RBC replaces Canadian staff with foreign workers

[Argus]

It increases productivity.

Not of society as a whole, because now you have an extra 350,000 unproductive bodies.

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.

They are a major part of the economy, and I see no reason to believe their methodology would be that different than other Canadian business.

[Michael Hardner]

Not of society as a whole, because now you have an extra 350,000 unproductive bodies.

They are a major part of the economy, and I see no reason to believe their methodology would be that different than other Canadian business.

Not sure where the 350K number comes from but I don't think that's right. You're still producing the same amount, at lower cost. The 350K will find productive work elsewhere, for the most part.

Here's a reason - there are only five of them, and they are as old as Canada itself - protected by charters with hooks into Canada's government and culture.

If hot dog vendors found a way to make hotdogs cheaper, you would expect the price to fall, for example.

[Canuckistani]

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.

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".

Yes, it's cheaper for the company, but more expensive for the nation. The nation sets temp worker policy and shouldn't allow it.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, it's cheaper for the company, but more expensive for the nation. The nation sets temp worker policy and shouldn't allow it.

That argument would have to be made with numbers and I haven't seen too many on this thread. I have seen people arguing against real world trade agreements that exist today, and lamenting about corporations and rich people getting away with 'screwing' Canada etc. But if we're going to have a real discussion we need to talk numbers, and talk about this from both sides. I try to see both sides of this issue, both as somebody who wants progressive and humane labour policies - having been personally affected by this issue - and somebody who understands the need for Canada's business environment to be competitive and to encourage investment.

I'm interested in hearing from people who can speak to details around how we can maintain that balance.

[eyeball]

I've been pointing to real details on the ground and out on the water where boats keep getting bigger, and the fleet keeps getting smaller, where there's less for everyone involved and no one is able to do anything about it except lobby and holler for a bigger piece of a shrinking pie. Zoom in on just about any part of the world and you'll see much the same thing going on.

You can be sure the un-sustainability of it all is well documented in reams of charts, graphs, databases and computer models but so what?

[Canuckistani]

That argument would have to be made with numbers and I haven't seen too many on this thread. I have seen people arguing against real world trade agreements that exist today, and lamenting about corporations and rich people getting away with 'screwing' Canada etc. But if we're going to have a real discussion we need to talk numbers, and talk about this from both sides. I try to see both sides of this issue, both as somebody who wants progressive and humane labour policies - having been personally affected by this issue - and somebody who understands the need for Canada's business environment to be competitive and to encourage investment.

I'm interested in hearing from people who can speak to details around how we can maintain that balance.

I've given quotes and links how temp workers depress wages. A sane country doesn't import temp workers to do permanent jobs - they allow the market to push wages up if required so that citizens will take those jobs. Otherwise, we could make the argument about pretty well every job - there's lots of people in the world who would be happy to do it for half of what a Canadian will - lets just open the borders to unrestrained flow of labor. Once we do that tho, who will pay for the social programs that all the displaced Canadians will need? I guess same as Nicaragua, just let them scavenge on the dumps for their needs.

Temp workers are a different issue than outsourcing and immigration. We may not be able to to all that much about outsourcing, but we don't have to insource the workers as well. Temp workers for agriculture or other seasonal work, that makes some sense, as long as they are treated well when here and allowed to orgainze if they wish. Temp permits for actors or very rare specialists in a field also makes sense. But temp workers at Tim Horton's or Denny's (the latter of which sued Denny's for mistreatment) or other permanent jobs makes no sense what so ever. Nor does always going to immigration for skilled needs instead of training our own. Opening our borders too wide will destroy Canada just as surely as closing them.

Edited April 13, 2013 by Canuckistani

[eyeball]

Opening our borders too wide will destroy Canada just as surely as closing them.

True.

That said, I can see contracting out our governance to experts from Norway.

[Canuckistani]

True.

That said, I can see contracting out our governance to experts from Norway.

I agree

[CPCFTW]

True.

That said, I can see contracting out our governance to experts from Norway.

But that would destroy good Canadian jobs in governance and hollow out the middle class!

[GostHacked]

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.

You need to apologize for making an incorrect statement about my position.

Besides, many others have shown you what the problem is and you still ignore it. Are you being this way on purpose? Playing some Devil's Advocate for whatever reason?

You classified my position incorrectly and for some reason I have to get over it and move on? That's some dirty pool Mike.

Edited April 14, 2013 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

I don't really think numbers need to be put up here to understand the problems with this temp workers or complete outsourcing.

What RBC did is shameful, and iGate seriously needs to be investigated. I'd say that this was fraud against RBC in saying that they pay their workers the same which we know it does not.

What Mike fails to understand is how corporations work and the reason they exist.

1 - Make money

2 - Make money

3 - Fire people to save money

4 - Make money

5 - Increase prices to make money

6 - Make money

I have been involved in a huge overhaul of our IT systems and the company has been going through a major transformation through out the entire business. This will make things more efficient, but this will not translate into any savings when you go to buy groceries. This is a fact.

Has anyone seen a company that goes through those kinds of changes actually reduce their prices and increase services?

For example, the self-check out lanes. It is convenient, but does not reduce the price of the groceries. It takes a couple years for those machines to pay for themselves as they are upwards of 50,000 + (I am probably lowballing it here)

So a store who puts in 4 of these machines will cost $200,000, plus support of the machines. A part time clerk makes maybe 20K a year, maybe. There is no savings for the store and no savings for you.

This is a bad example as it seems to show that some technology that replaces workers are not a benefit for anyone.

[Michael Hardner]

You need to apologize for making an incorrect statement about my position.

Let's take this offline ? I don't think it's part of the debate. PM me and we'll work it out, GH, I don't mean to offend you.

Besides, many others have shown you what the problem is and you still ignore it. Are you being this way on purpose? Playing some Devil's Advocate for whatever reason?

I don't know if you're talking about my use of the term 'real world trade agreements' here, or about my position ?

No, I'm not going to change my position.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't really think numbers need to be put up here to understand the problems with this temp workers or complete outsourcing.

They actually do if you make a business case, or if you're trying to prove an economic argument. You gave a hypothetical one below, so we can look at that.

What RBC did is shameful, and iGate seriously needs to be investigated. I'd say that this was fraud against RBC in saying that they pay their workers the same which we know it does not.

I agree - the misinformation, and the requirement for people to train their replacements is not acceptable.

What Mike fails to understand is how corporations work and the reason they exist.

1 - Make money

2 - Make money

3 - Fire people to save money

4 - Make money

5 - Increase prices to make money

6 - Make money

What have I said that makes you think I fail to understand that ? If anything, you fail to understand that motivation in that you seem to imply that RBC will be motivated by shame as implied above.

I have been involved in a huge overhaul of our IT systems and the company has been going through a major transformation through out the entire business. This will make things more efficient, but this will not translate into any savings when you go to buy groceries. This is a fact.

Has anyone seen a company that goes through those kinds of changes actually reduce their prices and increase services?

For example, the self-check out lanes. It is convenient, but does not reduce the price of the groceries. It takes a couple years for those machines to pay for themselves as they are upwards of 50,000 + (I am probably lowballing it here)

So a store who puts in 4 of these machines will cost $200,000, plus support of the machines. A part time clerk makes maybe 20K a year, maybe. There is no savings for the store and no savings for you.

This is a bad example as it seems to show that some technology that replaces workers are not a benefit for anyone.

In your last sentence, you seem to accidentally discover the 'technology also costs jobs' argument that August was making. I started another thread on that, so maybe we can pursue the dichotomy of your discovery on that thread.

But - I fail to understand the math in your example. These machines "pay for themselves" in two years ? How ? And even though they "pay for themselves" there are no savings for the store ? Why not ? After they are paid for, doesn't the store save $20K in cashier salaries a year ? Also that $20K number seems dreadfully low.

Many grocery stores (big chains) are unionized but even if they're not - a machine that was up during working hours would probably be working 12 hours a day, almost 7 days a week. Let's round up to 100 hours a week, and round down to 5000 hours a year. At minimum wage, that would be closer to $50K, no ?

[GostHacked]

In your last sentence, you seem to accidentally discover the 'technology also costs jobs' argument that August was making. I started another thread on that, so maybe we can pursue the dichotomy of your discovery on that thread.

There are exceptions to all the rules Mike. Not all implementation of technology does what it was intended to do. We tend to deal with generalization better as specific examples do skewer the average. Technology can improve our lives, but I have constantly seen horrible implementations of technology resulting in costing more than saving. This is not a problem with the tech, it's a problem with higher management not understanding the technology to begin with. It's a problem with the tech company selling us a product telling us it will do everything we need from the get go. This is never the case. Unrealistic expectations of what technology will do for them. I've seen may many examples of that over the past decade.

But - I fail to understand the math in your example. These machines "pay for themselves" in two years ? How ? And even though they "pay for themselves" there are no savings for the store ? Why not ? After they are paid for, doesn't the store save $20K in cashier salaries a year ? Also that $20K number seems dreadfully low.

Part time means up to 20hs a week. Cashiers are making a little more than minimum wage. Even if you peg it at 12 dollars, 12@40h a week is 24,960 before taxes. That is considered full time, but yet border-lining the poverty mark when the cost of living is taken into account. Part timers get on average about 20hours a week. In many cases less than that. So a part timer makes in many cases less than 12,000 a year.

But there are other costs that most do not understand with the tech. IT support, upgrades, troubleshooting when the thing does not work. Replacing hardware when it breaks. Now that all these things are connected, as long as your network infrastructure is solid, then there are minimal problems. I see a lot of problems we have with technology to run the business. Most of this stuff is a behind the scenes which is transparent to the customer. The technology also has a life span and needs to be changed out eventually. Also hardware and software goes obsolete in a shorter and shorter time. This is costing companies a lot of money to keep up with it. But the time the machines pay for themselves, it's time for an upgrade.

All you know when you go to pay is that 'paying by debit is not available at this time'. There are a plethora of problems and reasons why this happens. The business is also dependent on 3rd parties and their IT infrastructure in order to keep the business rolling.

The amount of problems that arise with a human cashier, are minimal to the problems inherent in having a completely connected centralized IT infrastructure. I also have seen some great implementation of technology that does end up reducing the labour and total cost of what was done before with humans. So again, not a problem with the tech, as people not understanding what the tech will do for them.

Many grocery stores (big chains) are unionized but even if they're not - a machine that was up during working hours would probably be working 12 hours a day, almost 7 days a week. Let's round up to 100 hours a week, and round down to 5000 hours a year. At minimum wage, that would be closer to $50K, no ?

If I could make 50K being a cashier, I would hand in my IT job instantly in which I make slightly more than that. A hell of a lot less responsibility and I would not be on call 24/7. The only ones making that 50K a year are those over at the LCBO. But that is the difference between the public and private sector.

[GostHacked]

Let's take this offline ? I don't think it's part of the debate. PM me and we'll work it out, GH, I don't mean to offend you.I don't know if you're talking about my use of the term 'real world trade agreements' here, or about my position ?

No, I'm not going to change my position.

I don't take things 'offline'.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't take things 'offline'.

Well, I just didn't want to jam the thread. My statement is that you don't support existing trade agreements - is that incorrect ?

[Bonam]

.If I could make 50K being a cashier, I would hand in my IT job instantly in which I make slightly more than that. A hell of a lot less responsibility and I would not be on call 24/7. The only ones making that 50K a year are those over at the LCBO. But that is the difference between the public and private sector.

Michael's point was that the machine works all the time, during all the open hours of the store. In his example it was 7 days * 12 hours/day, which is 84 hours per week. That effectively replaces two full time shifts of cashiers. So yeah, each cashier might be making 25k, but the machine replaces 2 of them, or four 20h/week part time cashiers. So the machine replaces the equivalent cost of $50k/year in labour, in this example.

In practice, however, whenever I go to stores with the automatic checkouts during off hours (early morning on weekends, during the normal work day, etc), the machines are always turned off. That's because for the machines to be run, there is always 1 employee standing there watching over them, ready to help customers that get confused by the machines, bypass machine errors, and monitor that no one steals anything. And, stores always have to have 1 manned human cashier lane open anyway. So during any time that 1 cashier lane is sufficient to service the number of customers coming through the store, they just shut down the machines so the machine-monitoring person doesn't have to be there. So in practice the machines probably work a lot less than the 84 hours/week of Michael's example.

[Michael Hardner]

There are exceptions to all the rules Mike. Not all implementation of technology does what it was intended to do.

Are you saying that technology that eliminates jobs are the exception to the rule ? I suppose that may be true but that would mean that huge advances in technology, such as machinery and computer technology were exceptional. In any case, with those examples we still have major job losses and displaced people. Again, though, this is probably better for the 'technology and jobs' thread.

Part time means up to 20hs a week. Cashiers are making a little more than minimum wage. Even if you peg it at 12 dollars, 12@40h a week is 24,960 before taxes. That is considered full time, but yet border-lining the poverty mark when the cost of living is taken into account. Part timers get on average about 20hours a week. In many cases less than that. So a part timer makes in many cases less than 12,000 a year.

Right but a machine doesn't replace a part timer. It replaces 2, 3, 4 or 5 part timers so you have to count that in your example. Go back to my numbers: if the machine can work for 100 hours a week, then then it replaces 5 20-hour part timers. Or am I missing something ? Also - benefits weren't included in your example but ... really this is all nit picking the numbers.

My main question is that after some period of time (1 year... 2 years) the machine pays for itself. From that point the company saves money no ? There's no way that infrastructure and support for each machine nets out as the same as cashier pay ?

All you know when you go to pay is that 'paying by debit is not available at this time'. There are a plethora of problems and reasons why this happens. The business is also dependent on 3rd parties and their IT infrastructure in order to keep the business rolling.

I also work in this space, and have worked in banking, retail, online payment etc.

The only thing I have to say about the rest of your post is that you appear to be underpaid. $50K a year for somebody with proper education, and does 24/7 support is a bad deal IMO.

[Bonam]

My main question is that after some period of time (1 year... 2 years) the machine pays for itself. From that point the company saves money no ? There's no way that infrastructure and support for each machine nets out as the same as cashier pay ?I also work in this space, and have worked in banking, retail, online payment etc.

If you want to do a proper analysis, we would need to know the following:

- the net cost of a cashier including benefits and overhead

- the actual cost of the machines

- the cost of the service contracts for the machines (probably several thousand or more per year?)

- how frequently the machines have to be replaced (every 5 years? every 10 years?)

- how many hours per week the machines actually work (it's a lot less than how many hours the store is actually open)

- what is the average throughput of a machine relative to a human cashier (a lot lower since the customers have to do all the scanning and take a long time to look around for the barcodes on the packages whereas an experienced cashier knows instantly where they are for all the products)

Keep in mind the machines may actually be there to enhance the customer experience rather than to cut costs.

[Michael Hardner]

If you want to do a proper analysis, we would need to know the following:

...

Yes - also customer loss factor in working with machines. Probably a few other things, but yes. I agree with these points.

I'm still wondering why the conclusion was that this isn't worth it - when the machines pay for themselves after two years, though. Assuming that they last more than 2 years ? Or is this another example of companies doing things stupidly even though they're more expensive ?

[Canuckistani]

The machines obviously pay for themselves, or the store wouldn't do it, just hire more cashiers. Very few people prefer them over cashiers, just use them if they think they'll get thru quicker than with the cashiers on duty. Plus you can't get bus tickets, cigarettes or cash back with them.

[hitops]

The machines obviously pay for themselves, or the store wouldn't do it, just hire more cashiers. Very few people prefer them over cashiers, just use them if they think they'll get thru quicker than with the cashiers on duty. Plus you can't get bus tickets, cigarettes or cash back with them.

I'm quite happy with the service they provide vs cashiers. I'm quite unhappy, on the other hand, with the service provided by indian call centers vs local ones.

[carepov]

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

So are you saying that TFW policies have very little impact on the Canadian labour market? If so, then we agree.

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.

Overall TFW policies do help improve Canadian lives.

-Canadian unemployment is low

-Wages are growing (http://www4.hrsdc.gc...-eng.jsp?iid=22)

-Living standards are increasing

-Most TFWs are doing the work that Canadians do not want to do

-Our TFW policies give Canada more flexibility, for example:

-In boom times we can get projects going quickly and efficiently

-In bust times we can send TFWs home and stop bringing them in before laying off Canadians

By your logic, should we cut off foreign aid?

[Michael Hardner]

A sane country ... - they allow the market to push wages up if required so that citizens will take those jobs.

I forgot to respond to this. Whatever "if required" means, government has to balance off costs to business with benefits to the population. Around Y2K tech salaries got prohibitively high, so the government started allowing this practice.

[carepov]

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

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

I am a English-Francophile-Canadian, I do not waste any of my time/energy thinking about banks and fees. Why do you ask?