I wanted to give you a brief update on the progress of the corporate action taken in response to the investigation of your complaints regarding B-1 visa ("BV") compliance issues. The issues that you reported to us have made it clear to management that certain changes need to be made to our systems and processes to prevent the misuse of the BV program. To that end, we have identified the following solutions for immediate action:
Solutions:1. Clarify the range of activities permissible on BV (outside counsel have provided an exhaustive list of all acceptable activities as per the law)
2. Modify iTravel -- Employees and approvers to certify the all [sic] activities they will perform at onsite on BV.
3. Modify DART [Daily Activity Report Tracking] to create linkage to activities certified in iTravel.
4. Employees to submit DART mandatorily onsite and select from the activities certified
5. Modify ORF [Overseas Return Form] to not allow submission till DARTs are submitted for the onsite duration
6. Create online training plan and communiques to improve awareness on BV travels
7. Provide for regular random audits of BVs to ensure ongoing compliance
I appreciate your help in bringing these matters to our attention. Obviously there are still other aspects of this that are ongoing (i.e. discipline for those that are found to have violated company policy/law; Jay's desire to change groups etc.) and this e-mail is not meant [to] suggest that this investigation or action is complete. However, I thought that it was important for you to understand the corporate action that has been agreed as a result of your bringing these issues to the attention of the company.
I'm happy to leave it to you to draw your own conclusions about why this is what Infosys has acknowledged internally, while externally the CFO is saying, "We are very clear that we have not violated any of the rules." As you're drawing them, here's some food for thought from Palmer's attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn. I spoke with him a few days ago about all of this, and he put it in a context that makes the bigger picture a little clearer:
What Jay blew the whistle on were very, very serious violations of United States immigration, visa and tax laws. That's why he's been ostracized, and why he's been shut out of the system, and why they won't put him on a job. They have to isolate him, which is a form of retaliation, but it's also self-preservation, because they know that Jay will report any crimes to the U.S. authorities. A big part of this case is it's not just Jay-they have a long history of punishing people who stand up for their rights, and rewarding those who help cover up the crimes. I've got several other whistleblowers who will testify about when they reported violations, they were harassed and discriminated against. I have other people who have not come forward, and told me they haven't out of fear that they would be treated like Jay has been. There are former employees who have left the company because they couldn't go along with the criminal conduct anymore, but they were afraid to file an internal whistleblower complaint because they saw what happened to Jay. You can't let companies come in here and violate our laws, and then punish those who do the right thing and report the crimes. But the fact is, they know they are guilty of these crimes. And that's where the retaliation comes in. I've seen it in other cases-there have been a bunch of cases where people who work for Infosys wanted to take Christian holidays off, and were discriminated against for wanting to take off on those holidays. There are people who were punished because they reported sexual abuse-there have been many cases against Infosys. So it's just been a pattern and a practice that if you fight the company, and stand up and report something that's going on that's wrong, you get punished. And the ones who go along with the crimes get taken care of.
In any event, if Balakrishnan wasn't prepared to tell the truth about the violations in that interview, he would have been much better advised to just stick to some non-response like, "We cannot comment on pending litigation." Instead, he chose to make an overt, sweeping denial that Infosys had violated any rules. The people who read this blog know that makes Balakrishnan either a bold-faced liar or a bumbling oaf who has no clue what he's talking about. Either way, when the time comes that the whole world knows what happened, it will be extremely difficult for Balakrishnan to be taken seriously as a competent, trustworthy corporate executive.