RBC replaces Canadian staff with foreign workers

[Michael Hardner]

Third, you've yet to explain how any of this is related to the "trade agreements" that you refer to, since no trade agreement between Canada and India requires Canada to allow this.

I already stood corrected on that, what more can I say ?

Yes, I did. Did you explain which trade agreement requires Canada to allow this specific practice? There are a lot of posts on this thread, but I'm quite certain you have specifically not answered this question so far.

You explained the criteria, but the devil is the details. Do you have the details ? What does "really" mean in the context of your explanation above ?

[Michael Hardner]

That is a prime example of twisting things.That is more accurate, but not completely accurate. Some here are not in favour of existing trade agreements if there is no equal value in return. How many times does this need to be said? I don't get why you are so confused on this here.

I don't think I'm twisting things - how many times does that need to be said ?

If you're only in favour of a form of international trade that doesn't exist, and you admit that, then I don't see why I can't use that term to characterize your position.

[GostHacked]

I don't think I'm twisting things - how many times does that need to be said ?

If you're only in favour of a form of international trade that doesn't exist, and you admit that, then I don't see why I can't use that term to characterize your position.

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.

[eyeball]

The figures are adjusted for inflation. Here are some more facts supporting my claim that overall Canadians are better off now than in the past:

One of the reasons I heard given by local resorts for needing TFW's is that the high cost of living in this region makes their wages unattractive to locals, apparently it's not enough to get by on. So the response is, drive it down even farther, with the government's assistance no less.

I imagine the charts and graphs that prove this to be the best solution for everybody comes with bells, whistles and flashing lights, you know, to dazzle when baffling just won't cut it.

[GostHacked]

When wages are talked about, are we including inflation and the increased cost of goods?

I make more in my job than my parents did with both their jobs combined in the 80s. I also pay a lot more for things than they did in the 80s.

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.

Edited April 12, 2013 by GostHacked

[Canuckistani]

Wages have stagnated since the 80's. That's adjusted for inflation, so people haven't lost ground. Except that the top 20% have made huge gains, while the poorest have lost a bit of ground. Part of holding a society together is people feeling they're getting a fair shake. When all the increases go to a small group who are living large while everybody else is just holding on, that corrodes the social contract.

And in Vancouver, there's no way wages have kept up with house prices. The main reason new buyers can afford to get in the market is because their parents are sitting on a lot of equity and can help out. That doesn't make for happy campers either.

[carepov]

When wages are talked about, are we including inflation and the increased cost of goods?

I make more in my job than my parents did with both their jobs combined in the 80s. I also pay a lot more for things than they did in the 80s.

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.

Yes, and more than yes.

Constant dollars are used to compare wages over time meaning that inflation is included.

The average Canadian today is spending a lower percentage of their income on necessities (food, shelter, and clothing) compared to 40 years ago. The cbc article does a pretty good job explaining this:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ood-prices.html

Wages have stagnated since the 80's. That's adjusted for inflation, so people haven't lost ground. Except that the top 20% have made huge gains, while the poorest have lost a bit of ground. Part of holding a society together is people feeling they're getting a fair shake. When all the increases go to a small group who are living large while everybody else is just holding on, that corrodes the social contract.

And in Vancouver, there's no way wages have kept up with house prices. The main reason new buyers can afford to get in the market is because their parents are sitting on a lot of equity and can help out. That doesn't make for happy campers either.

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.

[carepov]

http://www.sfu.ca/~schmitt/cpp_paper.pdf

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/its-not-just-rbc-the-foreign-worker-program-needs-reining-in/article10932004/?service=mobile

So now TFW are responsible for the imbalance of unemployment rates across different regions? Really? Perhaps the imbalance has more to do with things like the oil boom in Alberta?

"There is reason to fear that adding more vulnerable workers to weak labour markets since 2008 has further worsened unemployment and undermined wages."

Guess what, it is now 2013 and we can stop worrying - we have data showing that unemployment is historically low especially compared to the US. Notice how until 2009 out unemployment rate was consistently about 2-4% higher than the US. Also, wages show no sign of being undermined.

[eyeball]

So now TFW are responsible for the imbalance of unemployment rates across different regions?

No, that would be Ottawa's responsibility and probably the provincial governments too, for not better protecting their labour markets from Ottawa's malfeasance...okay I realize Ottawa's policies are legal but so is prostitution.

[CPCFTW]

Wages have stagnated since the 80's. That's adjusted for inflation, so people haven't lost ground. Except that the top 20% have made huge gains, while the poorest have lost a bit of ground. Part of holding a society together is people feeling they're getting a fair shake. When all the increases go to a small group who are living large while everybody else is just holding on, that corrodes the social contract.

You realize the top 20% isn't a monolithic entity of people who occupy that bracket for their entire lives? Most people start in the lower brackets of income then move towards the upper brackets as they progress in their careers. There's nothing wrong with a society which rewards people who work hard for most of their lives.

The fact that teenage Wal-Mart employees make slightly less now than teenage roller disco attendants did in the 60s does not "corrode the social contract". Get a clue.

[eyeball]

There's nothing wrong with a society which rewards people who work hard for most of their lives.

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

The fact that teenage Wal-Mart employees make slightly less now than teenage roller disco attendants did in the 60s does not "corrode the social contract". Get a clue.

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?

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?

[August1991]

Because we're not a "global village".

No, we're not. Nor is life a zero-sum game.

When someone invents a better mousetrap, or two people can communicate/make a trade/co-operate more easily, the world is a better place.

Edited April 13, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

In any trade deal, there will be winners and losers in Canada as regards the deal. If the winners outnumber the losers we should go for it, but the winners should have to contribute part of their winnings to help turn the losers into winners as well.

I tend to agree, on purely political grounds.

But Canuck, in this 21st century, what is "Canada"?

Huh? Along comes Kimmy....

All other things being equal, it's simply better for me if that work is being done in Canada. Selfish, maybe, but "rational self interest" is a primary tenet of those who are advocating on behalf of the outsourcers in the first place.

I'm in Quebec, send me the business.

--

Yes absolutely stopped. Why? Because it serves CANADIANS no purpose other than to drag our wages down. The only ones who benefit from that program are those who take the money and run, leaving Canadian taxpayers to fill the void.

Ya, and open discussion means what? Another 5-10 yrs of this bs program while some rigged study panel looks into the 'merits' of it while they're being paid off by the corporate filth who already benefit from it? That type of open discussion?

By your logic Rick, ATMs drag our wages down too.

Rick, foreign workers (whether in Canada or in India) are like computers and ATMs. They eliminate jobs in Canada, and that's a good thing!

Edited April 13, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

So we're doomed to paying third world wages?

No. In an English auction, the price goes up. In a Dutch auction, the price goes down.

This "race to the bottom" argument is misinformed. It could also be a "race to the top". Markets, like scissors, have two sides.

[August1991]

I guess Billions of dollars in profits quarterly is just not enough for the overpaid ceo's and executives of our banks.

Please don't confuse CEO salaries with the use of cellphones, ATMs or trade with ordinary people abroad.

I live in Canada, I'd like to help out our own before we can spread that around the world. What RBC has done here is simply add to the unemployment numbers if these people cannot find another job with a decent pay.

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?

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.

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

Edited April 13, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

For my part, not a lot different. I am opposed to our current system of immigration, as you know, and one of the reasons I'm opposed is because immigration puts downward pressure on wages.

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

[August1991]

To the folks in this thread like Michael trying to sweep this under the rug as just normal outsourcing, time to follow the story and realize what is actually being talked about here. A sophisticated international operation that takes Indian people with hopes of immigration to Canada, presses them into indentured service and keeps them there with threats against their family members and uses these workers to replace Western workers at prices that don't actually save Western companies any money...

Sorry Bonam, despite how the CBC may want to present this, it isn't slavery.

These are voluntary relationships.

========

It happens that people in India and China are willing to do jobs/tasks at low wages, lower than what Canadians are willing to do the same job.

Well, computers and cellphones are often willing to do jobs/tasks at even lower wages. (ATMs, Obama's and my favourite example, will work 24/7 for almost nothing.)

Should we forbid "dealings" with computers/cellphones on the grounds that they will impoverish us?

Edited April 13, 2013 by August1991

[Topaz]

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

[eyeball]

Actually it was the Liberals who created the program but I wouldn't be surprised to find out they've allowed it to be abused too.

And that said it's a little disconcerting to see how big a pass the government in general is getting in all this.

[Bonam]

Another item, if the RBC is bring in these workers to save money, then why are our service fees always going up?

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.

[Bonam]

Sorry Bonam, despite how the CBC may want to present this, it isn't slavery.

These are voluntary relationships.

I agree, it's not slavery. Notice I carefully avoided using that term, which others have bandied about. It is nevertheless not what we in Canada would consider a proper employment contract which respects the rights and freedoms of the employee. These companies are working in Canada and must respect Canadians laws.

[Bonam]

And that said it's a little disconcerting to see how big a pass the government in general is getting in all this.

I guess we'll see if the government does anything about this issue, or just waits for it to blow over. Given Harper's promise of swift action in regards to this issue, I am somewhat hopeful.

[August1991]

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"...

And my view on all this is that it is a pathetic, hypocritical version of nationalism.

Topaz, you're a partisan. I try not to be.

=====

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!)

English-Canadians happily use ATMs, yet object to Indian and Chinese workers.

RBC? ATMs? (Admittedly I use them as an example.... )

But why such nationalism in this case? I reckon that English-Canadians are obsessed with banks.

Edited April 13, 2013 by August1991

[carepov]

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

Unemployment is low relative to our historic rate and low relative to other countires. Without immigration it would certainly be higher and without TFW it would likely be no different and perhaps higher.

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.

[eyeball]

It could also be a "race to the top".

With a hand from on high.