the other side Disney et al on lobbying and campaign donations.
next

Legal | privacy