India << US_Jobs

Rohit Sinha

Chris Austin wrote: companys making a profit should be penalized for cutting jobs because this greed is starting to hurt people. This sort of protectionism reeks of communism. :suss: Those companies are making money, saving money. Who's getting hurt here? And do these companies have any kind of obligation to employ only US citizens so that they don't get hurt? If I owned a company and was forced to act against my financial interests, so that the people don't get hurt, I'd rather close shop than be hurt financially. Or maybe migrate to some other country. If a lot of companies started doing that, where would the country be? And where would the jobs go? Would you take comfort in the fact that at least now the company that laid you off is not around any more, serves them right oh yeah? At least now the money if coming to the country in the form of revenues.
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

Chris Losinger

Rohit Sinha wrote: Who's getting hurt here? i've been out of work since May. Rohit Sinha wrote: And do these companies have any kind of obligation to employ only US citizens so that they don't get hurt? no, of course not. Rohit Sinha wrote: If I owned a company and was forced to act against my financial interests but we aren't usually even given the option to work at a low rate. it's just assumed that US programmers are too expensive so we're tossed aside. my only consolation is that in 20 years Indian programmers will be too expensive too. -c

A | B - it's not a choice.

ThumbNailer

Chris Losinger

Rohit Sinha wrote: I think that's a good enough reason only if you take it out of context of the rest of my sentence. -c

A | B - it's not a choice.

ThumbNailer

Chris Losinger

Stan Shannon wrote: the heavy hand of government i'm not really sure where this comment comes from. i'm certainly not suggesting that GWB put up more protections; even though the same argument could be made for programmers that was made for steel and farming - it's a resource you don't want to lose. my complaint is that i was never given the choice between no job or less pay. cut my salary by 30%, 50% even, i'll still do the job. but companies don't do it that way. that's simply stupid. -c

A | B - it's not a choice.

ThumbNailer

Rohit Sinha

phykell wrote: anyone else got any ideas? Yes. Start your own company and outsource the work to me. :) ;P :-D
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

Rohit Sinha

Chris Losinger wrote: i've been out of work since May. Ouch! Sorry to hear that. But I thought you had your own company? Anyway, even for the rest of the people, who don't have their own company, yes they are definitely getting hurt. But the companies aren't, and the companies don't have a responsibility of people, so they can act in their own interest. Chris Losinger wrote: but we aren't usually even given the option to work at a low rate. it's just assumed that US programmers are too expensive so we're tossed aside. This is indeed unfortunate. Do you think talking to the management would help? And how many people would be willing to work for a lower wage? Will it help them in the long term? Won't it bring down the salary of everyone? So now everyone in IT will be forced to work for a lower salary, while other sectors continue to get the same salary, so it won't be attractive to join/stay in IT anymore? Chris Losinger wrote: my only consolation is that in 20 years Indian programmers will be too expensive too. Yes, but then probably some other country will take our place, so ... :| :(
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

Rohit Sinha

I wasn't trying to take it out of context, only quoting the part that I wanted to reply to. I was only trying to say that if you are running a business, money is a very important concern, as you already know. You are right that the US developers should be given a chance to match the salary demanded by other countries, but how many of them would actually take it up?
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

Giles

And call centre work, but then thats no great loss. Call centres are a techno-fordist production line. From what I've seen call centres have a bad image mainly because of poor managers treating people badly at work causing a high staff turnover. e.g. not being able to use the phone for any personal calls - e.g. I'm working late tonight. Managers taking note of toilet and tea breaks. So it goes to India were they can be paid more to do the same dull work. IT will go the way of engineering. In two ways, 1, too many people looking to get into it - and in Indias case the whole country. There are very low numbers of people doing say Physics, Maths or Chemisty/Bio Sciences in India. 2nd, the 'Work in IT' job description will be a problem. The amount of people I have met and say they work in IT, which end up meaning Data Entry or something mindless like that is amazing. It will balance out. There are a few thoughts to keep in mind. From all the aspects I've seen(and I am currently working with 2 massive outsourcing deals with 1 where I am the service, and the other the client) outsourcing it not the be all and end all. In fact the whole process is a dangerous thing to do for companies as often there is no going back. The second is that people where I work want the programmers actively working with the buisiness people, and to be where they can see them, so they can get solutions and fixes turned around as quickly as possible.

Chris Austin

Rohit Sinha wrote: This sort of protectionism reeks of communism. It has nothing to do with communism it is about ethics. Is it ethical for a CEO to get a raise after he / she sacked 500 people and moved their jobs to a developing country? Is it ethical to cut jobs without consulting your workfore if they would take a pay cut? I know lots of programmers who would have had they been given the option. Rohit Sinha wrote: Who's getting hurt here? Lots of very good engineers, programmers, and production workers. The US econmy can't continue to absorb these job losses. And to top it off there is not much of a saftey net in the US to help those workers with health care for their family. Rohit Sinha wrote: Would you take comfort in the fact that at least now the company that laid you off is not around any more Yes FUCK THEM. People work hard for these companys and the companys toss them aside to save a little money. Fuck Them. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin

Chris Losinger

Rohit Sinha wrote: how many of them would actually take it up? </raises hand>

A | B - it's not a choice.

ThumbNailer

Rohit Sinha

Chris Austin wrote: Is it ethical for a CEO to get a raise after he / she sacked 500 people and moved their jobs to a developing country? Why not? If it is good for the company, it must be good. The CEO has to serve the interest of the company. He/she must put the interest of the company before any other. That's what he/she is paid for. He/she/bee/kee/lee/I'm tired of eet :) He is just doing his job. Chris Austin wrote: Is it ethical to cut jobs without consulting your workfore if they would take a pay cut? Yes, I agree with you here, the workforce should atleast be consulted before making a decision that affects them so badly. Chris Austin wrote: Rohit Sinha wrote: Who's getting hurt here? Lots of very good engineers, programmers, and production workers. What I meant here was that the company is not getting hurt, and is free to choose whatever course of action it feels is best for its interest. Just like the workers want to get what is in their best interest, so does the company. I don't see anything unethical about it. Chris Austin wrote: People work hard for these companys and the companys toss them aside to save a little money. f*** Them. LOL. :) Another equally meaningless argument can be made that the companies spend so much money to pay the salary of these people and look how ungrateful they are. Complaining when the money is not coming to them any more. LOL. I'm sure you realize that people don't work for these companies for free. They get paid to do so. And good money too. It's a symbiotinc relationship. Both exist to serve their own interest and the relationship will exist as long as both find it profitable. As soon as the worker finds a better paying job, he moves. As soon as the company finds a worker who needs to paid less for the same amount/quality of work, they fire and hire. A similar thing is happening here in India. And nobody talks about that. Companies from outside provide better(?) goods at a cheaper rate than Indian companies (because of better technology, higher volumes, existing infrastructure, etc etc). The Indian companies are finding it very hard to compete against these foreign companies. They are complaining too. Just like you are. But that's not the way things happen. In any open economy, things will go the way of the better and the low priced. I think it's only fair. Those who are paying (companies in your ca

Rohit Sinha

Chris Losinger wrote: raises hand :) Chris, I think you should start a movement to spread awareness in the minds of employers about this. Maybe talk to your MP/MLA or whatever you have (sorry, I don't know what they are called in the US) and try to get something passed which atleast requires the employers to get a signed document from the workers that they don't want to work at a lower salary and would rather leave. If/after the workers sign, they can outsource the job. Of course even this has a number of issues to resolve, but it is at least something.
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

Chris Austin

Rohit Sinha wrote: I'm sure you realize that people don't work for these companies for free. They get paid to do so. And good money too. It's a symbiotinc relationship. Both exist to serve their own interest and the relationship will exist as long as both find it profitable. If only that were true. You alway here about it being a 50/50 relationship but that is not relality. Companys are increasingly taking advantage of workers. I've seen it many times where salaried workers are "gently" coerced into work 12 -15 hours a day by these managers because they are afraid they would lose their job. And do they get paid for this forced labor? No. Is that fair and equitable? No. My whole point is that when we forsake personal ethics for the sake of profit peoples lives are hurt. I think that is where we got it all wrong here in the US. It is easy to think about a companys well being but, it is very hard to think about the little kid who cant go to the dentist because his mom or dad lost their job to the unregulated religion capatilism. Funny thing is I was "Capatin Capatilism" in the past. But, I've seen good peoples lives damaged for the sake of the econmy. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin

Rohit Sinha

Chris Austin wrote: I've seen it many times where salaried workers are "gently" coerced into work 12 -15 hours a day by these managers because they are afraid they would lose their job. And do they get paid for this forced labor? No. Is that fair and equitable? No. Hmmm, you have a point here. But then the workers should stand up for thir rights and demand more payment for the extra work they are doing. The reality however, as you said too, is different. Chris Austin wrote: little kid who cant go to the dentist because his mom or dad lost their job to the unregulated religion capatilism. Yeah, sad isn't it? :( But I still maintain that the companies are doing nothing unethical by outsourcing. In this tight economy, it is hard to survive as it is, some companies need to outsource just to keep running by keeping the costs down, and that in turn makes it necessary for others to follow suit, so that they don't lose their edge. And sometimes, they get better talent outside. But this is just an argumentative point.
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

Chris Austin

Rohit Sinha wrote: But I still maintain that the companies are doing nothing unethical by outsourcing. In this tight economy, it is hard to survive as it is, some companies need to outsource just to keep running by keeping the costs down I have no problem with a strugling company doing this. But, my problem is when healthy and profitable companys do this and the CEO's get richer because of it. You can put any spin on it that you like but in reality it is just greed. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin

Rohit Sinha

Chris Austin wrote: You can put any spin on it that you like but in reality it is just greed. Love for money Self interest Lust Craving Greed What is wrong with any of these? As long as nobody is getting cheated/decieved, they are all perfectly fine with me.
Regards,

Rohit Sinha

Chris Austin

Rohit Sinha wrote: What is wrong with any of these? As long as nobody is getting cheated/decieved, they are all perfectly fine with me. Nothing is wrog with them in moderation. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin