Thread regarding Open Text Corp. layoffs

@zr The only criteria for anyone should be merit. Anything else is discrimination and preferential treatment.

Lot's a typos there. Must have stuck a nerve in your underqualified self.

By the way, it's "media literacy" not "literacy media." English as a second language is tough...

@za You come with a blog advocating that Veterans have a right and place to be included in more DEI strategy? This isn't saying that even in the past Veterans weren't really counted at all - because they weren't. We'll pray for your literacy media over dinner, friend, that's saying they should be in it even more. Which I hope we can agree on!! It's not proper to rely on a Federally protected class without means of thanks once they're home.

https://www.aauw.org/resources/member/leader-resources-tools/dei-toolkit/dimensions-of-diversity/veteran-status
Even military-based charities/sites feel they should be included so... Forgive me for trusting a veteran-based charity over you.

Unless you're saying all affirmative action measures need to go; because that's DEI under a different name, under your definition. Preferential hiring (which did happen to Veterans in the past) is DEI under a different name, under your definition. It sounds like you don't actually want that either. More often than not it's brought up because you feel it's become a preference, so much so that qualification doesn't matter. You want a the meritocracy everyone does - and there's nothing wrong with that!

https://missionrollcall.org/veteran-voices/articles/what-the-executive-order-on-dei-means-for-veterans
(site that acknowledges that stigma and that merit based desire. Also some military erasure overcorrect for anti-DEI rhetoric.)

DEI is not meant to skirt qualification needs nor be treated as informal affirmative action/quota. If your definition of DEI is only the traits you yourself don't like though - while I don't wish to judge you - maybe it's worth looking into why that is? Also getting a decent definition of what DEI truly means may help. Both for who it can help, and the non-race, gender/identity/partner preference DEI groups that also benefit from those policies. Everyone benefits from equity, respect, and bias-reduction. Everyone should. You seem fairly focused on the more contentious pre-packing though. Have a blessed evening, my new friend!

@z6 Again, you're just full of sh-t.

https://www.anneloehr.com/honoring-our-veterans-through-inclusion/

"Despite being a significant part of the workforce, veterans are often missing in DEI and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategies. A recent article from the Observer highlights this gap, noting that although companies focus on many dimensions of diversity, veteran status is often overlooked."

@yq go google it and tell me how that goes. Shouldn't take long dw - quick y/n really.

~ the person with heavy military family that SAW that prejudice :v

If we cant agree on supporting veterans, you're free to move elsewhere. Veterans are considered included but other groups get priority since they have some protections already. Usually not enough when the market can be picky. Diversity includes thought and experience - that absolutely applies to vets who didnt go the formal education-to-job route.

That's why if you want to say all DEI is bad, gl. I'm not actually going to force you nor anyone else into an unwinnable moral argument. I'd rather folks agree on some at minimum; can't do that, uhh have a nice day ig I got grass to touch and kindness to give.

@n8 You are so full of sh-t. Veterans are NOT a part of any DEI efforts. It's all race and gender and s-xual preference bullsh-t. It's specifically outlined in the DEI mission statements. Veterans are covered under other actual laws, not corporate ESG sabotage.

....and shout-outs to post visa executive order gang.

That one actually might - but for a dif reason. Adding 100K on top of current pay requirements - I could see OT doing more H1Bs directly through Canada itself. I dont think that's going to be used to justify a fresher - we literally can't do that and be against DEI/overqualification.

DEI extends to veterans and the young - it's not just a race, poverty, or gender thing. People tend to not like that last part. But veterans get that same discrimination coming home - have fun reconciling that. Political bit aside, OT would most likely already be limiting hiring affected by this and I imagine any that can't be in the states by the deadline lose their opportunity. This is more of inadvertently giving a reason to lean harder into AI instead. Companies as a whole are seeming to do less training lately - that's why they want H1-B. In this climate their hands are forced.

At least it's not also affecting the ag visa.

• THAT DOES NOT MEAN SEND 95% OF OT TO APAC/india.

I don't trust you, OT lmao. Try the skeleton crew method and the first to go tends to be the legs or the spine.

@c9 yes and no.

Can they? Absolutely.

Is it shooting OT in the foot if they ever try - also yes. The shipping team is pretty limited as is, since they just had a layoff of most of an entire separate US region. All those products doubled-to-tripled the new shipping team's load.

However, if it's cheaper to gamble with a separate shipping point, or expanding Cork's it's a non-zero. For some regionally restricted contracts we really only need a couple strictly in the US. That applies to some other support/order teams as well. AI/forced human contracts later down the line may make that fun to think on though.

@a6
Over four thousand staff in the US as of September second. You may be overestimating OT's ability to fire people.

@a5 This - global/CA company gets pulled into this they're just going to leave the US entirely. It's possible they could try later but for now this is only for American IT companies.

That includes our US shipping. We do have to potentially have our inventory affected by tarrifs (as well as potential retaliatory ones to receive product.) But hiring/DEI/Freedom of speech vs freedom of consequence - we're fine for now. Even if the place gets reported it's global - can't touch em.

OT is Canadian company. Does US tariffs apply when it hired foreign employees?