Bad news for employees of this company as it plans massive sacking due to…, Indian workers among worst hit, not Narayana Murthy's Infosys, TCS, Google, Microsoft, name is…
American tech major Oracle Corporation has laid off around 10% of its employees in India and left thousands of professionals jobless overnight. While the company described the move as part of a 'restructuring exercise,' media reports link it to shifting U.S. policies under President Donald Trump like curbs on offshoring and reduced dependence on H-1B visas. Oracle Layoffs In India
According to Data Centre Dynamics , Oracle's India operations have been hit the hardest as layoffs continue in other geographies. Teams working on Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) in the U.S. are still receiving layoff notices, while employees in Canada and Mexico have also been impacted.
As of 2024, Oracle employed around 28,824 people in India. The country has been a critical hub for software development, cloud services, and technical support. It also has a presence in major metros like Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Chennai, Mumbai, Pune, Noida, and Kolkata and also in Tier-II and Tier-III cities like Chandigarh, Lucknow, Jaipur, Bhopal, and Thiruvananthapuram. Oracle Global Layoffs
In the U.S., Oracle is eliminating more than 150 positions in Seattle, majorly within its cloud infrastructure division. According to media reports, the company is still hiring for select roles focusing on specific teams. The cuts are linked to performance reviews and many believe they are also influenced by geopolitical factors and pressure to localise operations in key markets.
The announcement has just been made days after Oracle CEO Larry Wilson met U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on August 7. Oracle had also revealed a major deal with OpenAI to host massive volumes of its data on Oracle's cloud, along with a hiring push at its Virginia office in the U.S.
In Mexico, too, employees have received layoff notices, and staff in other countries have been called for undisclosed meetings, indicating more global job cuts could follow.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Friends & foes in an uncertain, shifting world
President Donald Trump's coercive tariffs on India and indulgence of Pakistan have turned euphoria about India-US partnership under his leadership into bewildered dismay and rage. The sequence and the corrosive language suggest that tariffs are a manifestation and expression of problems beyond trade. It also betrays our lack of economic leverage unlike China's. Various reasons have been attributed to his decisions that do not bear repeating here. There is politicisation of the relationship in the US not seen in the past three decades, with the White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, a Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideologue, joining the chorus of criticism on India's purchase of Russian oil. The Indian political and street mood is now, justifiably, furious at how the country has been treated by the US even as everyone realises the importance of that country and the bilateral relationship. (PTI) In India, there is domestic political impact due to the huge investment in the relationship; geopolitical ramifications because of the strategic bets we made in a shifting global environment; and, economic consequences from setback to exports and foreign direct investment (FDI) flows. Of equal concern is Pakistan. There have been multiple short-lived U-turns in the US-Pakistan relations that do not end well for either. But, every time US-Pakistan relations improve, Pakistan is emboldened in its military adventurism and terrorism against India. Pakistan also hopes to capitalise on President Trump's obsession with peace-making to inveigle him into mediating the 'Kashmir issue'. The government has been rightly firm on red lines for its sensitive sectors and sovereign choices, yet restrained in statements and open to negotiations. For a number of reasons, this is not a 1998 moment, but there are lessons from it. Amidst an absolute freeze then, India chose engagement over hostility. As then, this crisis is an opportunity to renegotiate the relationship with clarity and strength. Since the transformation of India-US relations began in 2000, there have been differences, including on ties with Russia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that both sides have navigated. The challenge, perhaps, is that we are dealing with a president with no precedence. Engagement with the US must continue and a way forward is found, without compromising our national interests. The relationship has substance, multiple dimensions and strong institutional mechanisms to provide resilience. However, beyond the vulnerabilities arising from the vicissitudes of the relationship, broad global trends require an appraisal of our policies. The transformation of India-US relations started in an era of unipolar US power reinforced by a strong transatlantic partnership. China was still not a major power and considered amenable to integration into the western order. The US–Russia relationship had not reached the present level of hostility. That geopolitical space which allowed multidirectional relationships is shrinking. There is also the expectations gap, more visible in the mature state than in the period of courtship, between a less self-assured US with unipolar ambitions and neat allies-adversaries dichotomy, and a rising India of strategic autonomy and multipolar inclinations. The fissures were beginning to appear during the Biden era. But it was papered over because of the overriding objective of containing China based on the classic American foreign policy goals and strategy of both direct containment and involvement of formal and informal alliances that necessitated accommodation of differences. President Trump will deal directly with China and pursue a different set of goals with a range of possible outcomes. With allies, the relationships will be on independent tracks based on perceived grievances and extractive possibilities, as Japan, Korea, Australia and the EU have seen or Taiwan may experience. More broadly, he has diluted or dismantled the instruments of US engagement — trade, technology, investment, aid, education, mobility, soft power, institutional reinforcement, guarantees and commitments. Even as countries are trying to negotiate a least cost agreement in the short-term, there will be the inevitable hedging, diversification and regionalisation that will diminish American power and influence, including in the Indo Pacific. China has overtaken the US in influence and power in the Asean region. Russia has weathered the worst over the past three years. Europe, buffeted by three powers, is in search of strategic influence. Trump is accelerating the erosion of West-built global institutions. Brics today evokes more interest than western institutions. Multipolarity is a rising tide. In this world of change, India's pursuit of strategic autonomy is a stronger imperative. So, as we rebuild ties with the US, we must do so on realistic foundations. At the same time, we must reinvigorate and restructure our broader global engagement, including with Russia, China and Europe, beginning with our home that is Asia and the Indian Ocean. Consistent with our values, our position must also carry the moral weight of principles, as for example on the tragedy unfolding in Gaza, which will also increase our standing in the Global South. In trade, we must do all we can to ensure competitive access to the US market, but also hasten the pursuit of other destinations that together account for over 80% of India's exports. If India is to increase exports on scale, we must pursue major economic reforms at home; invest in people, innovation and technology; and integrate more into the global value chains (GFCs). There is strong correlation between high-quality free trade agreements and global value chains, which account for 50-70% of global trade. Potential critical and bottleneck products account for around 20% in global trade, with almost 66% of the share of the exports in these products originating from East Asia-Pacific. Global trade is transitioning from multilateralism to regionalism and bilateralism, accelerated by US policies since 2008. We are on that path, too. The scope and coverage of the UK comprehensive economic and trade agreement and our EU proposal reflect our new ambitions. We must also revisit our agreements with Asian powers and find a modus vivendi with China. The government's emphasis on energy security through renewable, hydrogen and nuclear sources and on digital sovereignty is the right course. Defence capabilities and indigenisation, already a high priority, need a stronger boost. Foreign collaborations must take into partners' history, policies and geopolitical positions, and create genuine capabilities in India, not technological dependencies. For India, this crisis is an opportunity to build its future and pursue the path to be the power we wish to be. Jawed Ashraf is a former Indian ambassador. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Resisting the coercive new global trade order
How should India respond to the challenges posed by the US tariffs of 50%? Some believe that this crisis presents an opportunity for India to implement deeper economic reforms aimed at enhancing the overall competitiveness of its economy. Others argue that India should intensify its efforts to integrate with non-American economies, such as the EU. Trump has inaugurated a new chapter in the global imperial project, which his successor may continue. Efforts are underway to establish new rules for international trade. (Bloomberg) While these measures are undoubtedly necessary, many Indian analysts overlook a larger issue — the new ideological contestation on the global stage aimed at reshaping international law norms governing world trade. Many believe that US President Donald Trump has upended the rule-based international trading order established by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). However, there is a prevailing belief that this disruption is temporary. Once Trump leaves office, the status quo would be restored. This view, however, is overly sanguine. There appears to be a bipartisan consensus among both Republicans and Democrats in the US regarding the substance of Trump's actions, even though they may differ in their approach. The Biden administration did little to revive the moribund WTO during its term from 2020 to 2024. Trump has inaugurated a new chapter in the global imperial project, which his successor may continue. Efforts are underway to establish new rules for international trade. This was made clear by ambassador Jamieson Greer, the US Trade Representative. Greer posits that the US has initiated a new 'Trump round' of trade negotiations that, unlike previous rounds at the GATT and WTO, will not rely on consensus-based decision-making. The key elements of this new global trade order include legitimising American coercion for deeper market access, establishing stronger links between trade and non-trade issues like labour, and, most importantly, implementing unilateral enforcement by the US, as opposed to the apolitical dispute settlement system employed by the WTO. If these rules of coercive capitalism become codified as a new international trade order, it could be disastrous for countries in the Global South, including India. Therefore, it is essential to engage in an ideological battle on the global stage against the radical American populist right. It is crucial to understand the intriguing relationship between imperialism and international law. The mainstream belief has been that there is a clear distinction between the imperial past and modern international law. The former is often viewed as a historical anomaly, while the latter is promoted as universal and liberal, representing a narrative of decolonisation and development. However, critical international lawyers argue that international law never severed its ties with its imperial and colonial history. Genealogy, they argue, plays a crucial role in shaping international law norms. Therefore, the expansion of capitalism has played a pivotal role in the growth of international law. As India's foremost international lawyer, B S Chimni, argues, akin to the 'spirit of capitalism' — capitalism's ability to reinvent itself in different phases — there is also a 'spirit of international law'. This spirit allows international law to evolve continually, ably disguising imperial ambitions within the narrative of progress. On one hand, international law presents itself as a universal tool that promotes the global common good and aims to establish a just world order. On the other hand, it also reinforces the imperial agendas of the Global North. The evolution of the multilateral trade order from the establishment of GATT in 1948 to the formation of the WTO in 1995 and beyond reflects the 'spirit of international law.' This rule-based international trade system, influenced by the assertiveness of the decolonised world, made several concessions to developing countries by recognising principles such as non-discrimination, special and differential treatment, preferential market access, and a depoliticized dispute settlement system that aims to resolve trade disputes without resorting to coercive trade diplomacy. Simultaneously, international trade law has promoted and exported American and European norms, leading to their universal adoption. A notable example is the treatment of intellectual property rights (IPR). Economist Robert Reich argues that private property is a fundamental element of the Western capitalist model based on free markets. Over time, the rules governing the protection of private property have expanded to include new types of property, such as IPR. International trade law has played a vital role in establishing binding rules for the global enforcement of IPR through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement within the WTO. This framework primarily benefits the corporate interests of countries in the Global North, often at the expense of those in the Global South. Another significant example is agricultural trade. The US and the EU provide substantial subsidies to their agricultural sectors. They managed to include an Agreement on Agriculture in the WTO rulebook, allowing them to continue offering significant subsidies to their farmers. Despite its weaknesses, the WTO systemoffers a platform for deeper engagement and the possibility of reform. It provides an opportunity to mainstream the development argument and hold the Global North accountable in a depoliticised international court. The consensus-based decision-making process has mostly prevented the adoption of rules inimical to the developing world. However, the emerging global trade order appears to be unabashedly imperial, abandoning any pretensions of development and equity and sacrificing the spirit of international law. It unapologetically aims to legitimise unilateralism and coercion, validating the connection between imperialism and international law that critical international lawyers draw. Consequently, the Global South, particularly India, must engage in an ideological battle to defend the existing order. For India, the stakes extend beyond mere market access or a trade deal with the US. India must be at the vanguard in defending the WTO-based international trade system, which, while not perfect, is certainly preferable to the impending new imperial trade order. Prabhash Ranjan is professor and vice-dean (research), Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University. The views expressed are personal.
Economic Times
31 minutes ago
- Economic Times
US–Russia Alaska talks — Russian delegation outweighs Washington's defensive line… are Putin's traps set for an ambush in Alaska?
Synopsis US–Russia Alaska talks take a tense turn as Vladimir Putin arrives with a seasoned team of diplomats, war strategists, and economic heavyweights, outnumbering Washington's more loyalty-driven inner circle. The meeting comes as the Ukraine war stalls, sanctions bite, and Moscow seeks both territorial recognition and relief from Western restrictions. Putin's delegation blends old guard skill with sharp economic tactics, while Trump's side leans on trusted allies and financiers. AP U.S. President Donald Trump , left, and Russian President Vladimir men, more experience, and a sharper playbook — Putin's side to arrive in Alaska with the upper hand, and Washington knows it. Trump–Putin Alaska meet: The stage is set for one of the most lopsided power matchups in recent U.S.–Russia diplomacy. Donald Trump's negotiating table in Anchorage will be facing not just Vladimir Putin, but a Russian delegation designed like a war cabinet — heavier on experience, deeper in institutional memory, and sharper in technical expertise than the American side. The optics alone suggest this isn't a balanced chessboard. The Alaska talks come as the Ukraine war grinds into its fourth year. Kyiv's summer counter-offensives have slowed to a crawl, U.S. military aid is facing congressional pushback, and Russia's economy — despite sanctions — grew 3.6% in 2024 according to Rosstat, driven by a wartime manufacturing boom. For Putin, this summit is a chance to lock in battlefield gains without firing a shot. For Trump, it's an opportunity to deliver on his 'peace through deal-making' promise — but at the risk of alienating NATO allies who still view Russia as the aggressor. This is where the 'ambush' metaphor takes shape. Russian delegation : A blend of Cold War-era diplomats, war economy strategists, and financial operatives with direct channels to U.S. business networks. Many have been negotiating with Washington since before Trump entered politics. : A blend of Cold War-era diplomats, war economy strategists, and financial operatives with direct channels to U.S. business networks. Many have been negotiating with Washington since before Trump entered politics. U.S. delegation: Heavy on loyalists and financiers, light on career Russia hands. Only a few members have deep, technical experience in Kremlin negotiations. In raw diplomatic firepower, Moscow is fielding more players who can switch between political, military, and economic arguments mid-conversation — a tactic that often throws less-seasoned negotiators off balance. — Kirill A. Dmitriev (@kadmitriev) August 15, 2025 For Trump, the summit is a chance to broker what he calls a 'real deal' — one that could reduce U.S. spending on Ukraine while opening new economic corridors with Russia. For Putin, it's an opportunity to erode Western unity, secure partial sanctions relief, and cement territorial gains. At 75, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is the Kremlin's longest-serving foreign policy chief since Andrei Gromyko. His tenure, stretching back to 2004, has seen him defend Russia's positions from Iraq to Crimea to Ukraine. Once respected in Western capitals, Lavrov now embodies Moscow's hardline pivot — his presence here signals no softening of Russia's core demands. Yuri Ushakov, 78, once Russia's ambassador to the U.S., is fluent in American political language and culture. His behind-the-scenes role is critical: he shapes Putin's talking points and ensures no off-script commitments. If Lavrov is the attack dog, Ushakov is the quiet chess player. A surprise appointment as defence minister in 2024, Andrei Belousov is not a general but an economist. His task has been to turn Russia's budget into a war-funding machine without triggering economic collapse. Expect him to push for terms that protect Russia's industrial expansion in occupied territories. At 50, Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, is Putin's conduit to the U.S. business elite. Stanford- and Harvard-educated, he's reportedly pitched joint Arctic infrastructure projects to Trump allies. His presence suggests Moscow sees financial carrots as a key negotiating lever. Anton Siluanov, 62, coined the phrase 'fortress economy' — Moscow's blueprint for surviving sanctions. His role in Alaska will be to explore the price, in economic concessions, of any peace settlement. Marco Rubio, 54, serves as both secretary of state and acting national security adviser — the first to do so since Henry Kissinger. His hawkish stance on Russia could clash with Trump's conciliatory approach, but his inclusion reassures European allies wary of a unilateral U.S. deal. As CIA director, John Ratcliffe straddles the line between Trump's political aims and the intelligence community's assessments. His record shows a willingness to pressure Kyiv toward negotiations, but also a recognition of Ukraine's staying power. Real estate magnate Steve Witkoff is perhaps the most unconventional player here. With no diplomatic background, his meetings with Putin have sometimes echoed Kremlin talking points — unnerving Kyiv. His closeness to Trump makes him a potential backchannel of real influence. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are both Wall Street heavyweights. Their brief in Alaska is clear: explore economic incentives that could make a deal palatable to Moscow, especially in energy, trade, and Arctic ventures. While Putin's team mixes decades of diplomatic and military experience with economic pragmatists, Trump's delegation leans heavily on personal loyalty and business connections. That imbalance could matter — seasoned Russian negotiators have historically exploited gaps in U.S. expertise, especially when talks turn technical. Trump's decision to leave Vice-President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth off the list removes two voices with military focus, while Putin has his defence chief and top economic minds at the table. The immediate stakes are clear: Ukraine's territorial integrity – Will Trump pressure Kyiv to accept a freeze along current front lines? – Will Trump pressure Kyiv to accept a freeze along current front lines? Sanctions relief – Moscow's top economic demand. – Moscow's top economic demand. U.S.–Russia business ties – Particularly in Arctic shipping routes and energy infrastructure. – Particularly in Arctic shipping routes and energy infrastructure. NATO unity – A unilateral U.S. deal could fracture the alliance. History shows that one-on-one Trump–Putin meetings, from Helsinki 2018 to Osaka 2019, often produce moments of unpredictability. The Alaska summit is no different — except this time, the war in Ukraine hangs in the balance. If there is movement toward a ceasefire, markets will react instantly. Expect the ruble, currently trading near 92 to the dollar, to strengthen on any credible sign of sanctions relief, while Ukrainian bonds could tumble if Kyiv is seen as conceding ground. Sergei Lavrov – At 75, he's Putin's foreign minister since 2004, with a track record of turning hostile press rooms into propaganda wins. Yuri Ushakov – The quiet operator, fluent in Washington politics, and a veteran of backchannel diplomacy from his time as Russia's ambassador to the U.S. (1998–2008). Andrei Belousov – Defence minister and economist; tasked with converting Russia's battlefield control into industrial dominance. Kirill Dmitriev – Harvard and Stanford-educated head of the $10bn Russian Direct Investment Fund, here to tempt Trump with Arctic and energy deals. Anton Siluanov – Finance minister since 2011, architect of the so-called 'fortress economy' designed to withstand Western sanctions. Marco Rubio – Secretary of State and acting national security adviser; hawkish on Russia but politically isolated in Trump's inner circle. John Ratcliffe – CIA director; loyal to Trump, pragmatic on intelligence, but aligned with the president's desire for a quick settlement. Steve Witkoff – Special envoy and property magnate; no diplomatic experience but trusted implicitly by Trump — a potential backchannel for sensitive proposals. Scott Bessent – Treasury secretary; Wall Street veteran tasked with exploring sanctions relief and investment opportunities. Howard Lutnick – Commerce secretary; hard-driving negotiator with deep financial ties but no Russia background. Russian Delegation Role US Delegation Role Sergei Lavrov Foreign Minister – in post since 2004, veteran diplomat, architect of Moscow's foreign policy Marco Rubio Secretary of State – also Acting National Security Adviser, hawkish on Russia/China Yuri Ushakov Foreign Policy Adviser – veteran aide, former ambassador to US John Ratcliffe CIA Director – ex-DNI, Trump loyalist, measured on Ukraine Andrei Belousov Defence Minister – technocrat, focuses on war economy and anti-corruption in military Steve Witkoff Special Envoy – Trump confidant, real estate mogul, pro-Moscow leanings Kirill Dmitriev Russian Direct Investment Fund Chief – US-educated, pitches Arctic cooperation Scott Bessent Treasury Secretary – billionaire investor, economic dealmaker Anton Siluanov Finance Minister – architect of 'fortress economy' under sanctions Howard Lutnick Commerce Secretary – Wall Street power broker, close Trump ally — — Karoline Leavitt Press Secretary – controls White House messaging — — Susie Wiles Chief of Staff – top Trump political strategist — — Dan Scavino Deputy Chief of Staff – Trump's longtime media aide Economic bait : Dmitriev's Arctic infrastructure proposals could lock U.S. companies into long-term ventures that outlast any ceasefire. : Dmitriev's Arctic infrastructure proposals could lock U.S. companies into long-term ventures that outlast any ceasefire. Narrative control : Lavrov's skill lies in framing U.S. concessions as Russian victories — even if the text says otherwise. : Lavrov's skill lies in framing U.S. concessions as Russian victories — even if the text says otherwise. Side-channel diplomacy: Witkoff's personal rapport with Putin could lead to off-record promises invisible to the official communique. These tactics have precedent. In the 2018 Helsinki summit, Trump's closed-door session with Putin — without aides — left U.S. officials scrambling to clarify what was agreed. Similar dynamics could play out in Anchorage. Putin's team is built to attack from multiple angles — diplomatic, economic, and narrative — and to come away with something tangible even if formal negotiations stall. Trump's team is built to please the president and close a deal quickly. That difference alone could decide who leaves Alaska with the upper hand. In the end, this summit may not be remembered for its handshake photo but for the fine print that follows. And if history is any guide, the real moves may be made when the cameras are gone — exactly where an ambush delivers its blow.
