RBC replaces Canadian staff with foreign workers

[August1991]

Canadian banks charge ridiculous rates and fees because Canadians are either too stupid to realize that they can avoid fees at credit unions or other financial institutions or they have so much disposable income that they don't care.

Carepov, are you English-Canadian? Are you obsessed with banks, and their fees?

True, English-Canadian banks (and their clients) are remarkable institutions.

Edited April 13, 2013 by August1991

[Bonam]

Let me be plain: Everything every English-Canadian is saying against these Indian/Chinese workers could just as easily be said against an ATM machine. (These ATM machines work for nothing, and steal our jobs!)

[CPCFTW]

True. There's something downright putrescent however with governments that tilt the playing field away from human beings and towards corporations.

No there isn't when you come to the realization that corporations are a collection of people (employees) who are employed by other people (investors). Helping corporations helps people.

Maybe not but how bad do you think the hit to Ottawa's social capital will be if it keeps facilitating so much injustice in the economy?

What injustice?

You're supposed to be the big shot economist, what's the cost of corruption? You figure bad-will and good-will balance out equally?

I don't need to be a big shot economist to know more about it than a fisherman and most of the rest of this forum.

[August1991]

I know, Bonam, that you tire of my ATM example (despite the fact that I borrowed it from Obama.)

But I despair more from the pathetic response in English-Canada to this obvious nationalism:

ONE: William Watson

TWO: Andrew Coyne

And that's it. (This thread is a good example. Or Harper's and RBC's sad reply to English Canada.)

------------------

Wasp English-Canadians are worst nationalists than French Quebec. In Quebec, there is at least a vocal opposition. In English Canada, it is only group-think.

Edited April 13, 2013 by August1991

[Charon]

Kind of ironic I was just thinking about how the cons in Alberta were all about privatizing Alberta's oil then they ave it away to communist China.

[August1991]

Kind of ironic I was just thinking about how the cons in Alberta were all about privatizing Alberta's oil then they ave it away to communist China.

Charon, do you oppose an individual's freedom to choose?

Are you a collectivist? Or, do you believe that Martians can steal land?

Edited April 13, 2013 by August1991

[Charon]

The collectivist meme is a new silly right wing mantra traveling around through e-mail groups and right wing blogs. It is totally meaningless to any thinking person. The fact you are on a computer shows what anyone who can get beyond solipsism should realize, that cooperation makes the world go round and without it your ancestors wouldn't have left the Sarengetti.

[eyeball]

No there isn't when you come to the realization that corporations are a collection of people (employees) who are employed by other people (investors). Helping corporations helps people.

Collectives that need a big powerful government to prop them up. Well I'll be damned.

What injustice?

The injustice of leaving individuals to fend for themselves against government empowered collectives. Huge collectives in many cases.

I don't need to be a big shot economist to know more about it than a fisherman and most of the rest of this forum.

So you know about the benefits of corruption too? I'm not surprised.

[Canuckistani]

Temporary foreign worker impacts felt far beyond RBC

Thompson says there are over 300,000 temporary foreign workers in Canada in jobs that aren't temporary in restaurants, in health care, and in many other fields.

"Normally, if you have a shortage of people, the response is wages go up... If you can get foreign workers for the prevailing rate where the market doesn't clear, then you never have to raise the wages for the Canadians," he said.

Why are we bringing in temp workers to do permanent jobs? Why are we bringing them in to do jobs that are not very rare and specialized. Why aren't we training Canadians for those jobs and why are we allowing wages to rise in those jobs until they become attractive to Canadians. The corporations and shareholders make out like bandits, everybody else gets screwed.

[GostHacked]

Please don't confuse CEO salaries with the use of cellphones, ATMs or trade with ordinary people abroad.So GostHacked, stop using your cellphone, and stop using the Internet.

GostHacked, how many Canadians have lost jobs because you now have a cellphone, and use the Internet?

I believe there is a fundamental difference in having advancements in technology that replace jobs and the purposeful firing of Canadian workers to hire cheaper foreign workers, which in the end does not save RBC any money at all now with the iGate thing thrown in.

The technology can replace jobs as well as spawn a whole new area of jobs. I think this is what other posters have indicated as well. What RBC is doing, is not spawning any new jobs based simply on outsourcing. Nor are they saving any money in light of iGate.

My job is actually dependent on technology, as I am part of the IT group for a large grocery company. But I can tell you that with the advancements in technology to make the whole supply chain more efficient, won't result in saving you any money at the grocery store. It is about making the shareholders happy. That's the reality here. That that is the reality for any company trying to save money. It will NOT result in a lower price for you the customer/consumer.

Hint: I suspect that you rarely use a payphone, and you may not even have a landline. You probably buy a newspaper infrequently. You consult craigslist.

Correct in some parts here, I do have a cell phone. I rarely use a payphone (now they are getting harder to find and costing more at the same time). I do not buy newspapers, and I don't use craigslist.

Kind of irrelevant to this situation with RBC in the end.

And GostHacked, you accuse RBC of being inconsiderate of Canadian workers. To me, you are a hypocrite.

Please explain how I am a hypocrite?

[Michael Hardner]

At first , you characterized it as me (and others) being against ALL trade. Which was outright false aka twisting.

How many times does that need to be said? Admit you are wrong and took the wrong assumption of what my position was.

You can say it as many times as you want. I'll submit that the term 'anti-trade' should apply to those who are against trade in the real world, and reaffirm my right to use it. However, I'm a nice guy and don't like offending people, so I'll use my term: "against existing real world trade agreements". It's a mouthful, but if it will help our discussion I don't mind.

[Michael Hardner]

Has the rise in wages matched that of the rise in prices for things? And I would restrict this to the necessities, not luxuries. Luxuries are always going to cost more, some which are not needed.

Here's a lucid article that talks about the situation in Canada, not the US.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/14/andrew-coyne-canadian-income-inequality/

[Michael Hardner]

Here's a lucid article that talks about the situation in Canada, not the US.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/14/andrew-coyne-canadian-income-inequality/

Another take that doesn't quite agree with the Gini coefficients (GH - read up on these - very interesting) but still agrees that the gap widened 1989 to 1998.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/caninequality.aspx

Edited to add:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#US_income_Gini_indices_over_time

Gini indices measure relative inequality in a society. Interestingly, I have seen numbers that show up as very close in the US and England, two countries with markedly different politics. A higher number reflects more inequality and too high a number is a disincentive to excel, since it's impossible for an average citizen to better themselves. A lower number represents more equality and too low a number is also a disincentive to excel, since there are fewer rewards for excellence.

[Michael Hardner]

As I wrote earlier, in the last 20 years:

-Wages have gone up for the top 80%

-Wages are flat for the bottom 20%, but poverty is at a record low

Yes we are spending a greater percentage of our income on housing, but less on food and clothing. Believe it or not, even after adjusting for inflation, the average Canadian has more disposable income today than 40 years ago.

Of course, carepov, all of these things are difficult to agree on. I don't know what your politics are, but you appear to be at least presenting a somewhat balanced picture - but please provide cites for stats like that.

[Michael Hardner]

My view on all of this is that the Tories wanted to help out the business in the oil field in Alberta and so created the "temporary worker", btw, how long does one work under this?

The temporary worker visa has been around in Canada and the US since at least the 1950s as far as I remember. And, no the Tories didn't create it nor did they allow offshoring to start - that was squarely in the middle of the Chretien government.

Anyway, I don't think they realized that the loopholes in this and businesses are taking advantage of the situation.

Of course they knew. Business lobbies for these things to lower their costs !

So now we have about 2.1 million Canadians not working, they are letting in 250,000 people in the country yearly, so its any wonder we have high unemployment?

By what measure is unemployment 'high' right now ?

When we're talking about economics, it's a dicey game but it's a numbers game.

Here's Canada's unemployment rate since before the recession, compared to the US - see the black line at the bottom ? That is us.

Here's our unemployment rate over the last 35 years or so:

How many people are on welfare? I know Conservatives have always favoured business, but these Tories have really gone over board against Canadians. Another item, if the RBC is bring in these workers to save money, then why are our service fees always going up? Do these people get to collect unemployment or do they just pay it?

Banks are an oligopoly, which means a small number of suppliers own the market. If they only compete with each other then it's pretty easy to fix prices and provide poor services. I would say that telecom is an even worse example - I can only choose between Bell and Rogers home packages for my needs and they are both terrible.

The banks rely on public relations and politics to give them the right to keep going, to keep making so many profits, and to keep competition out. The same with telecom.

[Michael Hardner]

Because the banks aren't actually saving any money by doing this. The fees paid to iGate are no lower than what could be paid to many willing Canadians (including the ones who already have these jobs and the relevant expertise prior to being replaced) to do these same jobs. They just save money for a quarter or two so the executive of the month can get a bonus, then the real costs become apparent, and the next guy has to deal with it.

Well, either the banks are stupid, or greedy but they can't really be both.

I really doubt that the figures on igate are true, because I believe that banks are greedier than they are stupid. And a worldwide trend of 10-20 years would seem to me to have some substance to it.

But if we're wrong, then all of these jobs will come floating back as soon as the banks learn to put together a costing report, and some accounts look at the results of all this outsourcing. Then this thread will be moot, I suppose.

[Michael Hardner]

Why are we bringing in temp workers to do permanent jobs? Why are we bringing them in to do jobs that are not very rare and specialized. Why aren't we training Canadians for those jobs and why are we allowing wages to rise in those jobs until they become attractive to Canadians.

1. Because it's cheaper.

2. Because it's cheaper.

3. You can't train Canadians to do any job, even common tech jobs. And anyway, as I pointed out - it's cheaper.

Business lobbies government for policy changes to help their bottom line. We don't seem to have any bank operations executives on this thread providing their point of view, but I think we can assume that they are trying to remain competitive in a very competitive global market.

IT jobs became very expensive around Y2K, which is when I lost my job, and when I met the first Chinese national of my life - in the cubicle next to mine. Two months later I was gone. That was 1999.

The corporations and shareholders make out like bandits, everybody else gets screwed.

It's too simplistic to argue things at this level, Canucki.

Emotive arguments don't mix well with business - they can win them if the chips are down. When it comes time for an emotive argument, the banks will hire a doe-eyed PR person, or if necessary send their Montgomery Burnsesque CEO to a quick charm school to instruct them how to look into the camera and say "I'm sorry".

[GostHacked]

You can say it as many times as you want. I'll submit that the term 'anti-trade' should apply to those who are against trade in the real world, and reaffirm my right to use it.

Nah, you still don't get it.

However, I'm a nice guy and don't like offending people, so I'll use my term: "against existing real world trade agreements". It's a mouthful, but if it will help our discussion I don't mind.

I guess it's too simplistic for me to be arguing on your level.

[GostHacked]

IT jobs became very expensive around Y2K, which is when I lost my job, and when I met the first Chinese national of my life - in the cubicle next to mine. Two months later I was gone. That was 1999.

It's too simplistic to argue things at this level, Canucki.

Looks like this proves what a poster was talking about with the driving down of wages.

[Argus]

IMO your suggested policy will result in higher unemployment and lower wages in Canada because in many cases business will choose to expand/invest outside of Canada.

Untrue. The majority of the Canadian economy is focused on services, almost all local.

[Argus]

Of course the quality of life of my family is worth more TO ME than the quality of life of strangers - my family's quality of life is however worth no more than any other family's.

In the TFW program when some Canadians lose jobs (although my opinion is that net Canadian jobs increase) the jobs gained by non-Canadians will be a huge benefit to them and raise the quality of life many more people in their country. Overall humanity's quality of life increases, isn't that a good thing?

I don't pay Stephan Harper's salary so he can improve the lives of people in India. His job is to improve the lives of people here.

[Michael Hardner]

Nah, you still don't get it.I guess it's too simplistic for me to be arguing on your level.

You have repeated your assertion over and over again, and I have responded. In order for the discussion to move past this, you have to respond to my response.

[Michael Hardner]

Looks like this proves what a poster was talking about with the driving down of wages.

Nobody will argue that business tries to drive wages down, which includes everything from corporations to consumers looking for personal services.

[Argus]

Argus, do you oppose ATMs and robots on the same grounds? "Downward pressure on wages"? - as you put it.

That is an inane comparison. ATMs and robots serve multiple social and economic purposes. An ATM, as example, certainly cost some teller jobs, though probably not as many as people might think. There are still bank branches everywhere, and they seem to still have a lot of tellers. What the ATMs did was provide a dramatic increase in time-convenience to people, enhancing all manner of small economic exchanges which ultimately boosted economic activity. Ex. No money to go out tonight. Banks closed. Sudden invitation. No problem now. Just drop by an ATM to get some money.

Bringing in cheap foreign labour does not increase convenience or economic performance of society as a whole. True, it allows certain businesses to pay their labour less, which in turn allows them to either supply their goods/services at a lower cost or to enjoy higher profits. It appears the second effect is the most common, so all we are doing is transferring money from the Canadian labour pool to Canadian business and business owners. And any positive effects of lowered prices are offset by the increase in unemployment, and all the economic and social issues involved with that. It also leads to a flow of money out of the country, as all these hundreds of thousands of workers transfer their wages to their homes and families instead of spending the money in Canada.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

That is an inane comparison.

There are a lot of parallels, though. Both situations create social stress and change, for example.

Bringing in cheap foreign labour does not increase convenience or economic performance of society as a whole.

It increases productivity.

It appears the second effect is the most common, so all we are doing is transferring money from the Canadian labour pool to Canadian business and business owners.

As happens with technological change, negating your point above. And you can't say the second effect is most common using an oligopoly such as banks, oil companies as an example, as these enterprises aren't representative of the economy on the whole.

And any positive effects of lowered prices are offset by the increase in unemployment, and all the economic and social issues involved with that.

Again, people also make this argument about technology. I was skeptical of August's point too but it seems he's revealed a particular type of economic thinking.

Here's something that I'm really shocked that nobody has pointed out: what has the effect of computer automation been on the work week. Are you people aware that in the early half of the 20th century people worked 1/2 day Saturdays normally ?