x
Optical/IP

Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard

Lucent Technologies Inc. (NYSE: LU) chairman and CEO Pat Russo doesn't want you to call it "restructuring," but can you call it "offshoring"?

Lucent is in the midst of a steady reduction in headcount, and it's shipping hundreds of development jobs overseas to India and China, according to a wide range of sources both in and around Lucent. Much of this is focused on Lucent's Integrated Network Services (INS) division, the wireline networking group that was once the company's heart and soul.

"The company is moving all development to India – no ifs, ands, or buts," says one senior Lucent employee. "We're starting to drop like flies."

The senior source says he knows of at least two product divisions in INS where the reduce-and-offshore approach has been implemented in the last few months, and he says the strategy is accelerating. "They are hiring 15 people in India to replace 150 people [that they lay off here]," he notes.

So far in 2004, Lucent has hired 400 people in China; 320 people in the United States; 200 people in the Asia/Pacific region, including India; 190 people in Latin American/Caribbean; and 100 people in Europe/EMEA, according to numbers provided to Light Reading by the company today.

But these new hires are being countered by layoffs at the same time, mostly in North America. Analysts say the new rounds of layoffs will total in the thousands, and could slash as much as much as 10 percent of Lucent's workforce from staffing levels this summer.

Lucent executives say that they continue to look at "puts and takes" and that they are hiring overseas in an effort to cut costs and improve quality. Lucent officials also said that the company is global, and that it must hire internationally to support international customers.

"We are a global company," says Lucent spokesman Bill Price. "There are talented people throughout the world. To remain competitive as a global company, we look at all of our options to make the most efficient and cost-effective use of a global team – inside and outside the U.S. – and to help the company meet its business needs and remain a leading provider of telecommunications equipment for service providers.

"Outsourcing and offshoring are now ways of life for a lot of U.S. institutions."

As of June, Lucent's headcount stood at about 32,300. It had 35,000 employees at the beginning of the year, according to the company. At its peak, Lucent had more than 100,000 employees.

CEO Russo recently addressed an earlier Light Reading article on the headcount reductions in a company memo (see Lucent Cuts Target INS and Lucent's Russo Fights Back). Russo continues to maintain that the company is largely done with restructuring, and that current staffing changes are part of "normal business operations."

So, if headcount continues to decline, where are the cuts coming? Sources say they're happening across the board, but they appear to be focused on INS rather than the more-profitable Mobility and Worldwide Services divisions. Light Reading also reported that more cuts are underway for Lucent's CBX 500 and CBX 3500 products. Several sources now say that, although this product unit has had its engineering headcount reduced substantially over time, the new round of cuts has not yet hit; however, employees are negotiating exit packages now. Expect these layoffs to unfold over the next month or so, say the sources.

Based on information supplied to Light Reading by at least half a dozen sources working either at or close to Lucent, here's an update on what's happened in the last few weeks and what's in the works in the near future.

  • Sources say Lucent is in the process of streamlining the staff of its Landover, Md., business unit that works on the PacketStar PSAX access concentrator products, a product Lucent acquired in 1998 when it purchased Yurie Systems for $1 billion. This could result in the loss of as many as 100 jobs, although much of the maintenance of this product is being moved to new engineers in Bangalore, India. Sources say that some of the engineering jobs may be taken over by employees in Lucent's Westford, Mass., facility. Many of the U.S. employees have already negotiated their exit packages, known in Lucent parlance as a Forced Management Plan, or "FMB."

  • Lucent has all but eliminated a Naperville, Ill., business unit, consisting of at least 50 people that were working on voice switching and its 5ESS circuit-switching products. It has outsourced most of the engineering work to India, sources say.

  • Lucent recently laid off about 20 to 40 employees in a Columbus, Ohio, facility that has employees of both Bell Labs and INS. One source says the facility is in the process of being dismantled and that hundreds more expect to lose their jobs. "They're taking a wrecking ball to it," says the source, a former Lucent employee.

  • Lucent has plans underway to make further cuts to U.S.-based engineers working on its CBX 500 and CBX 3500 product lines, a legacy of its acquisitions of products from the former Ascend Communications and Cascade Communications, say multiple sources. Although the numbers in this case aren't known, one source close to the company says the unit is already down to a few dozen engineers. Lucent executives have denied that this product is in jeopardy of being cut and contend it's fully supported (see Lucent's Russo Fights Back).

  • Lucent appears to be leaning heavily on its development partners, most notably Juniper Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: JNPR), to help it in areas in which it's cutting U.S. engineering talent, several sources say. "The partnership with Juniper is the nail in the coffin for anything inside Lucent," the ex-employee source says. "Lucent will stop investment."


Judging from the feelings expressed in emails and phone calls to Light Reading, the outsourcing moves aren't exactly boosting employee morale. In fact, some employees are furious that Russo continues to publicly say restructuring is over, while internally it's clear what's going on.

"It's all politics," says an ex-Lucent employee who spoke with Light Reading at length. "They're leaving the products to be supported with the VPs and a few staff. They deceive with numbers, but all the folks in the trenches are getting axed."

Many analysts are saying Lucent has no choice in further cutting staff and outsourcing development. It's a matter of cost-cutting to generate profits, they say.

"They are surgical layoffs," says Frank Dzubeck, president of Communications Network Architects. "They are happening in areas where there is no longer growth."

Morgan Keegan & Company Inc.'s Simon Leopold was one of the first Wall Street analysts to see more cost-cutting coming, when he wrote, in a research note issued in August, that he expected the employment reductions to pick up in the second half of 2004 (see Report: More Lucent Cuts Ahead? ).

"We believe Lucent will make unanticipated cost cuts that lead to higher-than-expected FY05 earnings," wrote Leopold.

More recently, Leopold estimated in a research note that Lucent is in the process of cutting another 3,250 jobs, which would put the global corporation under 30,000 employees for the first time.

The bottom line is that Lucent continues to shrink as a company, and it appears to be moving quietly into more outsourcing and reselling relationships. Meanwhile, Lucent's move to outsource development could benefit one of its largest partners – Juniper – which could take over much of the heavy lifting in the multiservice edge portion of the network.

Adding further evidence that Lucent is moving quickly to a reseller strategy, it announced today that it has inked a deal with Riverstone Networks Inc. (OTC: RSTN.PK) to resell Ethernet networking gear to service providers (see Lucent Adds Riverstone to Roster).

Of course, Lucent is not alone in a move to further reduce headcount and ship some jobs overseas. Nortel Networks Ltd. (NYSE/Toronto: NT) is doing similar things, and, as announced this morning, the scale of its staff reductions is similar (see Nortel Details Layoff Plans). Likewise, Lucent's cousin Agere Systems Inc. (NYSE: AGR.A) announced major new layoffs yesterday (see Agere Wields Jobs Axe).

— R. Scott Raynovich, US Editor, Light Reading

kamalpr 12/5/2012 | 1:11:48 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard materialgirl:
Well, the whole thing went away. Never another peep, as far as I heard. Then I heard a rumor that outsourcers made it known to the powers that be that if they could not put these issues to rest, they were walking for good. Something sure changed. Was it pressures from outsourcers or some newfound ability to get over old arguements?
__________________________________________________

It was pressure from the US on both India and Pakistan to resolve their conflicrs once and for all -not because of outsourcing companies' stakes, but because Pakistan needed guerilla warfare to keep the pot boiling in Kashmir (their conventional forces are no match for India), and they helped the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan which triggered problems for US and which was meant to be re-directed to kashmir at a later stage. The US wants guerilla forces to be scrapped for which it needs the dispute to be settled -which is why it is happeneing. The US retd general in Iraq stated publicly that they will ensure a peace deal by the end of 2004 and that is what is happening.
---------------------------
Without going into the reasons for why the standoff actually subsided, let me simply say that all of the outsourced business to India is a very small fraction of the business that gets done in India. A small teeny weeny fraction of the GDP.
---------------------------
Yeah -its inconsequential either to the GDP or the viability of the state. Americans (like their president) seem convinced that the whole world revolves around them.

-------------------
There is no way, come hell or high water, that a strategic position relating to border dispute would change due to pressure from "oursourcers". Forget border disputes, all the lobbying from American companies hasn't done anything to alleviate the red tape in the department of Customs.
------------------
Yes -all of the above is correct. But it looks like the GATT will force India to eliminate red-tape. What the public could not achieve, the WTO is all set to achieve.

regards
-kamal

x98l18to8 12/5/2012 | 1:12:01 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard In INS Janet wanted everyone to bust their asses go get as much done as possible so that when she kicked off the job change, most if not all of the work would be completed. Then she stated that for all of your hard work and my lack of management skills you all you will be layed off. Oh Pat! I made missed my numbers but I have made great progress in outsourceing all of my units to India or China. So can I get my big bonus? Please, Please,Please! Thank you, Thank you!

The other information I would like to have confirmed is Pat only got her job due to a lawsuit. She was suing Lucent because she thought she was qualified.

From all of the managers of Enron, Lucent, MCI, WorldCom, etc........... What make these greedy people qualified?
sigint 12/5/2012 | 1:12:08 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard spelurker:
FYI, the folks at INS have been willing to work their butts off when called on to do so. The move to India has been in the works for years -- the reason fewer people are needed is because the product being moved is dead, dead, dead.
__________________________________________________

I easily believe you, spelurker. You could put together any number of lazy people, they couldn't get a product together. The fact that a decent product exists, is enough evidence to suggest that a hardworking competent team was behind the effort.

Would you know how big the installed base is for this product? If it's in a large number of installations, bug fixing by itself seems a fairly scary amount of work. Is 15 a realistic number of people for the job?

Since you seem to know a bit about this, please do comment. It might help a poor bloke in India who could be walking into an impossible situation.
sigint 12/5/2012 | 1:12:08 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard materialgirl:
Well, the whole thing went away. Never another peep, as far as I heard. Then I heard a rumor that outsourcers made it known to the powers that be that if they could not put these issues to rest, they were walking for good. Something sure changed. Was it pressures from outsourcers or some newfound ability to get over old arguements?
__________________________________________________

Without going into the reasons for why the standoff actually subsided, let me simply say that all of the outsourced business to India is a very small fraction of the business that gets done in India. A small teeny weeny fraction of the GDP.

There is no way, come hell or high water, that a strategic position relating to border dispute would change due to pressure from "oursourcers". Forget border disputes, all the lobbying from American companies hasn't done anything to alleviate the red tape in the department of Customs.

There are many other "good" reasons for NOT indulging in nuclear fireworks. It didn't happen for pretty much the same reasons that it didn't happen between the US and USSR during the cold war.

Where passive stand-offs go, missiles are still trained in each others' directions.
orange 12/5/2012 | 1:12:18 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard The reason for severe headcount cut is that PSAX is EOL'ed. This was only at matter of time once Lucent Wireless decided to boot the PSAX 4500 (or whatever the one high-margin model is) and instead partner with Cisco.

To the point of the original LR article(s): without question Lucent is still in the process of cancelling products and FMP'ing employees.

To continue the offshoring thread: Any offshoring of software development in an industry that requires hardware development that still can only be done in the US to remain competitive pretty much speaks for itself.






dadofamunky 12/5/2012 | 1:12:20 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Yeah, what a freakin' jerk. I think he's just trying to yank people's chains.
--------------------------------------
Ok, this comment was WAY out of line.

dadofamunky 12/5/2012 | 1:12:20 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Oh, what a great observation. I guess it really goes to show that the almighty American dollar really can be more powerful than the sword!

"Well, the whole thing went away. Never another peep, as far as I heard. Then I heard a rumor that outsourcers made it known to the powers that be that if they could not put these issues to rest, they were walking for good. Something sure changed. Was it pressures from outsourcers or some newfound ability to get over old arguements?"
materialgirl 12/5/2012 | 1:12:23 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Dear Kamal:
Thank you for your point. India is not like the middle east. However, there is that border with Pakistan. Remember the nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan a few years ago? It was scary for a while. All the outsourcers got nervous about business discontinuity risk. They were considering moving work out of India for good due to the general risk of instability.

Well, the whole thing went away. Never another peep, as far as I heard. Then I heard a rumor that outsourcers made it known to the powers that be that if they could not put these issues to rest, they were walking for good. Something sure changed. Was it pressures from outsourcers or some newfound ability to get over old arguements?
abdullah 12/5/2012 | 1:12:25 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard There's more than just MD products being sent offshore. China and Poland have been recipients of "new" development work over the past 1.5 year.

If you take into account that Pat wants LU to be a "services" company, then this is one step towards that goal.
spelurker 12/5/2012 | 1:12:26 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard >>"They are hiring 15 people in India to replace 150 >> people [that they lay off here],"
>
> Why did he complain? 15 cheapie Indians can do the > job that requires 150 lazy Americans that have fat > checks.
-----------------------------------------------
Ok, this comment was WAY out of line.

FYI, the folks at INS have been willing to work their butts off when called on to do so. The move to India has been in the works for years -- the reason fewer people are needed is because the product being moved is dead, dead, dead. The reason it didn't move earlier is because there was no viable follow-on product so it was still getting significant retrofits.
Any move to India, especially to a much smaller team, is a sign that the product is finally ready to be shelved (bug fix mode only).
Fortunecookie 12/5/2012 | 1:12:27 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard A senior guy at Lucent said:
"They are hiring 15 people in India to replace 150 people [that they lay off here],"

Why did he complain? 15 cheapie Indians can do the job that requires 150 lazy Americans that have fat checks.

FORTUNE
startup_shutup 12/5/2012 | 1:12:32 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON:

1) More than a few managements are control freaks, and there's probably no employee more pliable than an H1-B worker with a employer sponsered green card application pending
sigint 12/5/2012 | 1:12:41 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Color me confused.
If offshoring is such a compelling proposition why would corporations rush to import 65K H1B workers? Why not just employ them (at 90% less!) in their native lands?
What am I missing? Help me out with this.

-kh
__________________________________________________

I can only speculate, but a few reasons come to mind (specifically with reference to India)

1) More than a few managements are control freaks, and there's probably no employee more pliable than an H1-B worker with a employer sponsered green card application pending

2) Attrition in India can be quite high, people have very little patience with their immediate supervisors

3) The cost advantage is no longer 90%, it's more like 40-50% overall in terms of cost of doing business. (Comparison here is Bangalore and Valley)

Also, I suspect that most of the existing applications are for extensions, rather than new employees.





sigint 12/5/2012 | 1:12:41 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard materialgirl:
As to the working stiffs in India, what would your rather them to, have no opportunity so they give up hope for their future and throw bombs instead? Now thats an idea. Trade is a route to peace. What we all want is a fair break, in the U.S. and around the world. Right now, the U.S. worker is not getting that. As your desired future drifts from your grap, maybe you can appreciate how mad they feel in Iraq.
__________________________________________________

Materialgirl, I think you have stated a profound truth here, perhaps unknowingly.

I know plenty of folks who earlier worked in the defense establishments in India (and yes, some of them did build missiles and bombs). Quite a few now work in alternative hi-tech industries towards more peaceful ends.

It's not that no other opportunities exists for the tech worker in India, they do. But US corporations are willing to up the ante, as it were, on the compensation front and thus able to glean talent from other home-grown tech sectors such as aerospace, defense and the governemnt sector communication companies.

Lack of empowerment of engineers is as pervasive here as anywhere else. All we can do is empathise.

The cost of doing business in India is increasing rapidly and the day isn't far when we shall be cast aside like dirty linen by the very American corporation that today actively solicit our services.
kamalpr 12/5/2012 | 1:12:42 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard As to the working stiffs in India, what would your rather them to, have no opportunity so they give up hope for their future and throw bombs instead? Now thats an idea. Trade is a route to peace. What we all
--------------------------------
India was a lot poorer when it got freedom from the British and has grown prosperous in the last 5 yrs. But no matter how poor it was, it did not have a history of 'throwing bombs'. The countries that do such things are more often than not -ones with puppet regimes. A democratic country will not blame others for its problems.

regards
-kamal

marete 12/5/2012 | 1:12:42 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard
I think the real reason why there is an offshoring problem in the USA is due to the reduction of the quota for H1-B visa employees. US companies seem to really love H1-B employees. They are employing those that didn't make it to the US through H1-B in their native countries. Instead of placing a such a low cap on the H1-B quota, the US government should instead increase it to year 2000 and probably more.
materialgirl 12/5/2012 | 1:12:43 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Sure it is upsetting to see your standard of living decline. But who should you get angry at, your peers, or the system that is pushing you down? The guys on the top hope you get mad at your peers, so they can run away with the loot.

Meanwhile, BODs (Boards of Directors) allow inept top management insane salaries, just as they allow your competitiveness to decline by not keeping up with technology trends. LU getting blindsided by the move to IP is a clear example.

As the top 5% get richer, U.S. workers are bled dry by high taxes (because the richest have paid the Government off and gotten tax breaks while we go into record deficits) and high medical costs (because the health and insurance industries have paid off the Government to keep competition away from them). "Single party pays" translates directly into "user gets drilled", by the way. With a big tax and health premium on your head, no wonder you are expendable.

As to the working stiffs in India, what would your rather them to, have no opportunity so they give up hope for their future and throw bombs instead? Now thats an idea. Trade is a route to peace. What we all want is a fair break, in the U.S. and around the world. Right now, the U.S. worker is not getting that. As your desired future drifts from your grap, maybe you can appreciate how mad they feel in Iraq.
keelhaul42 12/5/2012 | 1:12:44 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Color me confused.
If offshoring is such a compelling proposition why would corporations rush to import 65K H1B workers? Why not just employ them (at 90% less!) in their native lands?
What am I missing? Help me out with this.

-kh
Lighter-Fluid 12/5/2012 | 1:12:46 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Let's set the Lucent record straight:

1. On Tuesday, Lucent CEO states that restructuring has been completed.

2. On Thursday, LR reports mass layoffs within a business unit and/or product demise.

3. On Friday, CEO states that "adding & dropping employees" is par for the course and accuses LR of misleading statements. WTF?

4. A search on Bell Labs workforce shows growth in China, India, Brazil, & Poland...and declines in US states NJ,IL,OH,CA,MO,MD,GA.

5. Increase employee medical insurance rates, increase co-pay per vist, reduce provider list, reduce retiree benefits.

6. Do whatever it takes to keep H.Schaft on the payroll. Continue retirement benefits to McGone.

7. Pay applicable SEC fines and settle lawsuits out of court.

8. Create an employee survey a few weeks before merit reviews. First anonymous question: Employee ID <true story="">.

9. CEO Bonus due in December based on performance. These types of events will not be mentioned.

10. Next year, repeat steps 1 through 9.

LU remains in business today based on their ability to continue this trend. Some might view this as incompetent, while others (such as the BOD) think that they are doing an excellent job by eliminating America from it's payroll.

L-F





</true>
marete 12/5/2012 | 1:12:47 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Mon Oct 4, 4:38 PM ET U.S. National - AP


By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Immigration officials have a message for employers hoping to hire foreign workers through the H1-B visa program for the fiscal year that began Friday: It's too late.



The popular visas are granted to foreigners in specialty professions such as architecture, engineering, medicine and computer programming. H1-B visas are good for up to six years.


Congress set a cap of 65,000 such visas per fiscal year. By the end the work day Friday, Citizenship and Immigration Services already had received enough applications to meet the limit.


Agency spokesman William Strassberger said applications filed by Friday will be considered. For any after that, "It's too late," he said.


Under the H-1B program, U.S. employers must pay foreign workers the prevailing wage for their job fields and show that qualified U.S. workers are not being passed over. The foreign worker must have at least a bachelor's degree or the equivalent.


Unions and other critics say the program allows businesses to fill jobs with cheaper foreign labor, but those that use the program say they can't find enough Americans with the necessary math, science and engineering skills.


Sensitivity about exporting American jobs overseas has made Congress reluctant to raise the cap.


Congress last raised the cap in 2000, when the country was enjoying a technology-propelled boom. The H1-B worker limit rose to 195,000, but it fell back to 65,000 last year.


Of the 65,000 visas available, 6,800 are set aside for workers from Chile and Singapore under terms of free trade agreements with those countries.


"A cap never has been set that reflects anything in our economy. It's always been a political number," said Theresa Brown, director of immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (news - web sites). Companies have hit the cap several times over the years, she said.


"We've got to have a better system than that," Brown said.


Employers hope to get relief from a proposal being pushed by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (news, bio, voting record), R-Ga., and Rep. Lamar Smith (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas. They are proposing that foreign students graduating from master's or doctoral programs at U.S. universities not be counted against the H1-B limit. Such students often are recruited by U.S. businesses and could end up working for global competitors when H1-B visas are unavailable.


It is unclear whether Congress will consider the proposal before adjourning.

abdullah 12/5/2012 | 1:12:51 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Being Sneaky? What?? You guys forget the 200+ who sat in the big glass room on the second floor at 1 Robbins Way and were trained? It was pretty obvious to me.
= = =
Outsourcing will be the next downfall of the American Corporation. Foriegn salaries are spent in foriegn lands, not here.
keelhaul42 12/5/2012 | 1:12:52 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard kamalpr;
BTW -people work for a living, not for respect from people elsewhere.
_______________________________________________

By which standard, there's nothing wrong with slavery.



I was wondering what to do with that line.
Thank you for a most succinct and trenchant observation.

-kh
opticalwatcher 12/5/2012 | 1:12:52 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Oops, not the cotton gin, but the cotton mill--brought by Samual Slater.
opticalwatcher 12/5/2012 | 1:12:52 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard "How is the H1-B issue connected to offshoring?"

Study industrial history and you'll learn that the cotton gin was secretly brought piece by piece from England to the US. When the technology transfer was complete, US commercial might really began to grow.

H1B brings talented people to the US to work with the brightest in the US industries, then sends them back to their home countries with their new-found knowledge of design and manufacturing.

We created this offshoring industry ourselves! It would not exist if H1B didn't exist.
keelhaul42 12/5/2012 | 1:12:56 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Offshoring the top mgt is certainly the logical thing to do. If you're going to run the company into the ground you might as well do it on the cheap. Besides, the guys in India just might do things right and put LU to rights -- no reason to think they couldn't.
This should also put to rest the complaints about excessive executive compensation!

-kh
netwizard 12/5/2012 | 1:12:56 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard How is the H1-B issue connected to offshoring?
sigint 12/5/2012 | 1:12:58 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard kamalpr;
BTW -people work for a living, not for respect from people elsewhere.
_______________________________________________

By which standard, there's nothing wrong with slavery.
lighten up!! 12/5/2012 | 1:12:58 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Team can only do so many creative things to show profitability while lining their pockets at the same time. As long as the bozos at the top are spearheaded by Russo, the only long term trajectory for Lucent is downwards. The fundamental problems at Lucent have never been fixed and offshoring is just another hairbrain strategy to buy time. If Lucent really wants to achieve long term profitability, they should outsource the positions of their top execs to India. That's where the cost problems are the biggest and the savings will be a huge improvement to the bottom line...
fair_juror 12/5/2012 | 1:13:05 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard It is "ironical" that you were yourself a H1B not so long ago (very obvious from the terribly broken English in all your numerous past posts).

Suppose Canada emerged as the next Silicon Valley. You are the kind of person that would immigrate there and soon say that Americans should be banned from entering.

US Immigration needs to have a CHARACTER test before they issue a visa.
----------------------------------------------
startup_shutup said:
H1B should be totally banned -- I have nothing to
say against offshoring. It's ironical that some
people are demanding more H1Bs....
tohaveandhavenot37 12/5/2012 | 1:13:07 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard US vs. non-US employees according to lucent5-5 MB.

Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 12:53 pm

Another current view on Human Capital Across Borders...

NJ 7334
Illinois 5941
China 3431
India: 1678
Britain 1063
Poland 757

China + India are about to overtake Illinois within 2 years (unless corporate tax rates change drastically).

The numbers include various non-Lucent employees such as security, cafeteria, IBM, ...

==============================================

Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:24 pm

From a friend:
August 2004, by City:

Lisle 2744
Naperville 2816
Columbus 1492 <- I had to double check that number ;-)
Whippany 2666
Holmdel 1653
whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 1:13:07 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Recent releases from China are just more BS stalling. Look, their strategy is to keep the exchange rates where they are and take them higher, not lower.

Read the Economist: CHina is going to build 200 nuclear reactors (Helium cooled) in the next ten years. Objective: reduce oil imports to negligible levels. IOW, it won't have to import much, so why change the exchange rate to make oil or any other import cheaper.

In the mean time, it will be ALL TALK about floating the exchange rate.

What it will take is the seven to force the float...but that will take forever. Because for now CEO's in the US are getting richer, and they buy the votes.

In the mean time, more and more of the US economy will go over there. And that's the macro of what happens when the exchange rate is so far out of whack with respect to the internal purchasing power for so long.

And when we have nearly sold our ability to survive, and the Chinese commies come over here with ALL our money and take over...who will be able to say I toild you so?

Certainly noone associated with the present administration...from either side of the aisle.

Chinagate is massive.

Teach your kids how to work like water buffalo, that's their future.

-Why
startup_shutup 12/5/2012 | 1:13:08 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard H1B should be totally banned -- I have nothing to
say against offshoring. It's ironical that some
people are demanding more H1Bs....
tohaveandhavenot37 12/5/2012 | 1:13:08 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Link: http://www.dailyherald.com/sea...

Lucent layoffs continue
By Anna Marie Kukec Daily Herald Business Writer
Posted 10/2/2004

Lucent Technologies said Friday it will continue to lay off workers while, at the same time, hiring others to help it remain competitive and to increase business overseas.

The New Jersey-based telecommunications equipment maker has laid off about 200 workers worldwide, including 80 last week at its Naperville and Lisle offices.

To remain competitive, Lucent must find ways to improve its business, cut costs, and serve customers worldwide with resources that are closer to them, said Lucent spokesman John Skalko.

"There are talented people throughout the world who can contribute to serving our customers and we want to leverage that talent as best we can," said Skalko. "Outsourcing and off-shoring are now ways of life for a lot of U.S. institutions."

Lucent has turned a profit and it is unlikely to have layoffs of the same magnitude as in recent years, said Steve D. Levy, managing director of Wireline Equipment Equity Research for Lehman Brothers in New York.

"Profitable companies sometimes need to be more profitable," Levy said. "The question is where are they hiring?"

Levy said Lucent likely did some cuts at its switching operations in Naperville and Lisle because it has been unprofitable.

Skalko said hiring has been in professional services, certain research and development areas and in different countries.

When Lucent began restructuring in January 2001, it had about 106,000 employees. It had about 32,300 workers as of June 30. The next quarterly work force report is expected when Lucent releases its fourth quarter and fiscal year earnings Oct. 20. Lucent's fiscal year ended Thursday.

"We continue to monitor market conditions, look for ways to improve our productivity, and review business opportunities to match our headcount with the market realities," Skalko said.
flam 12/5/2012 | 1:13:10 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard BTW: are things really that bad in India? (... 15 engineers working themselves to death for the scraps LU might throw their way ...)


Not really how this works. Face, only a
few of the longtimers actually worked for
a living. The rest schmoozed their way through
meetings - "oooh, I'm so busy!" as one retiree
put it.

The initial team therefore doesn't need to
be 150 to take over the "work" of 150. All you
need is 15 guys to learn the core, then you
hire up as needed. In fact, don't be surprised
that they will soon hire up 450 to replace the
150 - how else will the Bangalor head become
Lu E-Level?

Disgusting.
kamalpr 12/5/2012 | 1:13:12 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard BTW: are things really that bad in India? (... 15 engineers working themselves to death for the scraps LU might throw their way ...)

If yes, don't look for respect anytime soon!
--------------------------
IT sector is HOT and not bad in India. Many americans have also taken up jobs here. 15 engineers possibly cannot do the work of 150 -as the report claims. Having worked both onsite and offshore, I would say it takes more and not less manpower because of the communication gap i.e. instead of talking to a person face-to-face and/or reading his body language -you need to send email/talk over ISD and it involves quite a few iterations. They may have moved a minimal subset to India, and may ramp up in future if things go well.

BTW -people work for a living, not for respect from people elsewhere.

regards
-kamal
jim_smith 12/5/2012 | 1:13:19 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard dadofamunky: being sneaky about offshoring jobs and forcing the original jobholders to train their replacements stinks

Well if everyone wasn't so darned worked up about this offshoring thing, companies might just come clean and not be sneaky anymore.

But the way things are right now, either the CEO has to be sneaky or he can forget about a smooth transition to offshoring, which means he won't get his multimillion bonus.

Hell, I would be double sneaky if millions of dollars were at stake.

sigint: If you read the article, 15 employees in India replace 150 American workers.

Wow! I didn't know offshoring was that good!

So, not only did Lucent reduce per engineer costs by 3x or whatever, it also reduced the number of engineers by 10x?

I have to look into this offshoring thing...
keelhaul42 12/5/2012 | 1:13:22 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard sigint wrote:
I feel really sorry for all engineers. Is there any company at all left that respects it engineering talent?

>>end

So far as I know, there never was a company that respected its engineering talent. We were (and are) simply overhead.
BTW: are things really that bad in India? (... 15 engineers working themselves to death for the scraps LU might throw their way ...)

If yes, don't look for respect anytime soon!

-kh
sigint 12/5/2012 | 1:13:23 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard dadofamunky:
OTOH, being sneaky about offshoring jobs and forcing the original jobholders to train their replacements stinks. That is truly un-American. Just come out and say it. Be freakin' honest. For an example, see Carol Bartz of Autodesk.
_________________________________________________

Not only is it unamerican, it's inhuman. I've heard this over and over again.

Nobody benefits, except perhaps LU stock-holders. If you read the article, 15 employees in India replace 150 American workers. They'll probably work themselves to death for the scraps that LU might throw in their direction.

I feel really sorry for all engineers. Is there any company at all left that respects it engineering talent?
dadofamunky 12/5/2012 | 1:13:30 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard There's two ways to look at this. First, if Pat Russo didn't do something very serious LU was roadkill. They were in a death spiral. So huge major restructuring was definitely necessary. And there is no doubt that there was a lot of deadwood and underbrush to clear out.

OTOH, being sneaky about offshoring jobs and forcing the original jobholders to train their replacements stinks. That is truly un-American. Just come out and say it. Be freakin' honest. For an example, see Carol Bartz of Autodesk.

Lucent still has some good technical talent. Michael Nielsen is one of the best engineering heads I've ever seen, and he has pushed through their best products lately, such as the Stinger.

Hopefully, someday LU can produce more profits by growing their business instead of mining their head count for ongoing cost cutting.
WiserNow 12/5/2012 | 1:13:38 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Well, the PSAX team from Yurie survived longer than the venerable MAX/TNT/APX team from Ascend. LU slashed 250 jobs there a couple years ago. Rumor has it that the handful of survivors in Alameda, CA are profitable but hopeless.

I didn't think there was a CBX team left in Westford, MA to offshore. LU chased most of them off years ago.

And why is this article limited to INS? Wireless has been shipping their UMTS jobs to China for over a year now.

Lucent is no longer a creative shop. Why don't they give Bell Labs R&D folks their walking papers? If they aren't developing products, why do they need Bell Labs overhead? Most of the really good folks have walked on their own already, but the remainder are very expensive and produce nothing of value -- unless one can sell powerpoint presentations of the obvious.
Ringed? 12/5/2012 | 1:13:43 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Hilarious. Bobby was nearly the only source of telecom entertainment from I'd say late 2000 until he disapeared sometime in 2003. His posts in 2002 were particularly refreshing?

You don't think... No...! He couldn't be....

Larry the LR Attack Monkey? :) Boobie Max. Say it ain't so.

PS.
(I loved the person that all ways attack him. He always called him Boobie.

Ringed?

TJGodel 12/5/2012 | 1:13:44 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard The division in Landover Maryland which employs about 200 people are losing their jobs. The jobs are going to India. To add insult to injury they are currently training the Indian who will take over future development.
lastmile 12/5/2012 | 1:13:46 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Ask LR.
Bobby Max helped us during the bad times with fun and games. The bad times continue and it will be a pleasure to hear from Bobby Max again.
Bobby Max was never an individual. It was an idea conceived by LR.
Only LR can help.
RouterOttawa 12/5/2012 | 1:13:47 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard His insiteful commentary would certainly be appropriate right about now....

(or not....)
sjd6 12/5/2012 | 1:13:48 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard Resell more and more Juniper, and ship all your jobs to India. More brilliant planning at LU.
Donald_Rumsfeld 12/5/2012 | 1:13:48 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard We know what we know. We also know what we don't know. What concerns me most at Lucent is the unknown unknowns that we know we don't know.
keelhaul42 12/5/2012 | 1:13:49 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard I've been assured over and over again that jobs offshored are a tiny fraction of the total US employment. There is no way that large numbers of jobs - highly skilled ones at that - could be sent overseas.

The hard facts:
- jobs of all kinds are leaving the country in droves. Anything that isn't nailed down is going. Anything that can be pried loose isn't nailed down.

- twenty years of education plus twenty years of experience will not save you. Think about getting a 7-11 franchise.

- sending your kids to a top public University (at $20K per year)? Forget it. That education has no way of ever paying for itself except for possibly medicine or dentistry and even some of THAT is leaving. Law might still be ok -- assuming we want more lawyers still.

- Had enough? TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES: India and China have an artificial cost advantage. This has to end. Let them compete fairly or not at all.

my .02 (US)

-kh

laserbrain2 12/5/2012 | 1:13:49 AM
re: Lucent Offshoring Wave Hits Hard As a former LUser, I have to say this is refreshing news. I was acquired-in during the bubble and found a moribund institution. I knew it was time to go when I saw the old dude sitting in the Lucent van reading the paper. "My god, I'm working for the Phone Company."

So right on, Pat. Cut all the crap. Be ever vigilant. Shrink the lousy businesses as fast as you can. Move the projects to smaller, cheaper teams. Lose the unions. You may yet make it.

HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE