Can the Darkened Soul of Infosys Be Saved?

Don Tennant

If companies had souls, what might we conclude about the soul of Infosys, given the way it has managed the crisis that arose in the fall of 2010 when Infosys employee Jay Palmer blew the whistle on the rampant visa and tax fraud he observed in the giant Indian IT services provider's U.S. operations? What does Infosys' shameful treatment of this whistleblower, and its handling of the matters that have surfaced as a result of his revelations, say about the spiritual health of the company?

 

Those questions emerged quite unexpectedly last week during an interview I conducted with Dr. John Izzo, a corporate consultant and author whose most recent book, "Stepping Up: How Taking Responsibility Changes Everything," is all about how each one of us needs to summon the courage to take responsibility for becoming an agent of positive change. No finger-pointing, no standing back and waiting for the other guy to take the lead or to do the right thing. As my interview with Izzo progressed, I couldn't help but think about Palmer. Everything Izzo was talking about is precisely what Palmer has done.

 

The interview morphed into more of a conversation, one about moral principles and how they manifest themselves in a corporate environment. Izzo had come to the conversation from an especially interesting background. In addition to the advanced degrees he holds in organizational psychology and communications, he also holds a masters degree in theology from McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago. In fact, Izzo was one of the pioneers in the early '90s of the concept that companies could actually have a "soul" and a deeper purpose, an idea he wrote about in his 1998 book, "Awakening Corporate Soul."

 

We began talking about the Infosys case, and about how Palmer has been vilified, ostracized and publicly branded as a liar by Infosys. Izzo said there's no doubt that whistleblowers are heroes who often pay a very high personal price:

Think of how whistleblowers might have saved us from some of the worst of what happened in the financial crisis. Think of how a whistleblower might have saved some wealth for innocent people who put their money in Madoff and didn't even know he had it. So whistleblowers must take some of their satisfaction from the higher purpose. But as a culture, I think this is something we really have to look at. It's a profoundly important issue for society, because the whistleblower serves a very positive purpose. I remember one whistleblower case in which the CEO had sent a letter out to the company, saying how disrespectful these whistleblowers had been, and that they had to "keep things in the family." To me, this is so inherently destructive in a corporate culture. This is where leaders bear a tremendous responsibility to create a culture that recognizes that these people are doing a great service. A whistleblower at Lehman might have saved the company. The wealth of shareholders and people's jobs could have been saved. The whistleblower, to me, is the natural evolution of a corporate culture that has squelched dissent. And it almost always results in a crash of some kind, either for the shareholders or for the business. There's no easy advice for whistleblowers, because at the end of the day they're doing a heroic act, and sometimes heroism brings with it sacrifice. Sometimes they're scapegoated in companies, to make it sound like they had done something disloyal when in fact they had done something incredibly loyal to the long-term reputation of the company.
It occurred to me that Infosys has inflicted precisely that on Palmer. How, then, can a darkened corporate soul be saved? Is there hope for Infosys?

 

There is, Izzo said, but only if action comes from the top:

As huge a believer as I am in change from the middle and the bottom, in the Enrons of the world, those things never get turned around by front-line people. But these really dark things can cause a leader to have an epiphany. The leader has to take responsibility. He has to say, "It happened on my watch, I'm the CEO, and this is on me," and apologize, and not point fingers or try to blame anybody else. It's a very powerful thing. So I will tell you I have seen that kind of thing happen in a company where a leader has an epiphany, where he says, "You know what? I helped create this culture. I have to undo it, because I was wrong." Imagine how much credibility that leader has with his people. It's the rare leader who can do that, but I have seen it happen. That, I think, is the only hope for a company with a dysfunctional culture.
And what about Palmer, who has been benched by Infosys since last April, and whose livelihood and well-being have suffered dramatically as a result? Izzo shared one of the most profound observations I've heard from anyone I've interviewed in the 20 years I've been doing this:
When you go to bat for something, there may be consequences. I'm saying all this with no cavalier attitude. But what you have to remember, as well, is that sometimes what seems like a crisis to the personality is actually the very thing the soul has been engineering for years.

He's right. Jay Palmer will survive this, and he will emerge from it even stronger and more dedicated to doing the right thing. How Infosys will emerge from it is impossible to say. Its leaders are still fumbling in the dark.



Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Jan 18, 2012 1:33 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:

"Think of how a whistleblower might have saved some wealth for innocent people who put their money in Madoff and didn't even know he had it."

Actually, a lone man did the math and would tell anyone that would listen that Madoff was running a ponzi scheme.  He went to regulators and they did nothing.  Madoff was the former president of NASDAQ so this lone man - even though his numbers were spot on - was disregarded for years.  They didn't even investigate the claims.

Harry Markopolos (the Madoff whistleblower) even wrote a book - "No One Would Listen". 

People like myself have been reporting H-1b fraud for years - and for years accused of hating foreigners (even though I married one).  Very few people will listen and most still believe industry groups like NFAP over researchers and professors like Ron Hira and Norm Matloff.  Some people supporting H-1b visas even pretend to be professors and elevate their status at prestigious universities - such as Vivek Wadhwa (who is an adjunct professor at best).  They call frauds "visionaries" and other courtesy titles earning them constant invites in the media, while Norm Matloff is often labeled anti-immigrant and Ron Hira is vilified by Indian people everywhere.

People who speak truth are almost always marginalized by the powers that be.  Look at Ron Paul - he isn't a perfect match to my political tastes but he speaks more truth than the other candidates combined and he is labeled the extremist.  If you watch the debates on FOX News it's almost laughable how the guy tied for second place is rarely mentioned.

We live in a society where the outlandish thing to do is NOT go to war.  Going to war just seems more appropriate and accumulating as much debt as required to do that is also appropriate.  You even have moral authorities like Pat Robertson claiming that war is the moral high-ground.  "Jesus would want us to liberate Iraq".

We live in a society where the outlandish thing to do is require fair trade deals so that we aren't financing trade deficits to support them.  That is wacky protectionism according to norms.  The appropriate thing to do is implement free trade.  If China pegs their currency, forces prisoners to work at factories, saves money by polluting, and has no labor protections - and manufacturing moves there because it is cheaper that is status-quo. 

That is "free trade" and the appropriate thing to do.  So in the name of "freedom" we trade with dictators and non-democratic regimes because restricting trade is protectionist and of course "less free".  Balanced trade supporters - who simple want trade to be as equal as possible - are marginalized and our ideas are outlandish from a cultural perspective.

The bottom line Don is that our media and our government is controlled to such an extent by the few that ideas which are clearly wrong are projected as "right" and as mainstream.  In the corporate environment the way you determine morality is to ask yourself one simple question: "Is it profitable?".

Even if it is illegal and unethical, so long as the punishment and financial risk justifies the reward it is "right" and it is "moral".  My greatest fear is that Infosys is prosecuted, found guilty, and that nobody is punished or held accountable.  My greatest fear is that Jay is awarded some token amount for lost pay, but there are no punitive damages.  It isn't really punishment for a company to pay what they would have otherwise owed anyways.  Punishment requires that corporations experience true loss, experience real risk, and to conclude that engaging in the behavior is not profitable and must be stopped. 

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 1:34 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:

"Think of how a whistleblower might have saved some wealth for innocent people who put their money in Madoff and didn't even know he had it."

Actually, a lone man did the math and would tell anyone that would listen that Madoff was running a ponzi scheme. He went to regulators and they did nothing. Madoff was the former president of NASDAQ so this lone man - even though his numbers were spot on - was disregarded for years. They didn't even investigate the claims.

Harry Markopolos (the Madoff whistleblower) even wrote a book - "No One Would Listen". 

People like myself have been reporting H-1b fraud for years - and for years accused of hating foreigners (even though I married one). Very few people will listen and most still believe industry groups like NFAP over researchers and professors like Ron Hira and Norm Matloff. Some people supporting H-1b visas even pretend to be professors and elevate their status at prestigious universities - such as Vivek Wadhwa (who is an adjunct professor at best). They call frauds "visionaries" and other courtesy titles earning them constant invites in the media, while Norm Matloff is often labeled anti-immigrant and Ron Hira is vilified by Indian people everywhere.

People who speak truth are almost always marginalized by the powers that be. Look at Ron Paul - he isn't a perfect match to my political tastes but he speaks more truth than the other candidates combined and he is labeled the extremist. If you watch the debates on FOX News it's almost laughable how the guy tied for second place is rarely mentioned.

We live in a society where the outlandish thing to do is NOT go to war. Going to war just seems more appropriate and accumulating as much debt as required to do that is also appropriate. You even have moral authorities like Pat Robertson claiming that war is the moral high-ground. "Jesus would want us to liberate Iraq".

We live in a society where the outlandish thing to do is require fair trade deals so that we aren't financing trade deficits to support them. That is wacky protectionism according to norms. The appropriate thing to do is implement free trade. If China pegs their currency, forces prisoners to work at factories, saves money by polluting, and has no labor protections - and manufacturing moves there because it is cheaper that is status-quo. 

That is "free trade" and the appropriate thing to do. So in the name of "freedom" we trade with dictators and non-democratic regimes because restricting trade is protectionist and of course "less free". Balanced trade supporters - who simple want trade to be as equal as possible - are marginalized and our ideas are outlandish from a cultural perspective.

The bottom line Don is that our media and our government is controlled to such an extent by the few that ideas which are clearly wrong are projected as "right" and as mainstream. In the corporate environment the way you determine morality is to ask yourself one simple question:"Is it profitable?".

Even if it is illegal and unethical, so long as the punishment and financial risk justifies the reward it is "right" and it is "moral". My greatest fear is that Infosys is prosecuted, found guilty, and that nobody is punished or held accountable. My greatest fear is that Jay is awarded some token amount for lost pay, but there are no punitive damages.  Reply

Jan 18, 2012 1:34 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:
It isn't really punishment for a company to pay what they would have otherwise owed anyways. Punishment requires that corporations experience true loss, experience real risk, and to conclude that engaging in the behavior is not profitable and must be stopped. 

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 3:18 AM SealTeam6 SealTeam6 SealTeam6 SealTeam6  says:

I think it is a bit too much to think any of these companies, not just Infosys, that have skirted the law and played fast and loose with the facts has a soul of any kind. Its all about the instant profit and gratification. Pretty much like a warthog that sees a mudhole to revel in, they saw an opportunity and jumped right in. How they appear to any onlooker doesn't really matter. And much like the warthog, they get testy when confronted and dig into the mess they love. No high abstractions of thought or morals are ever involved.

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 5:51 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to a

Jay's compensation is personal information that can't be released to the public.

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 6:19 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Don Tennant

We aren't able to get actual pay (and relate that back to an individual H-1b worker) to verify that prevailing wages are paid.  As much as I would like that information (even with identifying information removed) privacy laws prevent the release. 

@a If you expect Jay to publish his, I suggest you start by publishing your salary, years of experience, degree, title, and employer.  I don't seriously expect you to do that, but privacy laws do make it difficult to know if your employer is obeying the law or not and if H-1b workers are being used to cut wages.  We have other less reliable data (LCA data) that suggests it is about lower wages but not the accurate information I think we need at an aggregated/obfuscated level.

Unless Jay volunteers his salary information to the public that just isn't something that should be made public.

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 10:04 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Don Tennant

>> Jay's compensation is personal information that can't be released to the public. <<

Yes it can.

Of course Jay may not want to but that is a different matter all together.

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 11:16 AM Incredible Hulk Incredible Hulk  says:

Seriously. More Infosys bashing?

>>Can the Darkened Soul of Infosys Be Saved?

hmmm, yeah... it'll "be saved" after the "darkened soul" of the US army and its hazers, urinating soldiers and interrogators,  government, feds, banking institutions, energy companies, GM food corporations, microsoft, ibm, hp, facebook, google gets "saved". What happened to Manning? Assange?

yeah, some soul searching closer home will be a good place to start before taking a magnifying glass outside.

I guess you have to come up with more sensational Infosys bashing like this as August is quite a long way off for some real factual news on this case. What else can you expect from a blog that seems to thrive on Infosys bashing. Did you have anything to write about Infosys quarter earnings? hmm, yeah, that's what I thought.... inspite of all the gloom and doom this blog has been preaching as "the biggest news" and "game changer" and Infosys loosing clients, It's stilll thriving with double digit profits year on year.

BTW, a corporation has a "soul"? seems like this blog is alluding to personhood status of corporations.

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 11:45 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Incredible Hulk

"yeah, some soul searching closer home will be a good place to start before taking a magnifying glass outside."

I don't disagree that we need to do soul searching - and the issues you raised resonate with me.  But your comment is a deflection and can really be used to justify anything.  I could use a similar fallacy in response, but hopefully you realize just how straw-man your argument is so I won't.

As part of my soul searching I realize that corporate sponsorship of immigrants is a form of indentured servitude, limits the workers ability to change jobs, and because corporations also sponsor greencards it limits mobility.  Those constraints on workers give employers too much powers in the employee/employer relationship.  It isn't very "free market" which is what I thought corporations were all about.

For that simple reason I can't support corporate involvement in the immigration process and don't believe corporations should have some special right to dictate who can work in our country.  If we must have temporary visas or guest worker visas, corporations should not be middle-men in that process.

"BTW, a corporation has a "soul"? seems like this blog is alluding to personhood status of corporations."

People in corporations have souls, corporations are not people and should not have inherent human rights that people have - although the US Supreme Court does not agree with that statement.  Which is why we need a constitutional amendment since the Supreme Court is having such a tough time figuring out what a human is.

I'm sure CEOs love the notion of a corporation being a "person".  That solidifies their artificial "whipping boy" that can't be literally whipped or incarcerated - and that shields them from punishment for their crimes.

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 12:06 PM a a  says:

Just curious Don. What was Jay making before being benched and after being benched. Please publish figures. Need to understand the implications on livelihood.

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 12:49 PM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:

It's really challenging for corporations to have "souls".  Quite often the right thing to do is costly, while the "wrong" thing is both legal and more profitable.  So long as the "wrong" or soul-less thing to do doesn't have serious marketing risks it is often the path chosen.

The problem is that investors rarely reward companies or leaders for taking the moral high-ground if it loses them money.  In fact, some would argue that corporate leadership has a legal obligation to maximize profits and that doing what is "right for the soul" could be a breach of that obligation.

So at the end of the day, doing the right thing is a true sacrifice because it can cost you a job and perhaps even have long-term consequences to your career.  Jay Palmer will probably never work for an Indian outsourcing firm (nor will I because of my activism).  They simply wouldn't hire us.  Doing the right thing certainly will close doors - and in my estimation more doors will be closed than will be opened.

If I have learned anything about capitalism, it is that moral hazard almost always pays those at the top.  And when it doesn't pay, you can almost always escape personal consequence. 

I find it ironic that "please forgive me" is a cherished Christian concept and a key to salvation, yet "please forgive me" in the same Christian dominated society is an admission of liability and will be used against you in a court of law.  In short, morality in this society only seems to reap rewards in the after-life.  And that is the problem. 

This society pays people fortunes to disregard morality, the interests of your fellow man, and national interests while it punishes people for selfless acts. 

Just look at our own Congress.  Those same members of Congress who were managing the financial collapse and negotiating with bankers were also busy dumping stocks and shifting investments around days prior to the collapse - acting on inside information.  And that behavior was perfectly legal for members of Congress and also very profitable.  That never became a campaign issue and the media has said little about it.  Being unethical is so routine, so long as it is technically legal it isn't even news-worthy.

We also have this issue of corporate person-hood.  A corporation is an artificial entity.  It can commit felonies.  But because it isn't a physical being, it can't be incarcerated for those felonies where the same crime committed by a human would result in incarceration.  The corporation offers a legal shield to directors and executives and the only punishment for a corporation, since nobody is held personally liable or personally punished, is financial penalty.  So even behaving criminally becomes a simple risk/reward calculation.   

A guilty verdict against Infosys is not enough.  This is a billion dollar corporation so a million dollar judgement amounts to a gentle slap on the wrist.  Not only will their behavior not change, they will see that ignoring the law is profitable and that they are individually immune from punishment.  Even better for them, many will be rewarded with the value of their stock options rising.

What needs to happen would be a significant penalty that would feel like a penalty to a billion dollar corporation, and that people are held personally responsible for their actions.  If a conviction does not include those two things, nothing has been solved and Jay's selfless actions were for naught.

Reply
Jan 18, 2012 12:50 PM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:

It's really challenging for corporations to have "souls". Quite often the right thing to do is costly, while the "wrong" thing is both legal and more profitable. So long as the "wrong" or soul-less thing to do doesn't have serious marketing risks it is often the path chosen.

The problem is that investors rarely reward companies or leaders for taking the moral high-ground if it loses them money. In fact, some would argue that corporate leadership has a legal obligation to maximize profits and that doing what is "right for the soul" could be a breach of that obligation.

So at the end of the day, doing the right thing is a true sacrifice because it can cost you a job and perhaps even have long-term consequences to your career. Jay Palmer will probably never work for an Indian outsourcing firm (nor will I because of my activism). They simply wouldn't hire us. Doing the right thing certainly will close doors - and in my estimation more doors will be closed than will be opened.

If I have learned anything about capitalism, it is that moral hazard almost always pays those at the top. And when it doesn't pay, you can almost always escape personal consequence. 

I find it ironic that "please forgive me" is a cherished Christian concept and a key to salvation, yet "please forgive me" in the same Christian dominated society is an admission of liability and will be used against you in a court of law. In short, morality in this society only seems to reap rewards in the after-life. And that is the problem. 

This society pays people fortunes to disregard morality, the interests of your fellow man, and national interests while it punishes people for selfless acts. 

Just look at our own Congress. Those same members of Congress who were managing the financial collapse and negotiating with bankers were also busy dumping stocks and shifting investments around days prior to the collapse - acting on inside information. And that behavior was perfectly legal for members of Congress and also very profitable. That never became a campaign issue and the media has said little about it. Being unethical is so routine, so long as it is technically legal it isn't even news-worthy.

We also have this issue of corporate person-hood. A corporation is an artificial entity. It can commit felonies. But because it isn't a physical being, it can't be incarcerated for those felonies where the same crime committed by a human would result in incarceration. The corporation offers a legal shield to directors and executives and the only punishment for a corporation, since nobody is held personally liable or personally punished, is financial penalty. So even behaving criminally becomes a simple risk/reward calculation.   

A guilty verdict against Infosys is not enough. This is a billion dollar corporation so a million dollar judgement amounts to a gentle slap on the wrist. Not only will their behavior not change, they will see that ignoring the law is profitable and that they are individually immune from punishment. Even better for them, many will be rewarded with the value of their stock options rising.

What needs to happen would be a significant penalty that would feel like a penalty to a billion dollar corporation, and that people are held personally responsible for their actions.  Reply

Jan 18, 2012 12:50 PM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:
If a conviction does not include those two things, nothing has been solved and Jay's selfless actions were for naught.

Reply
Jan 19, 2012 1:25 AM Incredible Hulk Incredible Hulk  says: in response to R. Lawson
The only reason I pointed those out was because it seems futile to go on writing articles like these which do not have any new information or facts relavent to the case. It just seems more like bash Infosys anyway you can. >>For that simple reason I can't support corporate involvement in the immigration process and don't believe corporations should have some special right to dictate who can work in our country.  If we must have temporary visas or guest worker visas, corporations should not be middle-men in that process.<<What most Americans do not know is that "skilled" immigration started in the US ever since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Preferences were given to relatives of US citizens and immigrants while equal preference was also given to professionals, scientists, artists, and workers who were thought to be in  short supply. Students were also allowed to come to the US and if employed by a company, they could be sponsored for residency. Though features of the 1965 law have been modified since it was enacted, this law still serves as the basis for U.S. immigration policy today. Immigration has been going on for doctors, physicians, nurses and physical therapists. The H1-B and it's relative the L1 visa are simply extensions of this regulated policy.Whether republican or democrat, the US government has always created avenues for skilled immigrants (skilled as in, if you can do a job that is considered a skilled profession, then you are skilled. Need not be "best and brightest").The following seems to be what goes on in the governments mind but will not be stated for political reasons:1. There should always be an active policy to bring in skilled immigrants. Only criteria is that someone should be skilled and can get a job2. This will supply more individual for professions with short supply of workers leading to growth in the economy.3. This will also ensure that the ratio of demand and supply is normalized so as to consequently stablize normal worker costs. 4. By increasing the supply of individuals looking for jobs, it is commonly assumed that the overall wage will be lowered. This effect may occur in an area over a fairly short period of time however the government assumption is that wages will not fall if the immigrants bring sufficient amounts of other resources with them, such as capital, or cause the amount of other resources in the economy to increase sufficiently (for eg, buying real estate). Even if immigration leads to a fall in the wage rate, it may not follow that individual workers drastically worse off. A percentage of immigrants are also expected to start their own businesses.5. The US is a consumer driven economy. Hence, the more consumers you have, the more the economy is spurned. Americans should realize that there government has a strategic interest in continuing with immigration. You can say the same for illegal immigration too. Before, none of these were big concerns but the primary reason why H1-b/L1 is now a concern is probably because of the threat that more jobs are starting in other destinations instead of the US. This is the new paradigm  brought  in by the internet where borders do not exist virtually.This totally defeats the purpose of the immigration policy that was generally followed until recently. Even until the first dotcom bust, most people were as opposed to the H1-B/L1 visa as they are now. It was only when Indian outsourcing companies started getting most of the work and other American companies laid off workers to counterparts in offshore countries that people took notice.I think the American government is trying to get around it - hence the higher fees and higher number of rejections for Indian outsourcing companies. But there is only little they can do if companies decide to have their work done in a cheaper offshore Reply
Jan 19, 2012 1:26 AM Incredible Hulk Incredible Hulk  says: in response to R. Lawson

The only reason I pointed those out was because it seems futile to go on writing articles like these which do not have any new information or facts relavent to the case.It just seems more like bash Infosys anyway you can.

>>For that simple reason I can't support corporate involvement in the immigration process and don't believe corporations should have some special right to dictate who can work in our country. If we must have temporary visas or guest worker visas, corporations should not be middle-men in that process.<<

What most Americans do not know is that "skilled" immigration started in the US ever since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.Preferences were given to relatives of US citizens and immigrants while equal preference was also given to professionals, scientists, artists, and workers who were thought to be in short supply.Students were also allowed to come to the US and if employed by a company, they could be sponsored for residency.Though features of the 1965 law have been modified since it was enacted, this law still serves as the basis for U.S.immigration policy today.Immigration has been going on for doctors, physicians, nurses and physical therapists.The H1-B and it's relative the L1 visa are simply extensions of this regulated policy.

Whether republican or democrat, the US government has always created avenues for skilled immigrants (skilled as in, if you can do a job that is considered a skilled profession, then you are skilled.Need not be "best and brightest").

The following seems to be what goes on in the governments mind but will not be stated for political reasons:

1.There should always be an active policy to bring in skilled immigrants.Only criteria is that someone should be skilled and can get a job

2.This will supply more individual for professions with short supply of workers leading to growth in the economy.

3.This will also ensure that the ratio of demand and supply is normalized so as to consequently stablize normal worker costs.

4.By increasing the supply of individuals looking for jobs, it is commonly assumed that the overall wage will be lowered.This effect may occur in an area over a fairly short period of time however the government assumption is that wages will not fall if the immigrants bring sufficient amounts of other resources with them, such as capital, or cause the amount of other resources in the economy to increase sufficiently (for eg, buying real estate).Even if immigration leads to a fall in the wage rate, it may not follow that individual workers drastically worse off.A percentage of immigrants are also expected to start their own businesses.

5.The US is a consumer driven economy.Hence, the more consumers you have, the more the economy is spurned.

Americans should realize that there government has a strategic interest in continuing with immigration.You can say the same for illegal immigration too.

Before, none of these were big concerns but the primary reason why H1-b/L1 is now a concern is probably because of the threat that more jobs are starting in other destinations instead of the US.This is the new paradigm brought in by the internet where borders do not exist virtually.

This totally defeats the purpose of the immigration policy that was generally followed until recently.Even until the first dotcom bust, most people were as opposed to the H1-B/L1 visa as they are now. Reply

Jan 19, 2012 1:26 AM Incredible Hulk Incredible Hulk  says: in response to R. Lawson
It was only when Indian outsourcing companies started getting most of the work and other American companies laid off workers to counterparts in offshore countries that people took notice.

I think the American government is trying to get around it - hence the higher fees and higher number of rejections for Indian outsourcing companies.But there is only little they can do if companies decide to have their work done in a cheaper offshore destination.

Reply
Jan 19, 2012 2:40 AM SealTeam6 SealTeam6 SealTeam6 SealTeam6  says: in response to Incredible Hulk

The post was no different than an op-ed you read in a newspaper on a ongoing subject... politics, health care, foreign relations. And yes, there are op-eds devoted to the "soul" of all those entities you referred in your post. When a corporation or other such entity refers to its "core values", what do you think they are talking about ? Just another term for "soul" if you think about it.

So just replace the term "soul" with "core values" and re-read your line about "does anyone care about the soul of an organization". The answer reveals as much about the organization as it does about the person who does or does not care about that aspect.

Reply
Jan 19, 2012 9:48 AM SealTeam6 SealTeam6 SealTeam6 SealTeam6  says: in response to Incredible Hulk

Seriously. More Infosys bashing?

Infosys set the rules when they officially and publicly bashed Palmer via their army of attorneys. Anything said on this free blog is nowhere near the weight of what Infosys has decided to say in public.

Keep that in mind when talking about who is bashing whom.

Reply
Jan 19, 2012 10:01 AM Incredible Hulk Incredible Hulk  says: in response to SealTeam6 SealTeam6

When you have post that talks about the "soul" of Infosys, you know it's going to be irrelavent chatter. I wasn't disappointed. It's as relevant as talking about the "soul" of every other entity that's been accused of wrong doing. Like anyone cares about the "soul" of an organization.

Reply
Jan 19, 2012 10:26 AM SS SS  says:

I can sense Don's dissapointment on looking at the Infosys' quarterly numbers. 49!! I mean 49 new client additions, that too in a quarter where Don claimed corporations are being advised by Law firms to avoid Infosys!!! This article is nothing more than a desperate attempt to write anything just for the sake of showing Infosys in bad light. Really Don?? Is this all you could come up with in the absence of any juicy stories on Infosys?

Reply
Jan 19, 2012 10:52 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Incredible Hulk

"What most Americans do not know is that "skilled" immigration started in the US ever since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. . . .The H1-B and it's relative the L1 visa are simply extensions of this regulated policy."

Slavery was also a regulated and legal policy at the time.  That didn't make it right. 

Corporate control of workers' rights to immigrate, change jobs, and negotiate is also not right.  The best defense we have against bad labor practices are one's feet.  At the end of the day you should always be able to walk away from an employer that fails to negotiate fair wages or working conditions and find one that does.  Employment based visas place restrictions on that right.

"But there is only little they can do if companies decide to have their work done in a cheaper offshore destination."

Our immigration, tax, and trade laws should not encourage the flight of jobs offshore.  The top users of guest worker visas are offshoring companies.  There are tax loopholes/credits (Mitt Romney knows this very well) that actually reward you for keeping your money offshore.  And we don't have incentives to encourage balanced trade.  If we buy goods and services from one nation we should expect equal trade.

So we aren't helpless.  There are things we can do to change our situation.

Reply
Jan 19, 2012 11:00 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Incredible Hulk

"5. The US is a consumer driven economy. Hence, the more consumers you have, the more the economy is spurned."

It is more precisely a debt driven economy.  People can't afford to accumulate debt when their earnings are in decline.  The middle class is shrinking, so relying on consumers to keep the engine going is a very bad idea.  Credit is tightening, so relying on people to accumulate more debt is a very bad idea.

Consumerism may work short term to stimulate an economy, but it is not a long term solution because it cannot be sustained long-term.  Not only do Americans lose real wealth, they replace that wealth with debt. 

Reply
Jan 21, 2012 6:54 AM DaTruth DaTruth  says: in response to SealTeam6 SealTeam6

Corporations don't have souls or feelings - be it American or Indian. However firms such as Infosys care nothing for employees and are just CODE FACTORIES of cheap labour. It is just a huge bodyshop with fancy marketing. Infosys had no soul, no ethics and are thirdrate cheapos...and have also built a culture like that.

America and americans will be better off without a company like Infosys operating in our land. Jobs are going, limit outsourcing and punish companies outsourcing heavily to retain US jobs.

Reply
Jan 22, 2012 9:55 AM a a  says: in response to Don Tennant

Don, while i understand it is personal information, then why crib in public that livelihood is affected. Also you have released several information that is private to an organization like screen shots etc. Not sure as how this is different. If you go on to say livelihood is affected because Infosys is not paying him, then let the facts out with figures.

Reply
Jan 22, 2012 9:57 AM a a  says: in response to R. Lawson

@Lawson - I am not the one who claims that my livelihood is affected. As I said earlier to Don, if it is so evident that it is a public claim then that has to be in facts and figures.

Reply
Jan 26, 2012 4:03 AM SP SP  says: in response to a

Jay is still being paid- upwards of $150K, if what I understand is correct. He's not being deployed, so if he were to apply for a new position with a different company, his accomplishments for the last couple of years would be zero( except for the whistle-blowing)-- that's the real loss. By not deploying him, they've made is skills stagnant, and very soon, redundant. They didn't fire him, I guess, because that would be a class-action. Now, they can claim they never hurt him, even though he tattled or whatever! How long can you expect a man of integrity to not earn his paycheck? But by not utilizing him, they have put him in that position. And, he cannot quit, because he has not accomplished anything professionally.

Reply
Jan 26, 2012 4:14 AM SP SP  says: in response to SP

And I highly doubt that it's just Infosys- TCS,CTS, Wipro, IBM, Accenture, Cap-Gemini, PWC, GE, MS, Oracle-- Most of these companies that have shifted operations overseas have exploited the B-1 visas. Hopefully, this is just the starting point. Don, is it possible for the Immigration to suspend all further work-related visas(issuing any new ones) until this is resolved?

Reply
Jan 26, 2012 8:05 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says:

I'm deleting your comment because it contains a personal insult. If you would like to post a comment without the personal insult, you're more than welcome. Otherwise, go away.

Reply
Jun 15, 2012 5:15 AM Sarita Sarita  says: in response to Don Tennant

An an Infosys employee I can attest the company has no soul. I don't have all the facts of the Palmer case but this company does not even pay the prevailing wages to its employees. It mistreats employees and keeps coming up with new rules to prevent promotions. This year they don't even have salary hikes. They don't review documents before filing cases. Once an RFE comes they drop the cases. They don't get affected only the employees life turns into a mess due to their mindless work. Oh and the HR is a classic piece of work. Employees would amytime prefer talking to their managers than the HR personnel because they never have the politeness to talk to employees. Sending incessant mails about new initiatives is all they do. God forbid you ask them to work on something or request for some info when they have to life their lazy asses and maybe lookup some docs that's it. You are in their bad books. Wonderful isn't it? Wonder how this pathetic company has ever got awards of being a good place to work with. The main reason is that there is no honesty in these people. The employees don't even know the implications sometimes when they sign documents because if you ask them questions they never have answers !

Reply

Post a comment

 

 

 

 


(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.

 

null
null

 

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.