Practically speaking, the person who stays has three months salary, plus severance and then unemployment. The person who quits loses their entire income stream immediately.
Do you think your small act of defiance has a bigger impact on you, or on the company? Now imagine you have a family at home that depends on your income and do the math again.
If people affected banded together and all defied the company, the company would find itself in a difficult situation. If the then became standard procedure for workers affected by offshoring, companies would hesitate to do this. It would have to be much more organic and would have diminished and drawn out impact on workers. Yes companies could open foreign offices, etc., but it’s more work and fewer companies would consider the option. Today then simply say “we’re transitioning network and security to an ATT, Verizon, etc. organization based in (some low COL geography).” If companies had had pushback over the last 25 years, they’d be less likely to consider the option.
Of course that's true, and I'll happily join the United Technology Workers Union when it exists. In the meantime, I don't think you can fault people for taking the safest option for their families instead of sticking it to the man.
Yes, but that ship sailed. Bernie Sanders used to be for the American worker. He used to block re-settling refugees in his state. Nowadays even he doesn't care to curb immigration or off-shoring. Some people in the Trump admin make motions about curbing some (unnecessary legal) immigration (ala Canada and Australia -vetting for skills needed). Very few want to curb offshoring. Both Democrats and Republicans monetarily benefit from offshoring and increasing competition for American workers. Elon pretends his companies could not run without more imported workers --sure, I get it, you don't want to bother to train a capable local population, much of which is descended from relatively recent immigrants.
