After a colleague quit, who normally did work for 2 people, no one has come in his place for months already. Nor is there any chance that anyone will replace him. I don’t have any hopes anymore.
I don’t understand at all their dynamics of hiring people, do they really think that one man can do a job for multiple people and that it can go on like that forever?
10 replies (most recent on top)
I agree with @3bus. If you let the company use you, you have no right to complain. Take responsibility for your career and find a better opportunity. Better opportunities are everywhere. The company will kick you to the curb whenever it is convenient for them. Why not kick them first and improve your life.
No one will be hired as long as the required work gets done. If you are foolish enough to risk your health and personal life by doing the work of 2-3 people, YOU are the problem. Not DXC. Also, many jobs do not need to be back filled. They were just busy-work to begin with. This should be a wake up call to all to determine whether or not your job is actually essential. In many cases, they are not
Let work mount up and let the managers realise that these roles need to be filled. If you do the work of other people it will become permanent. The managers won’t then say “this guy/girl is amazing he/she’s doing the work or three people”, they will say “those other two people were useless, just shows how right it was to get rid of them”.
From the time EDS purchased SD in the 80s EDS went steadily downhill. Until then, an account showing a pretax profit of 15=20% was acceptable, along with low staff turnover, proper raises in line with performance and good quality relevant training. Until then, management backed the staff and were leaders. It all changed in the 90s when profit margins were set in the 30% k–ling decent raises and bonuses, eliminating training and so what if staff were not happy, you got rid of 15% of them every year anyway if only to keep the others desperate to keep their jobs. I saw EDS go from a decent place to work to a sweat shop producing third rate IT support, doing as little as possible for as much as possible until today when good employees spend as much time working on their CVs as they do on their work.
Get used to it, its the DXC way.
as a manager in DXC trust me when I say that you will only see recruitment if the client absolutely insists on the roles being filled under threat of exiting the contract and can point to some clause in the agreement when headcount or named resources can be found. alternatively a massive SLA breach with penalties and public embarrassment might result in roles being filled. I have never seen any open roles filled on the basis that the existing team is over stretched, in fact the longer you hang in there managing other people's work as well as your own management will assume you can and will keep things on track!
They will continue with that strategy, forcing the remaining people to double or triple hatting... till the point where they can no longer meet the SLAs or keep on paying penalties.
In the lawrie years they used to obcess about a wage pyramid. Height of the pyramid was salary and width was number of people on it.
They didn't like the vast numbers of senior technical people on reasonable wages making the pyramid have a fat middle.
Hence the continued pressure direct and indirect on getting rid of those onshore experts.
The concept was that a perfect pyramid was achievable.
Management used to talk of labour pyramids - with execs up top, middle management and many low cost delivery forming the base. I wonder what shape the pyramid has become... I bet it looks more like a mushroom 😂 lots of new expensive excecs at the top, and with attrition... near 'one to one' mapping of engineers and managers...
Software metrics consistently show that 20% of developers do like 95% of the useful work.