Isn’t it cheaper to employ full time workers s opposed to these contractors? Company pays a lot to contractors as many come thru an agency, and agency takes a cut.
There are so many onshore contractors.
Also, why are they hiring offshore contractors and not hiring full time offshore folks?
This is all confusing. Teams seem so temporary as workers come and go. It’s not like in other companies where teams stay consistent over time.
What type of job are you doing as a contractor? If it’s developer jobs it may go offshore
As an onshore contractor wonder if we will last the full 6months. Contract up in March 2025?.Getting emails about HSHC and our equipment so dont know. There will be no chance of a permanent job. Hope we last full contract. Wow.
Post from TheLayoff.com
Pretty sure that "Innovation" is just a marketing term in this case.
Why is it called an innovation center? What are they, or going to innovate?
Offshore employee here and can let you know even our team is frightened for our job security as AI takes more of our tasks but also because our direct manager does not know how to communicate properly in English to USA management. We feel just as stressed with incompetent leaders and nobody from USA to keep them on check
Most of the offshore contracting companies like WiPro or Infosys charge more per hour than a direct hire in India. Not only does the contractor need to get paid, but the company wants its cut. However, it is harder to fire direct offshore employees, which is a risk. That said, the entire HIH strategy is assuming those employees won’t need to be cut suddenly and that long term there will be a lot more savings than continuing to pay contracting agencies.
“ Replying to this. So the offshore contractor is more expensive that direct onshore hires?”
This must be a typo. Meant to ask, so offshore contractors cost more than offshore direct hires?
Some say long term, contractors work out cheaper. But that’s assuming they will be laid off at a moment’s notice.
Contractors aren't legally employees of Cigna. They cost more, but have no benefits or rights. They cannot form unions. Except under a new rule about coemployment.
They can lay off the contractors at will without calling it a layoff or paying severance. Or doing a WARN notice.
You might have noticed that there has been no WARN notice for all these layoffs.
For managers, there is an employee to contractor ratio that they are expected to maintain.
Many people are told they are "contract to hire" on 6 month or 1 year contracts. They aren't told that what will happen when their contract is up, is that it will just be renewed. Managers can't hire you until an FTE quits.
Managers don't know how much contractors are paid by the contracting firm. Contractors don't know how much their firm is getting paid. Usually they are getting sc--wed.
Check your math. Onshore contractor is most expensive. Offshore contractor is about 2/3 of that. Offshore direct hire is about 1/3 of onshore contractor. Offshore direct hire is cheapest because the co tracking companies not only pay them but tack on Their up charge.
“ Hiring offshore directly costs (as some else correctly stated) about 1/3 of an onshore contractor and 2/3 of an offshore contractor”
Replying to this. So the offshore contractor is more expensive that direct onshore hires?
Does this mean onshore contractors are more expensive than direct onshore hires?
What does “delivery” mean? To the person who said jobs in delivery can be at risk?
As someone who came from India, I can say a few things. I am here because I didnt want to be in India for its terrible work culture, politics, lack or mutual respect and ethics. No one in India cares while dealing with your social security and PHI or PII. Outsourcing has its toll on your privacy .
“Does this mean then that full time employees onshore will be safe from layoffs?”
Nobody onshore is safe. HIH and AI are coming for our jobs. This is especially true for anyone in delivery.
I forgot to add, it’s easier to get rid of contractors no questions asked in a moments notice. That also saves money… plus they don’t get benefits or PTO.
Cordani and crew will do anything it takes to fill their pockets, to the detriment of all others. They will not stop until they bring about the demise of the company. Greed and avarice rule supreme at Cigna.
Is the mandate to be in office really strict? Is the plan that people quit and they can take it to h1h?
Does this mean then that full time employees onshore will be safe from layoffs?
Budget is a huge part of 2025 goals, and this includes reducing payroll massively. HIH is a big part of this strategy. Hiring offshore directly costs (as some else correctly stated) about 1/3 of an onshore contractor and 2/3 of an offshore contractor. Expect to see the numbers of contractors drop drastically next year and the amount of offshore direct employees increase. However, the old saying “you get what you pay for” applies and I give it about 3-4 years before they are scrambling to hire onshore folks who don’t have language/cultural barriers and can collaborate during regular USA business hours. But to answer your question…it’s all about money.
They hire contractors because they bleed good talent but have to meet governmentally enforced deadlines and meet stakeholder expectations. It’s a bad cycle Cigna is stuck in. Essentially contractors are just guaranteed warm bodies that have hopefully gotten enough training to half do the job.
If only they would focus on investing in their good talent, paid them more, met their needs or attempted to, allowed flexible work, and offered low deductible health plans for employees, they could probably save a boat load of money.
Employee cost is part of opex. Contractors come out of projects. It's often a way to "charge" overhead costs to another place.
Why would the primary knowledge base of complex systems remain intact when contractors are used? Aren’t contractors supposed to be temporary?
How much is the company saving by hiring h1h over full time employees in the Us?
What job titles onshore typically get replaced by employees at h1h? Looks like jave developers mainly
There are some teams where half of them are contractors from India. Maybe not necessarily from h1h?
When financial times are tough, contractors are supposed to be the first ones to go, rather than employees, so that the primary knowledge base of the complex systems stays intact. This does not account for how much teams rely on contractors for key parts of complex applications.
Offshore HIH employees are about 1/3 the total cost of onshore contractors. If they can find good people for HIH, financially it's an easy choice. Not sure how it will work out in the long term with time differences and communication.
HIH employees are full time so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that offshore are all contractors too. But yes, tons of US ones.
Doesn’t it reflect poorly on the company when half of most teams are contractors? Like it seems the company doesn’t care about building solid long term teams. And why are the offshore folks also contractors? Aren’t they already getting a deal from cheap 3rd world labor?
Company doesn’t have to pay benefits or taxes for those contractors. Total compensation comes out cheaper vs full time