Yet another company tried to screw the workers

[EagleFan]

Sometimes it takes some cold water thrown in your face to wake you up. I have recently gone to work for a different company. I just learned today, and became extremely pissed when learning, that there is talk of out-sourcing system redevelopment to India. The head guy is from India, so there's no big surprise I guess.

This pissed me off to no ends. This has got to stop!!!! It's supposedly not going to adffect my position, though I feel that my specialty is system redesign-- but it's not my actual position.

There has got to be a system put in place to punish companies for doing this, even tax breaks for hiring Americans. I have no idea what my next move will be but I feel that I can't just sit by and watch this happen without at least voicing my opinion.

This administration, or AN administration, needs to stop this process, or at least make it difficult to do. Anyone in opwer right now who does not feel this needs to change should be voted out ASAP, republican or democrat. I have to draw the line somewhere.


Sorry, just had to vent.

[Joe]

so companies shouldn't be allowed to shrink their overhead? they exist to make money.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

so companies shouldn't be allowed to shrink their overhead? they exist to make money.

Not when it means screwing the workers.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I have to draw the line somewhere.

Apparently that somewhere is where it affects you.

[jeff061]

My company is the same way, right down to the head guy being Indian. Shit or get off the can I say. Nothing you can do about it.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Apparently that somewhere is where it affects you.

This doesn't even directly affect me. What pissed me off is knownig several people who are uncertain abou their position (because their company was bought out) and would be perfect at doing something like this but will never get a chance.

Sometimes things don't hit you until they hit a little closer to home. (Example: how many people are as concerend about the crime rate until the house next door gets robbed?)

[stkelly52]

If a company can get equal production for half of the cost by sending the work to India, then that is what the company should do. That is free enterprize. If all of the affected workers were willing to accept a 50% pay cut, the company might reconsider. But I doubt that they would like that option either.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Not when it means screwing the workers.

How are they "screwing" workers? It sucks for the workers, but the company only exists to make money.

[Suicane75]

EF, if another company offered you 50% more to do the same job, i bet you would take it. It sucks I know, but it's life.

[Buccaneer]

How is that different than any other turnovers/layoffs/closings/etc. in private business since the beginning of time?

I'm not one to be heartless in situations like this (my dad went through it 4 times in the 70s and 80s) but if you are the owner or maor shareholder in the company, what would you do when others are willing to work for less pay?

[EagleFan]

What the hell, then lets just ship all jobs over-seas. I'm not freaking talking about just getting people to do it cheaper, it's about moving the jobs out of the country. That has to stop. If you tell me they are getting cheap labor from American citizens, then more power to them. Sending jobs over-seas has to stop. Taking paychecks from American citizens to give them to people in third world, God-forsaken places, is just plain wrong.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

What the hell, then lets just ship all jobs over-seas. I'm not freaking talking about just getting people to do it cheaper, it's about moving the jobs out of the country. That has to stop. If you tell me they are getting cheap labor from American citizens, then more power to them. Sending jobs over-seas has to stop. Taking paychecks from American citizens to give them to people in third world, God-forsaken places, is just plain wrong.

Ok, now ya lost me.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Outsourcing is a tough nut to crack. My job got outsourced to China a couple years back. My group was retasked and most of us weren't laid off (others weren't as fortunate). The new work we got sucked, and I quit less than a year later and am now back in school. The companies really don't have much of a choice. They were able to buy the product we were developing for a fraction of the cost that it was costing for us to make it. It's a competitive market, and they can't afford not to pull the trigger on that. Money just goes a hell of a lot further in China and India.

I don't think we can or should stop outsourcing; the global economy as a whole is better when the 3rd world nations are making positive contributions. But the US should be taking a long look at what remains that can be done profitably here. It has to be high end stuff with big margins to justify high overhead of doing business in the US. And there ought to be some sort of program in place to help transition workers from losing industries into still viable and emerging industries. We've already lost much of the manufacturing sector and we're seeing large swaths of white collar work shipped out now too, and there's no logical stopping point. A very small portion of the Chinese and Indian populations are involved in this work at this point. They still have huge untapped labor markets. It will take a long time before their overall living standards and employment costs rise to the point that outsourcing stops being an attractive option (estimates I've seen say 30 years or more). We shouldn't run from globalism, but we should put some sensible strategies in place to make our workforce more flexible and mobile so that they can stay at the forefront of emerging markets where they can be profitable. It is not a good idea economically or socially to see entire sectors of the labor market left by the wayside.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

What the hell, then lets just ship all jobs over-seas. I'm not freaking talking about just getting people to do it cheaper, it's about moving the jobs out of the country. That has to stop. If you tell me they are getting cheap labor from American citizens, then more power to them. Sending jobs over-seas has to stop. Taking paychecks from American citizens to give them to people in third world, God-forsaken places, is just plain wrong.

India is not third world, nor God-forsaken, as evidenced by the fact that they are taking America's jobs. They will use the money from those jobs to buy more things. Some of those things will be American things, which will create more jobs in America. Economics work best when everyone is doing what they have a comparative advantage in.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

India is not third world, nor God-forsaken, as evidenced by the fact that they are taking America's jobs. They will use the money from those jobs to buy more things. Some of those things will be American things, which will create more jobs in America. Economics work best when everyone is doing what they have a comparative advantage in.

Again, don't bother introducing facts to these rants. The concept of comparative advantage is always drowned out by South Park-esque "They're taking er jobs!" hysteria.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Sometimes it takes some cold water thrown in your face to wake you up. I have recently gone to work for a different company. I just learned today, and became extremely pissed when learning, that there is talk of out-sourcing system redevelopment to India. The head guy is from India, so there's no big surprise I guess.

This is the stupidist thing I've heard, and more than a little offensive - the guy is Indian, so its obvious that's why he shipping the jobs to India ? How about the fact that he's the head guy, and doing what's best for the company ?

[Coder]

This is the signs of the modern economy unfortunately.. the companies always seem to be cutting margins to increase profit.. all to increase the stock-price.. and that's kind of what bothers me.. take Ford for example.. company is losing money.. they're cutting costs back and forth.. no new employees can be hired, no salary increases, no no, you can't buy new pencils for the department, etc.. then you hear that Bubba Ford (Bill) got a $20 million bonus last year.. because the stock prices went up and that's what his bonus is based on.

Companies today are more focused on the stock market than on getting a good product out.. there's no passion behind the products the way it was.. it's all about cutting costs and earning as much money as before..

Yeah I know I'm sounding like a communist, but hey, I'm Swedish (I'm more capitalist than most Swedes)..

However, think about this for a while.. if a company is making products for the American market, but outsourcing the job to foreign countries.. how are Americans going to afford to buy their products?

[Flasch186]

Welcome to the left, Funny hypocrisy the right shows. We are isolationists in our double speak about Home security but we want to grant visas to "illegals" and not fund border protection PLUS our entire infratructure, the right, thinks should be open to be completely reliant on anyone anywhere. Quite the disconnect there but what it really, really boils down to, for the right, is money. They need the illegals, they need more money in their pockets, they want to open the borders to everyone yet say they want to protect us...its crazy but on the right (not the religious rigth - thats a whole 'nother animal) it's the talk. How can you protect the borders when you add incentives to being illegal and dont fund protection?

Maybe someday we wont be so dependent on oil but the way things are going our intellectual rights, R&D, and infrastructure will be run from overseas....protecting our future is an afterthought, Im afraid.

[st.cronin]

Flasch I want to know what you're talking about but your grammar is killing me. Could you rephrase please?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Flasch I want to know what you're talking about but your grammar is killing me. Could you rephrase please?

Welcome to the left. Funny hypocrisy, the Right shows. The Right are isolationists in their double speak about Home security but they want to grant visas to "illegals" and not fund border protection PLUS our entire infratructure, the Right thinks, should be open to be completely reliant on anyone anywhere. Quite the disconnect there but what it really, really boils down to, for the Right, is money. They need the illegals, they need more money in their pockets, they want to open the borders to everyone yet say they want to protect us...its crazy but on the right (not the religious right - thats a whole 'nother animal) it's the talk. How can you protect the borders when you add incentives to being illegal and dont fund protection?

Maybe someday we wont be so dependent on oil but the way things are going our intellectual rights, R&D, and infrastructure will be run from overseas....protecting our future is an afterthought, Im afraid.

[st.cronin]

Hmmmmm

I don't think it breaks down quite the way you think in terms of left/right Flasch. Plenty of lefties I know who are all for throwing open our borders, and lots of conservatives who are on the opposite pole.

My own point of view: Our economy doesn't have enough low-skilled workers. Increased immigration is the answer. And we shouldn't worry about the jobs that go overseas, we should be getting out of, say, manufacturing, anyway. America should be gearing it's economy on research and other high education arenas - our strength at this moment in history is that we have the best educated populace in the world. So whatever jobs we have here that can be done by other people, well we don't WANT those jobs here. We want better jobs.

You may think me eccentric, though.

[Greyroofoo]

all i can say is that I'm afraid where this country is heading

[dawgfan]

I have a tough time reconciling my positions on globalization, outsourcing and free trade.

On the one hand, I think that these things are both inevitable and ultimately good for the standard of living throughout the world. Nature abhors a vacuum, and when the cost of doing business is vastly less expensive in other parts of the world, it's rather difficult to justify not taking advantage of that opportunity. Over time, those areas where outsourcing is occurring will grow in prosperity, which will have many tangible, positive benefits - the people in those countries will experience a higher standard of living, and those areas will be more likely to demand democratic governments, create a heavy demand for peace, reduce the ability of religious extremists and terrorists to thrive and in general, produce more world stability.

On the other hand, there are many factors that go into creating situations where the cost of doing business is vastly less expensive in one part of the world vs. another part, many of which involve standards of environmental stewardship and worker's rights that most of us in the U.S. would find objectionable in our own country. And, as globalization continues, it may well be that one of the effects is a continuing widening of the gap between rich and poor in this country, as more and more of the blue-collar labor force faces diminishing pay or risk losing their jobs altogether, while the upper-management/CEO level of people gets wealthier and wealthier from cutting costs by outsourcing and reaping huge bonuses/stock benefits. And, it is not easy to ask large portions of our workforce to face either education/training to try and find new work and keep it affordable.

I guess my position is, as long as we hold to some standards of business behavior in our outsourcing, I can't really complain too much about it. Ensure that our outsourcing isn't resulting in fucking over the environment, contributing to the sole benefit of corrupt regimes, and not subjecting workers to abusive labor conditions, and I really can't complain about it - though I'm sure I will if my job goes away.

One thing to keep in mind about outsourcing - some companies have found that it's more trouble than it's worth and are discontinuing it. The difficulties of language, distance, time differences and cultural differences in some cases outweigh the cheaper labor. And, as long as we adequately invest in our educational system and keep our schools and universities at the top in terms of quality, the better able our population will be to stay at the forefront of business and retain high level job opportunities.

[JediKooter]

Unless there are some sort of tax penalties inacted, unfortunately, the exodus of jobs will continue. I think instead of taxing these companies punatively, they should have to pay for vocational and college courses of the people who lost their jobs. The only thing that I can think of, find a job field where your job can't be accomplished via a phone line.

Notice you never see any CEO's jobs that get outsourced?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Welcome to the left. Funny hypocrisy, the Right shows. The Right are isolationists in their double speak about Home security but they want to grant visas to "illegals" and not fund border protection PLUS our entire infratructure

Hold up right there, I couldn't disagree more. Out here in Arizona, the conservatives are being branded as racist by the democrats in the legislature and the governor. This is because (to a person) they all support tougher measures against illegals, tighter border security and more hurdles for illegals to jump over to get US social services, education and jobs. If you look at California, Texas and Arizona, you see the right trying desperately to require IDs to vote, checks on citizenship for services, tougher immigration deportation standards and even putting more of a military presence on the border. The left (esp in Arizona) is trying to cater to the hispanic vote and wants no IDs for voting, few checks/restrictions for education and social services, very little deportation and as close to open borders as possible.

the Right thinks, should be open to be completely reliant on anyone anywhere. Quite the disconnect there but what it really, really boils down to, for the Right, is money. They need the illegals, they need more money in their pockets, they want to open the borders to everyone yet say they want to protect us...its crazy but on the right (not the religious right - thats a whole 'nother animal) it's the talk.

This is about as wrong as you can possibly be. All I would say is check out the Arizona and California legislative attempts by both republicans and democrats and tell me how republicans "want to open the borders to everyone".

To the issue of illegal workers, many republicans (myself included) are in favor of some sort of guest worker program that allows immigrants to enter legally on a type of work VISA. But, I'd be real interested to learn of one of the numerous republicans in the Senate, House or state legislature from Arizona that wants to "open the border" to illegals. I can, however, point you to numerous Arizona state democrats (the biggest are Ben Miranda and the governor) that would love for us to have open borders and have gone so far as to Veto tougher immigration standards with bi-partisan support.

Originally Posted by Eaglefan

This pissed me off to no ends. This has got to stop!!!! It's supposedly not going to adffect my position, though I feel that my specialty is system redesign-- but it's not my actual position.

If it makes you feel any better, my former employer (Honeywell), Dell computers, AT&T and numerous other high-tech firms have recalled jobs from overseas for complaints on service (phone support) and quality. I think US compaies are starting to understand that the loss in production (and management ability) is not worth the savings in labor for many positions. So, there will always be a limit to how much outsourcing occurs (around 4-5% of total workforce) and that will easily be offset by jobs from non-US companies like BMW, Sony, Panasonic and others. In the end, outsourcing is a part of the new global economy we live in but it will never be enough to significantly offset our workforce and always be balanced out by numerous European and Asian companies that provide US jobs to get easier access to US businesses/consumers.

[Galaxy]

So,
What about Japanesee companies that are "American-made" then our own Big 3?
Companies do not belong to "one nation" anymore. They just call a country home and operate from their. What about the the introduction of robotic machines that allow companies to let employees go and eliminate jobs? Should we tax them?

We need to as a country, not turn to the government for "taxes". Businesses are just doing what they are doing. Stop buying at Wal-Mart, ect. We can't have it both ways. Also, I think we need to reconsider our "worth" to compete. We, collectively as a country, expect pretty big pays. We spit at getting paid less then we think we should deserve. I think that we need to reconsider that in order to compete.

As for Bill Ford, the guy receive $0 in salary. Key word is: BONUS. He must of hit certain standards set forth. And I believe alot of the bonus was stock. Was it fair? I don't know. I haven't look too closely at Ford and the company.

[st.cronin]

Arles and Flasch, I think it's a border state thing. It's an issue that's taken more seriously in Texas as opposed to Utah. So which politicians control the border states, and how are they maneuvering to get votes... it's not really a left/right thing at all.

imo

[cuervo72]

It's not? I thought it was a pretty clear case of minorities or those lower on the economic ladder voting predominantly Democrat...so the Dems want them in, the GOP wants them out.

(Sure there are other angles to this...but that's one)

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Again, don't bother introducing facts to these rants. The concept of comparative advantage is always drowned out by South Park-esque "They're taking er jobs!" hysteria.

They took'r jobs!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Arles and Flasch, I think it's a border state thing. It's an issue that's taken more seriously in Texas as opposed to Utah. So which politicians control the border states, and how are they maneuvering to get votes... it's not really a left/right thing at all.

imo

No way. There's not one vocal democrat in the Arizona legislature or state office that has come out in force to prevent illegal immigration. I can think of about 25 republicans that have. This IS a left/right issue - especially in states like California, Texas and Arizona.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

It's not? I thought it was a pretty clear case of minorities or those lower on the economic ladder voting predominantly Democrat...so the Dems want them in, the GOP wants them out.

(Sure there are other angles to this...but that's one)

The GOP is starting to court the Hispanic 'value voter' bloc just as much as the Dems are going after the poor Hispanics.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Arles

No way. There's not one vocal democrat in the Arizona legislature or state office that has come out in force to prevent illegal immigration. I can think of about 25 republicans that have. This IS a left/right issue - especially in states like California, Texas and Arizona.

Yes, sorry - part of my point is that when you go to someplace like Minnesota or Ohio the sides could be different, depending on what's happening locally.

Also, I believe Bush (R-Texas) and McCain (R-Arizona) are both on the OTHER side of the issue as you are describing it, or at least are more moderate than you are painting the sides.

[EagleFan]

Wow, I am actually leaning towards flasch on an issue and Arles doesn;t seem too far from that point, just phrased a little differently. I think this may be the seventh sign.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Hold up right there, I couldn't disagree more. Out here in Arizona, the conservatives are being branded as racist by the democrats in the legislature and the governor. This is because (to a person) they all support tougher measures against illegals, tighter border security and more hurdles for illegals to jump over to get US social services, education and jobs. If you look at California, Texas and Arizona, you see the right trying desperately to require IDs to vote, checks on citizenship for services, tougher immigration deportation standards and even putting more of a military presence on the border. The left (esp in Arizona) is trying to cater to the hispanic vote and wants no IDs for voting, few checks/restrictions for education and social services, very little deportation and as close to open borders as possible.


This is about as wrong as you can possibly be. All I would say is check out the Arizona and California legislative attempts by both republicans and democrats and tell me how republicans "want to open the borders to everyone".

To the issue of illegal workers, many republicans (myself included) are in favor of some sort of guest worker program that allows immigrants to enter legally on a type of work VISA. But, I'd be real interested to learn of one of the numerous republicans in the Senate, House or state legislature from Arizona that wants to "open the border" to illegals. I can, however, point you to numerous Arizona state democrats (the biggest are Ben Miranda and the governor) that would love for us to have open borders and have gone so far as to Veto tougher immigration standards with bi-partisan support.


If it makes you feel any better, my former employer (Honeywell), Dell computers, AT&T and numerous other high-tech firms have recalled jobs from overseas for complaints on service (phone support) and quality. I think US compaies are starting to understand that the loss in production (and management ability) is not worth the savings in labor for many positions. So, there will always be a limit to how much outsourcing occurs (around 4-5% of total workforce) and that will easily be offset by jobs from non-US companies like BMW, Sony, Panasonic and others. In the end, outsourcing is a part of the new global economy we live in but it will never be enough to significantly offset our workforce and always be balanced out by numerous European and Asian companies that provide US jobs to get easier access to US businesses/consumers.

in short...granting worker visas to people coming illegally is moot and a swerve, The RIGHT is trying to give them to thosealready here illegally. The admin's immigration czar said he CANNOT enforce the borders and doesn't have a plan to. While requiring ID's to vote is one thing (good - but nothing to do with security) some Republicans are trying to do the right thing and some Dems. are trying to do the wrong thing (IMO) to court votes. THIS however doesnt go to the point....

there is a disconnect on the right in what they are sying they are trying to do with homeland security and their lack of desire to enforce the immigration laws, add more money to border patrols, and keep our infrastructure intact. Having the borders be a sieve, giving foreigners more incentives to cross the borders illegally, and throwing up your hands to the issue at hand goes against the idea of homeland security...sure lines the wallets of big business though having all that cheap undocumented labor to use.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Wow, I am actually leaning towards flasch on an issue and Arles doesn;t seem too far from that point, just phrased a little differently. I think this may be the seventh sign.

Did I mention that I have horns?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Yes, sorry - part of my point is that when you go to someplace like Minnesota or Ohio the sides could be different, depending on what's happening locally.

Also, I believe Bush (R-Texas) and McCain (R-Arizona) are both on the OTHER side of the issue as you are describing it, or at least are more moderate than you are painting the sides.

Bush has always been more of a moderate on immigration (one of my main sources of contention with him), but most of the conservatives are very tough on illegals. McCain is one of the more moderate congressmen on the issue, but he's still been for tougher borders and more limits on illegals (including supporting the need for ID - something most democrats do not). But, if I wanted a poster-boy for the conservative view on immigration, I would look at the other Arizona senator (Jon Kyl). He's been a main catalyst in immigration legislation and has single-handedly made the senate deal with the issue on numerous occassions. I don't know of a peer on the left to Kyl.