Has there been any mention of more future layoffs that I might have missed?
29 replies (most recent on top)
So will all PDs roll up under DM now?
Did LS quit over this thread? Let's hope.
@10PoI87q-ghpk Some 'reorgs' occurring now, though. Sabre is in a constant state of reorg. Terrible morale. Yes, their management is clueless to the damage. Or, they could not care less. Bring on a buyer! Save an otherwise good company and its employees. Private times were good, relatively speaking.
To get this back on track it sounds like a reorg is coming to some teams later this year with the main goal being to colocate teams in a single geographic location per product.
The level of this discussion has gone waaaay low. C'mon people...
Fine. Only American employees in an American Sabre. Let's also force "that we only work for airlines located in America". And then "only airlines located in America that serve exclusively to American travelers".
What would be the value of this "American Sabre"?
And here I was thinking that we like the free market and the free movement of money. Long live protectionism.
I dislike Sabre's management not because of the outsourcing to KRK. But because of the mindless outsourcing. Hiding the lack of growth by saving money on low-cost labor. We have let go extremely valuable people just to balance the financial results.
This company is going down the drain. But not because of our Polish or Indian labor. We are f... because of our American management.
Multinational companies should have clear business function partitions that match their geographic partitions. Sabre is like a milkshake before the blender is turned on. No wonder it's tough to swallow!
There’s nothing wrong with a US company having staff abroad. How are you supposed to sell your products if you don't even have an office in the region ? Every software company utilizes offshore elements. Its ok and its healthy. but, it can be done at unhealthy levels as well. That’s the extent to where we are now.
Since I work in the US for a person in Poland, who works for a person in the US, who works for a person in Poland, who works for a person in the US(!) I am 120% in agreement with splitting companies up and only allowing them to employ people in their one registered country. It is crazy now and it causes so many problems.
Such approach would mean additional taxing for transfers between those sites or sharing the revenue between them. I've worked in a company organized in such way and it adds even more politics at the level 'which site is going to deliver this program'. Also it makes the company even less flexible (but in Sabre discussions between many departments even now look this way - like Tn is competing with As for tech resources).
On the other hand - isn't "Sabre Polska" a separate company? So we need to deal with some of the issues right now?
Totally agree 100%.
Why should a US company be allowed to have 80% of its employees located outside the US?
Why should a US company be allowed to have more than 50% of its employees located outside the US?
Why should a US company be allowed to directly employ anyone outside the US?
If there are 10k employees in total then create a US company that employs only the 2k employees located in the US. The other 8k people located elsewhere in the world would work for one or more non-US subsidiary companies.
There are still 10k people in total but now nobody is pretending that Sabre is a US company with 10k people when Sabre is really a US company with just 2k people. Interactions between the 2k in the US and the 8k elsewhere can then be handled as a formal business interaction.
That would help with offshoring tensions enormously.
There's nothing racist about it. There are US citizens of Indian and Polish origin already working for Sabre in the US and that has nothing to do with this. This is purely about reducing the conflicts caused by offshoring jobs to locations outside the US.
@10PoI87q-cqam Nothing racist about it. You're buying into the latest hysteria {agenda} about racism. Stay on topic.
Sabre is a United States company with a global presence.
@10PoI87q-byse The poster had a question mark by the post, which mentioned Pareto. But they're no way of knowing how the poster was looking at the principle in the context of the thread. For all you know, unless you're part of management and you can speak for them, Sabre's mgmt may apply Pareto's Rule to headcount decisions.
@10PoI87q-clnz
Wow man. That sounds racist ;)
That means you would want to layoff quite a few employees in all locations.
Maybe a US law could be made that US companies must employ only US people. If they want to spin up a subsidiary company in Poland or India then they can do that if they want to hire Polish or Indian people in those companies.
Stop pretending Sabre is a US company, it isn't anymore. Sabre is now mainly a Polish and Indian company with a few other countries, including the US, contributing the minority share of the remaining workforce.
Then people is the US can work for Sabre America, people in Poland can work for Sabre Poland, people in India can work for Sabre India, etc. Don't have the separate companies competing.
That would put an end to the constant distrust between locations now. Attempting off-shoring within one company just breeds resentment, distrust, and xenophobic hatred.
Pan Am, TWA, Kodak... great companies also disappear.
Sabre won't reduce 3000 tech jobs to 2000 tech jobs and they won't increase 7000 non-tech jobs to 8000.
If you have a manager of developers in DFW, a non-tech job, and all their developers are replaced by developers in KRK then it is pointless to keep the manager in DFW. The manager will be replaced by a new manager in KRK too.
The high cost jobs that move to low cost locations will not only be tech jobs.
I hope Sabre's 80:20 low cost to high cost ratio has nothing to do with the 80:20 Pareto's Principle.
Pareto's Principle certainly has nothing to do with low cost versus high cost workforces. It's just a coincidence that the numbers are the same.
Pareto's Principle, pertaining to a workforce, simply implies that 80 percent of the work is accomplished by 20 percent of all the employees combined.
In Sabre's case, 4 percent of the productive 20 are high cost and 16 percent are low cost, assuming that Sabre had already transitioned to an 80 percent low cost and 20 percent high cost workforce.
If management doesn't understand what Pareto's Principle means and thinks it has something to do with low cost versus high cost ratio then we have even more problems.
I work in KRK. Sabre plans to hire probably ~400 here. My experience shows me that at technical posts - Krk employees are better or at least equal to US folks. They may have a little bit less domain knowledge, but they excel in tech skills. So in the long run It seems quite understandable that the tendency is to move work there. Also - management skills and culture seems better in Krk site than what I know about DFW. That is the cruel math here... Still - if you are competent - in the US there are much better companies than Sabre, so you will be safe... unless you are not so competent..
The only good thing about current management failing? Sabre has great potential, if they drive it into the ground (death spiral), then it's very likely the company will end up in private hands, again. Those were good times.
10,000 THC Today?
Current: 30/70 = 3000 Tech / 7000 Non-Tech?
Goal: 20/80 (Pareto's Principle): 2000 Tech / 8000 Non-Tech?
1000 from Total Head Count = 1 in 3 on Tech Side?
So, what title are considered "Tech" at Sabre?
About time for the "collective bargaining" pitch. If Unions were so great they their memberships wouldn't been cut in half over the last few decades. There was a time and place for them, but in the case of Sabre. Customers could not care less if the tech is in another country from HQ. That's the problem. Then it's left up to Capitol Hill to make decisions, and there are Proper Functions of the State.
The only other possibility; Sabre survives the asinine mistakes of current leadership, mo–n management gets laid off by shareholders, and new management has a different opinion about offshore labor.
It is not that simple.
Working in a right to work state in the US is a textbook Prisoner's Dilemma.
The best outcome for all employees is for all employees to cooperate but the best outcome for each individual employee is to defect so it is most likely that each individual will defect, thus leading to a suboptimal outcome for all because all will defect.
Management understand this.
Management has the power.
Understand that US employees are not stupid. Nor are they cowards. In a right to work state, with a non-compete contract, with employer-sponsored health insurance, with student loans, car loans, mortgage, children's college savings, retirement savings, and credit card debt; it is entirely logical for a US employee to seek the best option for them as an individual. So they cannot collaborate by bargaining collectively because there is too much at risk.
So it is how it is and that's how it will be.
When will US employees learn they need to stand together? At the the next full layoff, teams should stand up and walk out en masse until the layoffs end. If you don't organize, they will continue to squeeze out US employees for LCC. Never mind whether you provide more than what someone in Krakow or BLG can offer. You are a cheeseburger to upper management and they are going to go with the lowest cost cheeseburger they can find. Don't just sit there when your fellow employees are told to leave, organize! Demand a discussion between upper management and US employees. They count on you basically saying "thank god its not me." Well, one of these days, it will be.
Take note of the recent change of DFW receptionists to full blown mall cops complete with fake police badges and fake police uniforms.
Next they'll be armed.
A layoff in DFW is coming.
If that is true then...
One of every three people will be eliminated.
That's about one thousand people.
Some due to attrition but there will probably need to be a purge to achieve 20 80 from today's 30 70.
Madness.
Tech = 20/80
20 percent in dfw
80 percent in LCC’s (low cost centre’s)
That is the goal. Right now i think tech is in the mid 30’s. So you can look through the org charts and do the math on what reduction numbers are being talked about.
This is about greed pure and simple, not about what really works well or what makes sense. - Another nail in the coffin.
I wonder how it is justifiable to keep hiring SVPs, VPs and Directors in USA when all the ‘Below Director’ jobs are being shipped to Bangalore? Why don’t SM and DS relocate to Bangalore and run the business from there???
If you pay attention on any town hall it is clear a big one is coming as BLR and KRK are the only offices Louis keeps promoting. As people leave they are replaced there but soon who knows?
A little too quiet for my taste on that front lately.