#offshore

I am wondering how our Strong US based even SBA feel about their data being potentially viewed by off-shore folks. To me, this was a big uproar when it came to TikTok. So how can we as PUBLICLY TRADED IN US , allow offshore folks to have access to US Trust account, assets, etc. This is me saying THIS IS WRONG! I hope investors see this.

Doesn't fix the offshore problem, but this is a start! https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/25/2026-17324/fee-for-certain-h-1b-petitions

Doesn't fix the offshore problem, but this is a start!

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/25/2026-17324/fee-for-certain-h-1b-petitions

Why I have been hearing is a bit concerning. May be everyone already knows this. But they want to move the entire engineering teams to Offshire. Fully functioning teams. There will be an onshore counterpart for every team.

Schlumberger figured out modern well logging. Nearly a century later, I have to deal with sh---y OSDU standards and .ZGY files pushed by Indian project managers with no understanding of what we’ve actually been doing. Completely failing company... Also, no one likes SLB. Stop pushing your offshore Indian storage architecture on everyone.

I am training offshore replacements and hoping this preserves my job. Anyone have insight?

The company is hiring in offshore locations but not in onshore.
Townhalls are in India. PIP is in action with more to come.
Why are you training your replacements?
How do onshore employees see a future here? I’m not seeing it. Help me understand the logic to stay.

Mission Simplify: layoffs, outsourcing, and offshore hiring (through Alorica and JobHai). Employees ask: who's really benefiting?

Mission Simplify cuts jobs while offshore hiring grows. Employee trust and morale continue to erode.

As U.S. jobs disappear and offshore roles expand, many see Mission Simplify as anything but simple.

$365M in severance. Offshore hiring expands. Employees question the direction of Mission Simplify.

The bridge between leadership and employees weakens when layoffs and offshore expansion occur together.

Mission Simplify: American jobs out, offshore jobs in. Workers and members are taking notice.

Someone in India is more valuable than you right now.
Londons Bridges Falling Down!

Texas Protects Your Medical Records. Your Job's Insurance Doesn't.

Somewhere outside the United States, a man with administrative access to an American health insurer's systems is looking at a screen full of patient records. Names. Dates of birth. Member identification numbers. Diagnoses. Years of claims.

He may be at his kitchen table, on home wifi, with his phone beside him. He may be in a windowless facility that took a badge and a fingerprint to enter, where the phone cameras are taped over and nothing reaches the outside internet.

No federal rule distinguishes between those two rooms. None has ever been written.

For nearly three decades, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act has been the public's shorthand for medical privacy, invoked at every pharmacy counter and on every clipboard. What the law says about the physical circumstances in which health
records are actually viewed amounts to a single sentence, and that sentence requires almost nothing.

The provision is 45 CFR 164.310(b). It obliges a covered organization to maintain
policies describing "the physical attributes of the surroundings" of any workstation
that can reach electronic health information. It does not say what those attributes should be. It sets no minimum. It names no control. A secured operations center and a laptop on a sofa satisfy the requirement equally, so long as a document somewhere describes each arrangement.

The rule was written in 2003, when remote access to a health plan's production systems was rare and mostly stationary. It was last substantively amended in 2013. It has not been revisited since the work of maintaining American health data became something that can be done from anywhere on earth with a broadband connection.

What federal law does not require is easier to state than what it does. There is no
requirement for multi-factor authentication on systems holding patient records. No requirement for a controlled or supervised workspace. No restriction on access from a private residence, or from outside the United States, or on privileged administrative access from a foreign country. No prohibition on cameras in the room where records are displayed. And no obligation to tell patients, or even the insurer's own corporate customers, that their records can be reached from abroad.

Each of those decisions belongs entirely to the company. Some organizations impose all of them. Others impose none. Under current law, both are in compliance.

Nor does it matter, legally, who employs the person at the keyboard. Much of the
oversight that does exist was designed around outside vendors: the written agreements a hospital or insurer must sign with a business associate, the assessments it performs before hiring one, the attestations required when a Medicare plan hands work to a subcontractor abroad. None of that machinery engages when the person is on the company's
own payroll.

American insurers and health technology firms have spent two decades building wholly owned subsidiaries overseas, employing tens of thousands of engineers directly. Those engineers are workforce, not business associates. No agreement is required between a company and its own staff. The nationality of the employee is irrelevant to the law, as it should be. What is not irrelevant, and what no rule addresses, is that the entire apparatus of third-party scrutiny simply does not apply to the arrangement that has become the most common one.

There is one exception, and its origin is telling. The strictest rule anywhere in the
country governing where American health records may be handled was not written by a privacy regulator. It was written by a state purchasing office.

Texas requires, through the contract every managed care organization must sign to do business with its health and human services agency, that work be performed and information maintained inside the United States. The same contract bars remote access to the state's systems and data from offshore locations. It does not ask a company to describe its safeguards. It tells the company where the work may happen.

A handful of other states have reached similar conclusions by different routes, several of them through governors' executive orders barring state agencies and their subcontractors from sending work abroad. The restrictions are real, they are enforceable as contract terms, and they demonstrate that the question is neither novel nor unanswerable.

They also reveal the shape of the gap. These rules exist because a state was buying something and could set its terms. They protect the residents of those states, in those programs, and nobody else. A Texan enrolled in Medicaid is covered by a rule that a Texan with employer insurance is not, over the same records, in the same city, held by the same company. The protection follows the contract, not the patient.

There is one federal mechanism that touches the question, and it is regularly mistaken for supervision. Since a series of memoranda issued in 2007 and 2008, Medicare Advantage and prescription dr-g plan sponsors that use offshore subcontractors with access to
beneficiary health information have been required to file an attestation with the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The form is more demanding than most people assume. A sponsor must describe the information involved, explain why sending it is necessary, and state what alternatives it considered and why it rejected them.

Then the form is filed, and nothing happens. The agency does not approve it. There is no review, no license, no conditions, and no authority to refuse. A company decides, and then reports what it decided. The requirement also reaches only Medicare plans. For commercial insurance, covering most working Americans, no comparable notification exists at all.

That the government is capable of writing a firmer rule is not in question, because it
recently did, on the same data, in a fraction of the time.

In February 2024, an executive order directed the Justice Department to restrict foreign access to Americans' bulk sensitive personal information. The resulting regulation took effect in April 2025 and became enforceable that July. It names the countries it covers. It sets numerical thresholds: health information on more than 10,000 Americans,
or genetic information on more than 100. It reaches employment and vendor arrangements explicitly, and one of its own published examples treats foreign technical staff with access to encrypted health data as a prohibited transaction. Records stripped of identifying details under HIPAA can still fall within its scope.

Fourteen months, from executive order to binding rule.

The distinction was never the data. It was the framing. Asked whether foreign
adversaries might obtain American medical records, the government wrote an enforceable prohibition in a little over a year. Asked whether patients' medical records are handled carefully, it has produced, in twenty-eight years, one form that nobody reviews.

If any event was going to change that, it should have been what happened at Change Healthcare.

The company processes a substantial share of the nation's medical claims. On February 12, 2024, intruders logged into a remote access portal using stolen credentials. The portal did not require a second form of authentication. They moved through the network
for nine days before anyone noticed. By the time the company confirmed that data had been taken, it was March.

Pharmacies could not fill prescriptions. Physician practices went months without being paid. Congressional committees convened hearings, and the chief executive of the parent company testified that security procedures had not been updated after the 2022 acquisition. The company reported to federal regulators that approximately 192.7 million
people were affected, close to two thirds of the United States population. It is the
largest medical data breach ever recorded.

Two details from the aftermath have drawn less attention than they deserve.

Before the breach, Change Healthcare held a HITRUST certification for its enterprise
infrastructure, an assessment the industry treats as evidence that an organization's
security is sound. The company had publicized it. It was certified, and the portal still
had no second factor of authentication. Certification is the principal way American
health care organizations satisfy themselves that a vendor's environment is adequate, including vendors operating overseas. It did not detect the failure that brought down a third of the nation's claims traffic.

And no federal penalty has been announced. For scale, the largest fine in the history of the medical privacy law remains a $16 million settlement reached in 2018 over a breach affecting 78.8 million people, about twenty cents a record. In the first part of this year, federal regulators closed six enforcement matters with penalties totaling roughly
$1.3 million across all of them.

The formal response to the largest breach in the sector's history was a proposal. In
January 2025, regulators published a draft update to the security rule that would, among other things, require multi-factor authentication. Public comment closed that March. The proposal has not been finalized. The federal regulatory agenda now lists July 2027 as
the target. A second initiative, a set of cybersecurity performance goals, is voluntary.

More than two years on, the missing control that caused the breach is still not required by law.

There is a structural reason none of this has generated sustained pressure, and it is
not indifference. Nobody is counting.

No law obliges a vendor to disclose that it permits access from outside the country, or from employees' homes. A hospital or insurer must have a contract with its business associates, but is not required to know, and often does not know, which country a subcontractor's subcontractor is working from, or what that room looks like. Patients cannot find out. Regulators do not collect the information outside the Medicare program.
Researchers cannot measure what is not recorded. The result is a category of risk that produces no statistics, and policy in the United States rarely moves against risks that produce no statistics.

Every legal obligation in American medical privacy law attaches to the information. Not one attaches to the room.

A health plan is fully responsible for records that an employee of a subsidiary, or a contractor three tiers below it, may be reading on a personal laptop in a country nobody
at the plan could name. No rule requires the plan to know this, to prevent it, or to
tell anyone that it is so.

The law punishes the theft after it happens. About the conditions that would make it easy, it says nothing at all, and has said nothing since 2003.

Like seriously, acting like we have a culture at all that cares about healthcare when we have people's data in a snag of wires outside of an offshore building in India and forcing people with decades of experience to report to folks in India might be part of what is tanking the culture. Why not talk about that? You guys mention being genuine.

I regret coming here, toxic manager yells at me openly in meetings. My whole team is also not US based. I'm a US citizen working mostly on C++ doing bug fixes feel like this is so hard to sell even as a Sr Swe. I'm trying to leetcode/system design review but I feel so far behind. Grad school? Getting a cert? No idea how to sell this place

It’s official. A manager officially announced they installed software to monitor offshore folks. Ended up cutting 6 of them. Stated not watching FTEs but that’s a bold faced lie. If you go to the bathroom too long you’ll start being micromanaged be careful out there!

Over on the Centene Health Insurance Layoff site, they said Centene just announced that they are offshoring Medicare business.

I wonder if the same will happen here at Humana.

I just found this. There are proposed rules in the making via the FCC but the comment period has ended.
https://www.ictbroadcast.com/fcc-offshore-call-center-rules-2026/

this week everyone got to see the quality of resources from offshore during a sev1 issue call in the CSO/EdHayes Org. These folks from India cannot speak a line of English correctly, cannot articulate the problem nor the impacts, and don't even have the technical understanding.... These folks in India get hired thru recommendations, caste or region feeling or thru bribery... almost all of them who joined the bridge were remotely even qualified for the job. There is this girl who joined the call who would not understand basic instructions and the onshore experts had to come to her rescue!! Yet these crooks at the top want to ship jobs to India laying off quality talent here in the US and eventually backstabbing the american people who pay the bills for AT&T products and services!! Just crazy unbelievable that this is happening!!

If you want to curtail the bank's efforts to ship jobs overseas, push your respective critters in Congress to revive S.409: No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s409/text). Anything short of a huge public outcry or financial cost will not stop GK the MC from replacing us with offshore labor. And it's a better use of your time than donating to the PAC.

How long before we open the inevitable offshore “service center” to replace all the offices we just shut down with cheap foreign labor? I give it 18 months tops.

Last year, 85% of my team was laid off and replaced with an offshore team in India. Watching so many talented colleagues lose their jobs was incredibly difficult, and now it feels like I'm slowly being pushed out too. It's hard not to feel uncertain about my future. Has anyone else been through something like this or felt the same way?

Had a “business update” meeting. Gave essentially no information, saying layoff coming but not saying who or when. Just to expect trainings with offshore. This was weird as it involved a few different teams and they suggested that some teams will have little to no impact. Seems off that we are getting an earlier notification instead of just the one call with a definitive timeline. Why would they even tell us? I’ve heard before of departments training replacements but being told it was for additional workforce. Are they sensing that that wouldnt fly today?

I'm planning to switch jobs soon anyway, but a big reason is that as more of my team has been moved offshore, working with my newer teammates has become a lot more frustrating. The newer male hires in particular constantly interrupt me during calls, second-guess what I say, question my judgment, and never apologize even when they end up being wrong. It's gotten so bad that the people on other teams that I regularly work with on these calls have noticed and started asking me what's going on. I see the same behavior directed at our new female offshore hires, but they're much more timid and less likely to call out bad behavior like I have so they get it worse than I have. One of them keeps getting backlogged tasks pushed onto her from another male employee who keeps saying he's "delayed" on his simple debug task that he's been working on for two sprints now.

My manager was recently replaced with an offshore manager too. They said they'd talk to the new hires because they've also been on a lot of these same calls and have seen what I've brought up during our one on one meetings, but nothing has changed, quite frankly.

For about the last month I've been documenting these incidents and talking with an HR representative after submitting a ticket. So far I've mostly been told to work through my management chain or try resolving things directly with the people involved. HR has suggested it might just be cultural differences that I need to navigate. I don't think "cultural differences" explain people repeatedly dismissing my work or questioning my judgment when I've been on this project for much longer than they have. It also doesn't explain the general disrespect. I also don't think management would be very receptive to the idea that the culture of their own employees is contributing to s-xist behavior. At this point, I'm kind of fed up but already planning on leaving anyways. I was just curious to see if anyone else regardless of gender has been brushed off by HR or management regarding navigating these "cultural differences" which is being used an excuse to ignore horrible work practices by offshore since I can't imagine that's good for the long term of this company.

The offshore contractors will start getting on boarded as Full time US Bank employees. That means layoffs starting August.

Teammates were let go and replaced by offshore. The gossip was we pay Infosys less $5 per hour for offshore. There's no way onshore can compete.

I don't know whether my team will be cut in June, October, or sometime in between. We've lost so many customers who chose not to renew their contracts for our products. A lot of that seems tied to the fallout after the CHC attack, but honestly many customers were already unhappy with the level of service as more operations shifted offshore.

For those of you who have already moved on, are there any large healthcare organizations you'd recommend looking into?

American healthcare workers must demand that Optum stops the offshoring of critical IT and cybersecurity jobs. Optum is actively shipping American livelihoods to India, putting patient data security and domestic families at risk. We need to reach out to President Trump to help keep our jobs in the U.S. and end this globalist offshoring.

#AmericaFirst

I was hired last August, and my RSUs are basically nothing at this point. I'm really disappointed with how this company is run, how/who they're hiring. Most of all, I'm seeing more contractors and offshoring. This company needs to innovate, and I don't see that happening here. I'm done here, I'll start applying elsewhere. Good luck to you guys

post below has been copy pasted from Reddit, but sounds legit - sneaky and underhanded enough for Citi - because nothing, and I mean nothing, is below Citi's dignity as a firm. And the Big 4 consulting firm in question? Very likely PwC, the alma mater of some high up leaders at Citi. Or maybe EY

Post Source:Reddit

Ex Big 4 employee here. I hate to say it but more cuts are coming. I can’t say which Big 4 firm specifically, but this firm and bank have a model where Big 4 firm finds and hires the offshore India resources, proceeds to train them for certain bank roles and then essentially offloads those resources to bank’s books if bank ultimately decides they want those resources. Bank then lays off those in roles that the offshore resources were trained on and replaces the laid off employees with said resources while using “AI developments” and “economic conditions” as the final excuse. For them, it’s a great deal. Cheap resources they didn’t have to find, onboard, and train themselves while paying a structured fee to the Big 4 firm that bank gets to write off. Cheap and easy but certainly controversial. Also just inherently wrong. Bank will eventually realize that these offshore resources actually su-k and the quality of work is so bad that it will only create more work and operational constraints. Remaining employees in hard hit areas will have to manage and deal with the headache of these offshore resources while taking on greater workloads. 1st line is likely the most insulated from this. Anywhere else, best of luck. Sorry.

15yrs experienced software developer from cognizant (offshore) who is working for Nike for last few years doesn't know what is github or doesn't know the meaning of commit / repository. I mean literally some resources don't know anything and i am not sure how many companies they are working at same time. They celebrate when they hear people who make them work get laid off. ITC leaders trying to build their own empire and they don't want to hire people who are talented and have worked for same company. RIP Nike Technology!

Fixing this would take visionary leadership with courage, long-term commitment, and out-of-the-box thinking. Nothing even close is on the horizon. Fiserv will continue until there's nothing left to shovel over to leadership and shareholders. We'll keep existing in an ever-deteriorating culture until we're incapable of managing the cuts, handling the ever-increasing workload, or are replaced by offshore labor.

For whatever reason, they tried to sneak me into COBRA after my layoff. If I hadn't called to fight it I'd have had to may 800 something dollars. But for some messed up reason, they want to still make sure I pay something so I have a 300 something dollar bill (thank you useless offshore rep) that I have to once again fight.

Oh and the reps were all offshored. Man fu-k this place and its current leaders to he-l.

5ish people let go on a team of just over 50. Our department had lost multiple managed services customers since January with no new clients coming in the door. It seems that the staff losses which started in Professional Services at the end of last year are now accelerating. Client churn had always been higher than other MSPs and has only gotten worse since moving to an offshore-first service delivery strategy.

USB employs approximately 70,000 across the U.S. and globally. Where can I find statistics on the number of U.S. employees vs. offshore?

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=INR&view=5Y

The higher that goes on the chart on the right?

The cheaper indian labor is for a US corporation.

India in particular is experiencing currency collapse and this does NOT work in your favor.

Its over 30% cheaper to pay someone in india than it was 5 years ago. This means that you either need to be 30% more productive or bring in 30% more in revenue, else the bank is losing out on the labor triage (they are taking a loss by keeping you).

You can NEVER outrun currency devaluation - the differentials are just too great, the opportunity for cost savings are MASSIVE, and the executives are incentivized to make stock go up by ANY means.

Charlie chose specifically to be paid if the stock goes up.

"Show me the incentive, I will show you the outcome" -- C. Munger

If getting rid of 80000 employees means his options vest in the money? Its a no brainer what he will choose to do.

And there are zero US labor laws to stop him.

It also means that your career is dead at this bank - stop working so hard, stop worrying, re-skill into something that cannot so easily be off-shored and just wait for your severance package.

Seems like with sending jobs out of our country and their all in approach to AI, I wonder just how many jobs will be left.

Anyone know if payroll ops has been off-shored?

I heard most Wipro and Sapient contracts will being terminated or at best not be extended but it's not being announced. Just terminate one by one or not extend so it won't make big news.. I heard this from a SG32 in people team. I am 31 and have log consultants in my team. Here to see if any one else have more insights. I am tired of these constant changes. My project fund got slashed leading to hiring freeze and finally work got cancelled due to issues with delivery! They expected 3 people doing 6 peoples work, of the 3, one is in offshore with no domain knowledge. Now this...I was told I can hire another fte offshore but not onshore. wtf is going on?

AI has been just a ruse.

Hearing rumors that Gunjen wants to off shore majority of us? To subtantiate said rumors there were tons of senior leaders on site in the Plaza last week, now several are flying out to Poland next week. Managers who may have been apart of Gunjen's secret call where you were forbiden of taking notes and had your phones confiscated spill your guts please!

I just got laid off this morning. They told me there were 300 other people who got laid off. And that my job and all of theirs were going offshore.

"The company faces challenges with limited IT resources and staffing shortages in its vertical markets."
Uhhhhh, well maybe quit laying off the IT staff and hiring incompetent Offshore folks.

"The company is still in the early stages of broader commercialization of its AI offerings, which may delay potential revenue growth."
Translation. I know we SAID we an AI company, but we've never really sold AI before. (Forget about the fact that we still havent created anything AI, unless you count ChatGPT making up our press releases)