[biztech-discussion] Prioritization
- From: Bruce Hartford <bruceh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: biztech-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:56:02 -0700
I apologize for this late response to Al's thoughtful posting
"Offshoring Issues" of April 29, but I had some trouble getting
subscribed to this list.
We have very limited resources and I think that we have to be
realistic in what we plan. The entire business/corporate lobby &
power-structure strongly favor off-shoring and are dead set against
any government restrictions on it. The corporate mass media echoes
their position. They have been largely successful in winning broad
public support for "free-enterprise" and "free-market" ideologies.
Even a "progressive" show like "Westwing" took the stance that
(despite some hand-wringing) off-shoring is unstoppable and in the
long-run beneficial to all. Democratic candidate Kerry mouths
platitudes about "job creation" but it is clear to me that in the
unlikely event he is elected he will do nothing to restrict off-
shoring.
We are facing an "free-market," "global-competition" ideologic tidal
wave with the entire weight of corporate greed behind it. Even our
core constituency has been swept up in the fervor and drumbeat of this
political juggernaut. For example, a freelance tech writer on the
STC's Independent Contractors discussion list was offered a job
writing a corporate HR procedures manual for the explicit purpose of
moving all HR jobs to India. He had some moral qualms, so he asked the
list if he should take the job. The overwhelming response from that
list -- who are our core constituency -- echoed the now dominant
"global competition" paradigm (I've appended salient quotes from that
discussion to this message).
We've seen such political tsunamis before, and experience has proven
that standing in front of a mental stampede with arms out-stretched
crying "no" is futile, and only results in being rolled over. The only
way to subvert a powerful new paradigm is to narrowly attack it at its
most vulnerable point. If we can get people and politicians to
question *one* aspect of off-shoring it becomes much easier to broaden
the doubt to other aspects. If we can win political support of
limiting *one* aspect of off-shoring it becomes possible to broaden
that limitation to other aspects.
The most vulnerable point of the "global-competition,"
"off-shoring-is-good" stampede are the national and personal security
issues that Al alluded to in his issues summary. The job loss, harm to
community economies, fairness, and similar arguments have not been
effective. They have been put forward in many different contexts by
labor and others and proven futile. In my opinion, only the security
arguments have shown any hope of getting people -- both our core
constituency and the public at large -- to question the globalization
off-shoring paradigm.
Previously I tried to circulate an in-depth analysis of the security
issues, but I guess it was too long and very few people read it. If
this list wishes, I can redistribute it as a PDF file.
What I suggest is that we initially focus on those issues, using them
as a wedge to force open debate on other aspects off-shoring. For
example, we could compile a short set of specific security-related
off-shoring questions that we present to candidates with the
understanding that we will publicize their answers/positions to the
high-tech community. Questions such as:
1. Will you enact legislation requiring that all research,
development, and administration of critical national infrastructure
such as the power grid and banking/financial networks be done inside
the United States?
2. Will you enact legislation prohibiting the dissemination of
individual personal medical and financial data outside of the
jurisdiction of American privacy and data protection laws?
3. Will you enact legislation requiring that all military, defense,
intelligence research, development, administration, and operations be
done within the U.S?
Once we settle on a set of questions, we mobilize our membership to
present them to local candidates in their areas while the national
leadership presents them to the presidential candidates. If possible,
we get other organizations to join us in this effort We then use the
web and methods to publicize where candidates stand.
--bruce
Below are salient quotes from the STC off-shoring discussion sparked
by a writers qualms about taking a job that would directly lead to
eliminating a large HR department and transferring the jobs to India.
Let me stress that these were the dominant comments of freelance
business and technical writers -- our core constituency.
If you refuse the work, you will not save these HR jobs. If you
point out to the temp agency, and then the client, how wrong it
is to offshore, you will not save the jobs for others. If you
turn down the work on principle, the jobs will be lost and you
will go without work.
If you take this job, it is likely that you are giving people in
countries outside of North America the opportunity to develop and
use skills that will enable them to improve their own lives and,
inevitably, the overall standard of living in their respective
countries.
Small companies offshore to stay afloat, prosper, and hire more
American workers.
Business is not about jobs for jobs sake. We are not a welfare
state. Business is about profitably providing value to the
customer. If another business (or country) is more competitive,
then we must either improve our competitiveness or focus on where
we can compete.
If outsourcing provides value, then a business should do it and
the casualties should either improve their competitiveness (i.e.
education, training) or switch fields (i.e. get another job)
where they can be competitive.
It's inevitable as our industry matures. That's what happens. The
work reaches its maturity cycle, and the jobs can go to places
where things can be done reliably and cheaply. And what will we
do? Move up the value chain. We won't be "technical writers" but
"user experience professionals" and do less formulaic writing
(traditional manuals, online help) and move up to the work that
takes a deeper understand of the product and processes.
American consumers, generally demand the highest "bang for the
buck" in goods for the lowest prices. As a result of this demand,
American consumers are almost initiating the trend to manufacture
in regions where labor costs are cheaper.
If we want to be an equal partner in a world economy, and we
really believe in competition, we have to play fair and be
willing to accept all aspects of it.
The notion of "offshoring" means other economies are simply
following the principles on which our western economies are
based. Can we blame them? Those are the rules of the game. We
made the rules. They are playing by them. And so should we.
Other related posts:
