[biztech-discussion] Offshoring Issues
- From: Al Weinrub <Allen.Weinrub@xxxxxxx>
- To: biztech-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:55:52 -0700
Folks,
The following is a perspective on the issues that we need to address in
any NWU offshoring strategy. I culled these issues from various postings
here, in articles, and other materials I have read. I think that is
important to agree on the issues we need address as part of our strategy
discussion.
For the moment, however, what do you think of the perspective below? Are
there other important issues? What is the relative importance or
priority of these issues? Where is our opposition most vulnerable?
If we can agree on the issues to highlight and their relative priority,
we will be better able to talk about how to take up offshoring in the union.
Sorry for the length. What do you think?
Al
(SF Bay Area)
------------------
OFFSHORING ISSUES
In organizing around the offshore outsourcing issue, namely in building
opposition to the unfettered offshoring of technical and writing jobs to
foreign countries, there are two general groups of people we need to reach:
- Our primary constituency--the folks we are trying most directly to
organize and mobilize. These are members of the NWU, technical and other
writers, and other high-tech workers. These are the folks with whom the
NWU has the most affinity on this issue and who are most directly
impacted by the loss of jobs.
- Our support constituency--the folks with whom we are trying to build
political opposition to offshoring, the general public, other
organizations, political leaders, and institutions.
The issues faced by these two groups are somewhat different and
therefore these groups need to be addressed differently.
OUR PRIMARY CONSTITUENCY
In reaching out to our primary constituency--people who have lost their
jobs or are likely to lose their jobs, or who will be negatively
impacted by the loss of jobs in their professions--we need to address
the following concerns:
- Direct loss of jobs-loss of income and erosion of standard of living.
- Inability to find work in offshored professions--the jobs are going
away permanently, so those who lose their jobs will face extended
unemployment, and eventually will be forced into lower-paying,
less-rewarding occupations.
- Dropping wage and work standards for those who remain employed-a
surplus labor pool will drive down wages and benefits, accentuating a
trend begun with the bursting of the dot com bubble a few years ago.
- A worsening job market in the offshored professions will force many to
change careers, putting pressure on related jobs. Many tech writers, for
example, will attempt to do other kinds of writing. This will be a slow
and painful process for those whose jobs are offshored and will create a
lot of job competition for those in related fields.
In addressing the above concerns, we need to undercut the standard
economic arguments that justify offshoring and highlight the inequity of
offshoring people who do the actual work in order to increase the pay of
CEOs. We can use the soaring rise in CEO and other executive pay to
expose the ingenuousness of the "competition" and "profitability"
justifications for offshoring. (If cost and competition were really such
crucial matters of corporate survival, why not offshore the CEO
positions?) Also we need to address the hypocrisy of the
"upgrade-your-skills" and "be-more-competitive" arguments of the
pro-offshoring lobby. The jobs they told us to train for so our jobs
wouldn't be offshored are now being offshored.
OUR SUPPORT CONSITUENCY
In reaching out to the general public, however, the above concerns are
not paramount. In the U.S. economy, people are routinely forced to
change jobs or careers due to economic conditions, and few will
sympathize with technical workers in particular because of their
relatively high salaries compared to blue collar workers. In addition,
unionized workers and other blue collar workers are aware of
white-collar workers' general disdain for unions and unionized workers.
In reaching out to the general public, we need to address a different
set of concerns:
- Indirect loss of jobs and economic downturn. The flight of jobs can
have a devastating impact on all sectors of the economy in much the same
way that layoffs and recessions in the past have a big multiplier effect
on many indirectly related jobs. Money is taken out of circulation and
many economic sectors are impacted. This is especially true when there
is no expansion of other parts of the economy to employ the unemployed.
In past decades, you could argue that the expansion of the high-tech
sector absorbed the impact of offshoring in the manufacturing
industries. However, in the current situation there is no expanding
sector (not even the Iraq invasion is creating significant numbers of
new jobs). In addition, the speed of offshoring will be much quicker
than the offshoring of the past (there is no need to build factories
abroad and the labor pool is already trained), making its impact much
harder to absorb. Hence, the impact of high-tech offshoring will be more
far-reaching and more permanent than offshoring in the past.
- National security. High-tech offshoring is all about information
processing, and the processing of information has become a crucial
aspect of our society--whether it be related to military systems,
economic infrastructure systems (such as the electrical power grid,
transportation, communications, and so forth), business information
systems (such as bank or corporate records or technology secrets), or
vital services. The regulation and security of such information systems
that exists within the United States does not exist in foreign
countries-especially those to which most of the offshoring is
going-making the U.S. and its citizens vulnerable to theft, electronic
sabotage, infiltration, disruption of emergency systems, and other risks.
- Personal security. The pervasiveness of electronic records (such as
medical records, life insurance, and individual financial records) makes
them susceptible to invasion of privacy and the proliferation of private
information. Even within the U.S., despite legal prohibitions against
the invasion of privacy and prosecution of offenders, identity theft and
illegal use of private data is rampant. Sending the processing of this
data to countries which have minimal personal privacy laws and which do
not prosecute illegal uses of personal information is inviting abuse.
Abuse of medical records has already been reported in the press
involving contractors who contract to contractors who contract to other
contractors. No safeguards and a huge black market in the sale of
personal information.
- Relinquishing technological leadership. By offshoring the development
of new technologies to foreign high-tech workers, the U.S. is
relinquishing its technological competitiveness. With foreign markets
far surpassing the U.S. in size, the development of new technologies and
new technical standards in foreign countries means that in the
not-to-distant future, the U.S. will relinquish its technological
leadership. Since this leadership has been a driving force of the U.S.
economy, taking a back seat in technological development will have a
significant negative impact on U.S. economic growth. In the same way
that manufacturing industry has shifted abroad over past decades,
information processing is currently shifting abroad, to be closely
followed by the shifting of technological innovation abroad. Especially
so, since the U.S. educational system is in shambles, compared to the
production of high-tech professionals in many foreign countries.
- Public tax money is subsidizing and rewarding the offshoring of jobs.
One aspect of this is tax credits, another is direct government subsidy
(corporate welfare) of offending companies, a third is foreign-aid for
infrastructure improvements to countries that are low-wage havens. (one
reason that India can now take high-tech jobs is that American taxpayers
are paying to upgrade the Indian telecommunications network.)
- Offshoring is being hidden from consumers. Consumers have a right to
know who is doing the work they are paying for and who they are dealing
with. This is a fundamental principle of ethical business practice and
we see it every day when we are told over the phone that "this call may
be recorded." Nevertheless the complex labyrinth of offshoring
contractual relationships leaves makes offshoring invisible to consumers.
Other related posts:
