RBC replaces Canadian staff with foreign workers

[Canuckistani]

I have never understood how that saves them money. At least 2-3 min is wasted on every single call listening to that crap. The options are almost the plain obvious stuff you would have already done online.

Because they're wasting your time, not paying somebody to deal with you. I think the main reason for these things is to frustrate people so they'll just give up. And notice how they want you to punch in your account info, then first thing when you ge a human is you have to give it to them, then you get transferred, the new person asks you why you were transferred (as if it was your idea) and then wants your account info....

[Bonam]

Yes, the only beneficiaries are the shareholders of RBC. As such, they should be contributing (more than they are) to having that unemployed person retrained and another job found for them. And there may not be other jobs, same with jobs lost to technology - the whole point is to reduce the labor force. So we need to be creating jobs for all those people - as I said, on building and rebuilding infrastructure and on socially beneficial jobs, such as assisting seniors, say. And of course not be importing so many people every year who all want jobs too. Make sure Canadians are employed before we do that.

Nah, the shareholders of RBC lose too. Their stock is down today amid the scandal. When banks (or countries) follow dumb policies, everyone loses, except their competitors I suppose. As to retraining people, I see what you are saying, but there are limits. Someone whose aptitudes and interests lie in IT is unlikely to be happy and effective if retrained into the role of "helping seniors". As job market conditions do change, people need to be able to adapt in what way they best see fit, rather than what government things would be most needed.

[Canuckistani]

Nah, the shareholders of RBC lose too. Their stock is down today amid the scandal. When banks (or countries) follow dumb policies, everyone loses, except their competitors I suppose. As to retraining people, I see what you are saying, but there are limits. Someone whose aptitudes and interests lie in IT is unlikely to be happy and effective if retrained into the role of "helping seniors". As job market conditions do change, people need to be able to adapt in what way they best see fit, rather than what government things would be most needed.

Let them adapt as they best see fit, and help them with that in making training affordable and easy to get. But if all the IT jobs are being outsourced, then there just may not be IT jobs for the displaced IT workers to go to. What I'm talking about is at least having some jobs for them to do rather than just be on some sort of welfare. Maybe they'd be happier doing infrastructure work, or environmental reclamation or any of the other things we're not doing enough of in the country. This sort of thing is only going to accelerate as middle class jobs disappear - time to deal with it properly.

[Bonam]

I have never understood how that saves them money.

Cause the only other option they perceive is an expensive $10 million contract with a call center in India. Remember, these are clueless MBAs who only know about "cutting costs" and have no idea about the actual business.

And the people designing the menus are just as dumb. They think people want to check their account balance by calling them so they make that menu option #1

[hitops]

Because they're wasting your time, not paying somebody to deal with you. I think the main reason for these things is to frustrate people so they'll just give up. And notice how they want you to punch in your account info, then first thing when you ge a human is you have to give it to them, then you get transferred, the new person asks you why you were transferred (as if it was your idea) and then wants your account info....

Oh man don't get me started on what. They are indeed wasting my time, which is like wasting my money. That is a cost to me. Therefore I would choose an institution who minimizes that cost. This should incentivize a bank to want to appeal to customers and cater to that. I guess the demand just is not high enough.

I bank with BMO and one of the reasons is because the menu is fast, and you speak to a normal, mature sounding anglophone who can help you. I would however, be more than willing to to pay $5-10 more per year to never have to speak to a machine.

I would if that would work as a business model? You know how you can pay subscriptions to some streaming internet services to avoid ads? Think about it......pay $9.99 per year to never speak with a machine......

And the people designing the menus are just as dumb. They think people want to check their account balance by calling them so they make that menu option #1

LOL. You are so right, honestly what kind of retards are they expecting would call for that?

Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to judge, I guess there are probably a bunch of old people who might do that. And they tend to have all the money.....

Edited April 8, 2013 by hitops

[Michael Hardner]

Did you have family members roll their eyes when your career was affected by habitat destruction and government mismanagement?

Something like that. They're too polite to roll them visibly, but I could hear the eyes rolling inside their heads.

[Bonam]

This sort of thing is only going to accelerate as middle class jobs disappear - time to deal with it properly.

Middle class jobs should not be disappearing. They should be getting replaced with new middle (or upper) class jobs. If our economic policies are causing middle class jobs to disappear and not be replaced, or to be replaced with minimum wage jobs, then those policies are flawed, and should be re-examined. New technology, that August talks about, creates new (usually better) jobs that go along with it. But replacing Canadian workers with Indian ones creates nothing. Seems a pretty obvious distinction.

[Bonam]

Something like that. They're too polite to roll them visibly, but I could hear the eyes rolling inside their heads.

So now you want to return the favor whenever anyone else talks about the downsides of outsourcing and the exploitation of loopholes in temp worker programs? Is that it? An emotional response along the lines of "They did it to me so now all the other bastards gotta suffer too!"?

Edited April 8, 2013 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

You seem to have missed what actually happened in the article. The foreign workers were brought into Canada to replace existing workers. It wasn't a case of the jobs being shipped to another country with lower labour costs. Canada has rules against that sort of thing, and at best this particular instance was an exploitation of a loophole in said laws.

I read that the jobs will be offshore by 2015, and this led me to reasonably think that the 'replacement' jobs are simply transitioning jobs. That would also explain why this practice is allowed.

ie. My job is being offshored, so somebody comes from India to learn what I do and plan how it will be offshored.

And yes, I agree, when the "overall economic advantage" outweights the disadvantages, trade agreements (not that they are the topic of this thread, but I'll humour you) are beneficial and should be pursued. Care to show me the study that shows the economic benefit to Canada of replacing Canadian workers with Indian workers for a few years to learn the Canadian jobs and then ship said jobs off to India?

How is that different from any jobs going offshore ? If you don't see the economic benefit of replacing Canadian workers in this example, let me ask if you ever see an economic benefit to Canada for these agreements, and resulting job losses ?

I'd like to see the hard numbers, the evidence. I know you're fond of asking for such things in other threads so surely you'd be willing to provide it here?

The evidence for these specific jobs ? The costs are going to go down for RBC, I think, and that should be it.

[Bonam]

Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to judge, I guess there are probably a bunch of old people who might do that. And they tend to have all the money.....

Yeah I can just imagine my old gramma trying to get a robotic voice menu to understand her.

[Canuckistani]

Middle class jobs should not be disappearing. They should be getting replaced with new middle (or upper) class jobs. If our economic policies are causing middle class jobs to disappear and not be replaced, or to be replaced with minimum wage jobs, then those policies are flawed, and should be re-examined. New technology, that August talks about, creates new (usually better) jobs that go along with it. But replacing Canadian workers with Indian ones creates nothing. Seems a pretty obvious distinction.

Well yeah, our policies need examining. Surely you're under no illusion that we haven't been gutting out the middle class - ie losing wellpaying jobs that don't require too much specialized training, and replacing them with Mcjobs?

As for technology, there's no way that can balance out. If putting in new tech requires just as many people to operate and service, then there's no saving to industry and no point doing it.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Michael Hardner]

So now you want to return the favor whenever anyone else talks about the downsides of outsourcing and the exploitation of loopholes in temp worker programs? Is that it? An emotional response along the lines of "They did it to me so now all the other bastards gotta suffer too!"?

People seem to be complaining about the lost jobs more than anything else. So to them, I point out that we're talking about the last wave of jobs to be lost. The jobs have been gone. Somehow, the idea that Indian people are coming here for this seems to make this example especially offensive, although I don't understand why.

Since I had my livlihood affected by these things, I can't claim to be emotionally objective however people (including on this thread) are more likely to charge that my position comes from not being affected by free trade, rather than the opposite. As in, "how would you feel if your job was eliminated in this way ?". So, my job was and I had to do what thousands, million have to do - adapt.

This is why the emotional nature of the debate - including the absolute abhorrence of any lost jobs whatsoever - strikes me as immature and ignorant of the facts. People vote with their wallets.

[Canuckistani]

Michael Hardner, on 08 Apr 2013 - 10:18, said:

Something like that. They're too polite to roll them visibly, but I could hear the eyes rolling inside their heads.

So now you want to return the favor whenever anyone else talks about the downsides of outsourcing and the exploitation of loopholes in temp worker programs? Is that it? An emotional response along the lines of "They did it to me so now all the other bastards gotta suffer too!"?

That's certainly my impression. I think Michael has Stockholm syndrom. He doesn't think there's anything that can be done about it, so he's learned to love it.

[Canuckistani]

So, my job was and I had to do what thousands, million have to do - adapt.

That's great, and of course people need to be adaptable. Things change. But you also seem to argue against policies that help people with that adaptation. And against policies that prevent the change if it really is inimical to the country's wellbeing.

[Michael Hardner]

That's certainly my impression. I think Michael has Stockholm syndrom. He doesn't think there's anything that can be done about it, so he's learned to love it.

Right - so I'm saying people on this thread can't really have it both ways: imply that my position comes from NOT being affected by trade agreements, then when it turns our I WAS then say that's why I hold my opinion. There's no winning in that scenario, unless we similarly want to discount and discredit peoples' opinions if they are on the other side.

[Michael Hardner]

That's great, and of course people need to be adaptable. Things change. But you also seem to argue against policies that help people with that adaptation. And against policies that prevent the change if it really is inimical to the country's wellbeing.

I certainly don't argue against those policies. Thanks to Canada's fair EI policies, and excellent job search systems as well as education grants I was able to realign and start moving forward again after 5 years or so in the doldrums.

[eyeball]

That's great, and of course people need to be adaptable. Things change. But you also seem to argue against policies that help people with that adaptation. And against policies that prevent the change if it really is inimical to the country's wellbeing.

I have to laugh. Remember when collapses in fishing, logging, farming and other resource sectors had Ottawa telling us we need to stop being drawers of water and hewers of wood and move into things like IT?

Now IT is out and resources are back except during the interregnum Ottawa tilted the playing field in such a way that the benefits of all the hewing and drawing now goes to people who bring in foreign workers to take the resources off shore for processing.

Only in Canada? No this is the core tenet of globalization.

[GostHacked]

Middle class jobs should not be disappearing. They should be getting replaced with new middle (or upper) class jobs. If our economic policies are causing middle class jobs to disappear and not be replaced, or to be replaced with minimum wage jobs, then those policies are flawed, and should be re-examined. New technology, that August talks about, creates new (usually better) jobs that go along with it. But replacing Canadian workers with Indian ones creates nothing. Seems a pretty obvious distinction.

With the outsourcing the competition for the remaining jobs gets tighter. The employer has an advantage now that they can almost pit the applicants against each other to see who would be the cheapest!

There is no upward mobility in the job market with continual outsourcing. The usual result is 'do you want fries with that?' .

[GostHacked]

Only in Canada? No this is the core tenet of globalization.

This is exactly the case. Globalization is about purposeful wealth redistribution.

[Canuckistani]

This is exactly the case. Globalization is about purposeful wealth redistribution.

Unfortunately yes. It's about creating a global elite that transcends borders and will be able to maintain it's position with the use of technology. I used to be all for globalization, as I thought it was about lifting 3rd world people out of poverty and creating greater economic equality. Instead, it seems to be about importing 3rd world attitudes of privilege and subservience, making the rich richer as well as the 20% who provide higher level services to them, and making the bottom 80% into techono serfs. The new feudalism. Wonder how long that will last this time.

[eyeball]

This is exactly the case. Globalization is about purposeful wealth redistribution.

VIA government policy and official complicity. And when you lose your job to it, expect the rolling of eyes when you complain.

[Michael Hardner]

GH, eyeball and Canuck - I don't see anything you're writing that would indicate you support Free Trade anyway.

[eyeball]

GH, eyeball and Canuck - I don't see anything you're writing that would indicate you support Free Trade anyway.

Then you have never heard a word I've said.

Too busy rolling your eyes I guess.

[Michael Hardner]

Then you have never heard a word I've said.

Too busy rolling your eyes I guess.

I just went back over the last 3 pages, all of them anti-free trade so... I don't see how I haven't heard a word you've "said".

Unless you're saying them out loud while you type them onto yours posts at MLW, in which case I guess I haven't heard you.

[eyeball]

...operational effectiveness...

RBC

This sound suspiciously like the ...ease of management... argument Ottawa used when it displaced thousands of fishermen and instead concentrated ownership of fishing quotas into the hands of a few million and billionaires.