RBC replaces Canadian staff with foreign workers

[August1991]

I'm not for a globalization that turns us back into hewers of wood/drawers of water. I'm not for a globalization that creates a transnational elite that is able to play off nations against each other for their own interests. I'm not for Free Trade with countries that have totally different social organizations that allows them to exploit workers the way we can't (and shouldn't) do here - that's not a level playing field. Enriching a few Canadians with Free Trade while the middle class loses their jobs and standard of living is not Free Trade I would support. Free Trade with the US or Europe are one thing, with China and India something else.

I made the comparison above between new technology and opening to trade (globalization, as you it or free trade, as MH puts it).

When we open to trade, it is the same as if we adopted a new technology. So, here's my point: every poster here is using a computer, connected to the Internet. Think how many Canadians lost jobs over the past 30 years simply because of these two innovations. Would you want to return to a world of 30 years ago to preserve those jobs? Can you honestly say that the Internet and computers have concentrated power/money in the hands of a few? Has the Internet "gutted" the middle class and lead to an army of proletarians in McJobs?

No one here would give up their Internet connection. But for some reason that I can't fathom, you want RBC to give up the opportunity to hire foreign workers.

-----

I can only conclude that you are hypocrites. You like your cellphone but you don't want someone else to have one too. And you simultaneously enjoy the benefits of technology (oblivious to the costs involved) while inventing spurious reasons to justify someone else (say, RBC) not having access to similar labour-saving methods.

[GostHacked]

The so-called "race to the bttom" argument. By your logic, we should forbid the use of computers because they will work 24/7 for practically nothing. With computers, wages will fall to mere pennies. We'll all be impoverished!

It makes no difference if someone who loses their job to a foreigner, a computer, or a change in market conditions. They lost their job. But that frees the person to do something else more valuable with their time.

Good to know that all my hard work through school and paying the outrageous tuition fees allow me to do it all over again down the road. I fail to see the value in that. Edited April 9, 2013 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

iGate: $3B in revenue

http://www.igate.com/igate-advantage/our-philosophy.aspx

[TimG]

Why don't we replace IT services with 'computers'.

Does it makes sense to argue that Canadian companies should only buy computers designed and built in Canada?

Even Canadian icons like RIM outsource the production of their products to other countries.

Second, a lot of the software work in Canada is outsourced from other countries.

If outsourcing stopped Canadian software workers would be huge net losers.

This is a fight we do not want to win.

Third, the one aspect of this story which is disturbing is the suggestion that Canadian workers were forced to train their replacements. This is an extremely unethical move on the part of management - if they want to outsource the work they have no right to expect co-operation from the workers being replaced. Paying them is not enough to make up for such an ethical breach.

If there is any change it should be in this detail of employment law. i.e. if a worker is laid off after being asked to train a replacement then companies should be expected to shell out a huge severance package,

(at least triple the normal).

Edited April 9, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

No one here would give up their Internet connection. But for some reason that I can't fathom, you want RBC to give up the opportunity to hire foreign workers.

They don't have the opportunity to hire foreign workers in Canada and save substantial costs doing so. The intent of Canada's laws is that they can bring foreign workers to Canada if and only if they can demonstrate that no qualified Canadians applied for these jobs, and they can pay the foreign workers no less than 15% under the prevailing wage for these jobs. They are exploiting loopholes in the rules by contracting the services out to a third party that brings in the foreign workers who replace current employees. Such exploitation of these rules is unethical, and moreover is not beneficial to Canada.

You don't seem to having a basic comprehension of the differences between standard outsourcing and what is going on here. Nor do you even seem to grasp the difference between technology making certain jobs obsolete and shipping those jobs off to other countries. You may want to try to gain a deeper insight into this topic besides your usual talking point of "omg ATMs".

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bonam

[Bonam]

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.

Of course it balances out with technology, more than balances out in fact. It requires less people to operate some existing service, but the development and use of the new technology creates a whole new field of innovation that generates more wealth and employs more people than before. Using August's favorite example, banks may need to hire less teller's once there are ATMs, but the information technology field of which ATMs are one product created vast amounts of new types of jobs which did not exist before. On the other hand, simply replacing one worker with another (who happens to be in a different country) doesn't create anything new, no new fields for innovation, no new types of jobs.

There is a fundamental difference between advancing technology making certain types of jobs obsolete, and simply offshoring certain jobs. This is an important distinction that people need to understand in this debate.

[hitops]

What difference does it make if we manage to improve productivity through a robot, or finding a foreigner who will do the job at lower cost. In both cases, Canadian society overall is better off.

Better off implies you have some ability to objectively make that judgment. On what basis exactly?

[eyeball]

At heart, that's the issue here.

No it isn't.

RBC has found a better way to operate. It improves productivity. That's a good thing that's been going on for centuries and thankfully, we can now enjoy the benefits of this greater productivity.

RBC has the government tilting the playing field in it's direction. It did the same thing for other more powerful and often already wealthy players in my industry too. You simply don't have a clue what this is about.

It's an awful thing that governments have been doing for centuries to ordinary people and you say you're enjoying the benefits?

[August1991]

Nor do you even seem to grasp the difference between technology making certain jobs obsolete and shipping those jobs off to other countries. You may want to try to gain a deeper insight into this topic besides your usual talking point of "omg ATMs".

Bonam, I'll ignore your confusing discussion of "ethical outsourcing" and focus on this single point: there is no difference between eliminating a job through some labour-saving device and eliminating a job by hiring a foreigner. What difference is there to a Canadian worker who loses their job because of technological change or because of a cheaper foreign alternative? In both cases, someone has found a less costly method to achieve a task. It is really no different from finding a faster route to drive home on a daily commute.

True, each of these "better ways" has a consequence for other people. But would you argue that your gas station has the right to force you to take a long route home so that he can continue to sell you more gasoline than you need? In effect, that is what you want to force RBC to do.

My argument, using common sense, is to say that historically, countries don't become rich by refusing to adopt a better, less cost way to accomplish a task. You probably don't in your personal life.

----

I find it hypocritical for people to use online banking and ATMs which (OMG!) have eliminated numerous banking jobs and forced the closure of many branches, and then these same people complain when RBC decides to hire foreign workers. It is not logically consistent.

Edited April 9, 2013 by August1991

[eyeball]

The things that happened to your industry and to mine are completely different.

Not entirely, the government's policies have certainly had it's hand in both our cases. Whether directly in it's mismanagement of our respective sectors or more overtly whilst generally tilting economic playing fields away from ordinary Canadians.

Why would anyone want to give in to that?

Not caring is pretty cool, I suppose, and a natural reaction.

It's natural enough all right but it's not that cool really. It's actually a little sad really. There's a good book called Jihad vs McWorld (written post 9/11 so you can't blame the seemingly poor title on the author) that outlines how the response to globalization will be quite undemocratic and cause negatively affected communities, sectors, ideologies what have you to become more tribal in their outlook and regard towards others.

But why give in to the negativity ? In the end, it's all just change and people trying to manage it.

The more things change the more they stay the same. And I had no hand in the management of my industry in fact the government went out of it's way to exclude us from having anything to do with it, well notwithstanding lobbyists from BC Packers and Canfisco of course, you know, Mr's Weston and Pattison the billionaires.

[August1991]

RBC has the government tilting the playing field in it's direction. It did the same thing for other more powerful and often already wealthy players in my industry too. You simply don't have a clue what this is about.

It's an awful thing that governments have been doing for centuries to ordinary people and you say you're enjoying the benefits?

I find it ironic that we are communicating in almost real time several thousand kilometers apart and you wonder about the benefits of modern life.

What do you mean by saying "tilting the playing field"? That's a tinfoil hat, deus ex machina argument. Powerful forces are controlling the universe.... whatever. If you think that RBC has an advantage, do as Rick Mercer and buy Canadian bank stocks.

[Bonam]

Bonam, I'll ignore your confusing discussion of "ethical outsourcing" and focus on this single point: there is no difference between eliminating a job through some labour-saving device and eliminating a job by hiring a foreigner.

Yes, you'll continue to harp on that single incorrect point, to no avail. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, or even relevant.

But would you argue that your gas station has the right to force you to

take a long route home so that he can continue to sell you more gasoline

than you need?

Congrats on coming up with one more horribly inapplicable analogy.

I find it hypocritical for people to use online banking and ATMs which (OMG!)

Back to the same analogy you've repeated ad nauseam. Care to argue the actual point rather than making your usual metaphor-laden pseudo-intellectual proclamations?

I find it hypocritical for people to use online banking and ATMs which

(OMG!) have eliminated numerous banking jobs and forced the closure of

many branches, and then these same people complain when RBC decides to

hire foreign workers. It is not logically consistent.

I find it hypocritical for people to eat apples and also eat oranges. And then the same people complain that bananas aren't round. It is not logically consistent. This statement makes about as much sense as your posts on this subject have.

By the way, here's the statement from the CEO of RBC on this topic:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/08/rbc-bank-foreign-workers.html?cmp=rss

Rather than defending the practice on its merits, he firmly denied that the bank engages in such practices, rather elaborating on the loophole that they have used, thinking that that will somehow ameliorate RBC's image. I'm thinking HRSDC is gonna bring down the hammer on these guys, and they've already stated that they've found "discrepancies". Companies like iGate engage in immigration fraud on a vast scale, both in Canada and the US and likely in various European countries. It's time their activities were brought to light and shut down.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bonam

[August1991]

Better off implies you have some ability to objectively make that judgment. On what basis exactly?

It's cheaper and/or better.

When you choose Coffee Shop A rather than Coffee Shop B, you are presumably better off. Coffee Shop B may not be happy about losing you as a customer but unless it can match the terms of Coffee Shop A, it would be value destroying to force you to buy Coffee B.

When you choose to read the news online (rather than buy a newspaper), the same argument goes through. Many people have lost jobs in the pulp and paper industry because of the Internet and the choices of individuals.

[August1991]

Yes, you'll continue to harp on that single incorrect point, to no avail. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true, or even relevant.

But Bonam, what is the difference if you lose your job to a robot, or to a foreign worker?

You seem to see a difference and I don't, If there is a difference, please explain it to me,

[eyeball]

I find it ironic that we are communicating in almost real time several thousand kilometers apart and you wonder about the benefits of modern life.

What does your sense of irony or internet communication have to do with government management of fish stocks, fish habitat, labour standards, corporate lobbying and the loss of good paying jobs in Canada?

What do you mean by saying "tilting the playing field"? That's a tinfoil hat, deus ex machina argument. Powerful forces are controlling the universe.... whatever. If you think that RBC has an advantage, do as Rick Mercer and buy Canadian bank stocks.

Get a grip August, I said powerful wealthy people are influencing the government not controlling the universe.

Edited April 9, 2013 by eyeball

[Sleipnir]

These people are coming here to train, then will go back to India right ?

No. They're currently being trained by the very workers that are being fired.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Sleipnir

[Bonam]

But Bonam, what is the difference if you lose your job to a robot, or to a foreign worker?

You seem to see a difference and I don't, If there is a difference, please explain it to me,

The fact that the robot has been invented means that technology and society have progressed, that new things that were impossible before are now possible, that innovation in new areas has created new wealth and new opportunities, and that you've almost certainly benefited from said progress. On the other hand being replaced by a foreign worker means everything is exactly the same as before, except you're out of a job.

Does the invention of computers really seem like the same thing to you as a dude from India? The invention of computers and the internet brought a vast swathe of new possibilities, transformed our lives in almost uncountable ways, and contributed to the creation of most of the wealth that exists in the world today. A guy from India is just another guy.

If someday a robot can do the job I am currently doing, I'll be ecstatic... it will mean we've developed something along the lines of strong AI and human civilization will be in the middle of the technological singularity, with unprecedented benefits to all of us, or at the very least a very different world. On the other hand if someone else just takes my job, none of that is true.

I'm surprised you really need this explained to you.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bonam

[eyeball]

I'm surprised you really need this explained to you.

I'm not.

[kimmy]

RBC is free to outsource jobs if they wish. I'm free to take my business elsewhere if I wish.

I sometimes buy low-cost products that were made in China or India or Bangladesh... so why should I care if RBC outsources jobs?

If I buy low-cost products that were made in China or India, what's the benefit to me? Well, I save money.

If RBC outsources jobs, what's the benefit to me? Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Are they going to give me higher interest on my deposits? Nope. Are they going to reduce my service charges? Take some of their savings off of my mortgage? Nope. Nothing.

Their statements to the press on this topic says that they are constantly looking for ways to save money so that they can "continually improve our service at reduced cost and reinvest in initiatives that enhance the client experience". I call BS. I can't recall them ever reducing my costs in any aspect of their service. I can't recall my "client experience" being "enhanced" either.

Their shareholders benefit, I guess, but I'm not a shareholder. Just a customer. It makes not one whit of difference to me if their shareholders pocket a few extra bucks in their next dividends.

If RBC is axing jobs in Canada, that means there are fewer tax-payers, more people claiming EI, less people spending their paycheques in Canadian communities. Why should I be in favor of that? I get no benefit from it, and as a taxpayer it costs me money, and as a citizen it hurts my neighbors. Some shareholder pockets a few extra bucks, but most of the benefit is derived on the other side of the planet. What's in it for me?

Aside from this debacle, RBC is also among the banks being investigated in the LIBOR rate rigging scandal. I'm not proud to be a customer of this bank right now.

RBC is free to do what they're doing, and I'm free to shop elsewhere for financial services. And I will start shopping. I have been with RBC since my very first savings account when I was a small child. My family has been with RBC for a very long time. I have a mortgage and a substantial chunk of assets with RBC, and they're not easily unentangled. But I can take my savings elsewhere, and I can start new RRSP accounts elsewhere. I will definitely look into it.

-k

Edited April 9, 2013 by kimmy

[BC_chick]

kimmy, on 08 Apr 2013 - 23:18, said:

RBC is free to outsource jobs if they wish. I'm free to take my business elsewhere if I wish.

[...]

If RBC is axing jobs in Canada, that means there are fewer tax-payers, more people claiming EI, less people spending their paycheques in Canadian communities. Why should I be in favor of that? I get no benefit from it, and as a taxpayer it costs me money, and as a citizen it hurts my neighbors. Some shareholder pockets a few extra bucks, but most of the benefit is derived on the other side of the planet. What's in it for me?

It's called 'comparative-advantage', it was touched on a few pages back. It makes Indian people richer and the ripple effects of the increased demand will be felt all the way over here.... where we end up with higher cost of living to go along with our lower wages. Double-joy.

But in RBC's defense, I'm sure they're very serious about passing the savings to you.

Edited April 9, 2013 by BC_chick

[Michael Hardner]

There's a good book called Jihad vs McWorld (written post 9/11 so you can't blame the seemingly poor title on the author) that outlines how the response to globalization will be quite undemocratic and cause negatively affected communities, sectors, ideologies what have you to become more tribal in their outlook and regard towards others.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Except, some things do change. Poverty in 2013 isn't anything like what poverty meant in 1813. People are willing to revolt if they're starving but not if they can't upgrade their XBoxes.

And I had no hand in the management of my industry in fact the government went out of it's way to exclude us from having anything to do with it, well notwithstanding lobbyists from BC Packers and Canfisco of course, you know, Mr's Weston and Pattison the billionaires.

Your language changes slightly with every year. There was a time when you talked about meetings where the government explained things, and a feeling that they were being untruthful. Now you say you were excluded.

Look at my example. In 1998 Chinese people came to work in my company and I lost my contract. I didn't say anything about it. In 2013 pretty much the same thing happened with RBC and people got upset. You and I should have made more noise, maybe.

[Michael Hardner]

No. They're currently being trained by the very workers that are being fired.

Your statement doesn't contradict mine.

[Michael Hardner]

A guy from India is just another guy.

But that guy has a way to do the job cheaper, ie. he does the job and doesn't charge as much. Unless you can put forward a moral issue in a new way, then this is a comparative advantage. And, as evidenced by the public demand for cheap goods from Asia, people are fine with this.

The economic term is comparative advantage. It can come from technology or from people, it doesn't matter. The market looks for a way to reduce costs and it has always been so.

If someday a robot can do the job I am currently doing, I'll be ecstatic... it will mean we've developed something along the lines of strong AI and human civilization will be in the middle of the technological singularity, with unprecedented benefits to all of us, or at the very least a very different world. On the other hand if someone else just takes my job, none of that is true.

Actually, if you care about people, you'll see that in the former scenario the Indian worker gets the money, but in this one a corporation or a capitalist who owns the technology (thanks to government protected patent rights) gets the money.

And, no, you wouldn't be ecstatic if a machine replaced you, you would try to throw a wooden shoe into the works as they did hundreds of years ago. Losing your job one way over another is no comfort that I see. The brutal truth is that we sell ourselves every day, and if the market goes away then often so does our self worth.

[GostHacked]

It's cheaper and/or better.

When you choose Coffee Shop A rather than Coffee Shop B, you are presumably better off. Coffee Shop B may not be happy about losing you as a customer but unless it can match the terms of Coffee Shop A, it would be value destroying to force you to buy Coffee B.

If Coffee Shop A sucks , then I will willingly pay more for a better product over at Shop B. I have no problem paying for quality if I get a better experience out of it or have a product that will not need to be replaced in a short time.

When you choose to read the news online (rather than buy a newspaper), the same argument goes through. Many people have lost jobs in the pulp and paper industry because of the Internet and the choices of individuals.

I get that markets change because of technology, that has always been the case. But in RBC's case, they are sending the job overseas. It's not equatable to the loss of a job through technology.

I've seen what outsourcing does and the problems that go with it. I worked at a help desk that was outsourced by Time Warner's Road Runner internet service. Good thing I was able to find another job, for the company that Time Warner used end up going bankrupt. The company planned to move it's operations to yet another country, and TW said, nope. They lost the contract. I don't know if TW managed to hire another outsourcing company to take up the slack.

[GostHacked]

But that guy has a way to do the job cheaper, ie. he does the job and doesn't charge as much. Unless you can put forward a moral issue in a new way, then this is a comparative advantage. And, as evidenced by the public demand for cheap goods from Asia, people are fine with this.

We can use manufacturing outsourcing as an example. Both in Canada and the USA has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to foreign markets. We no longer have the capacity to start up manufacturing again because this trend has taken us so far down this road. The trend is difficult if not impossible to reverse. What does that spell for the future of our economies and ability to stay relevant in a global market when we send all the jobs overseas?

We have moved more to a service economy instead of a manufacturing or product economy. What do we export if we only have services to sell?

And, no, you wouldn't be ecstatic if a machine replaced you, you would try to throw a wooden shoe into the works as they did hundreds of years ago. Losing your job one way over another is no comfort that I see. The brutal truth is that we sell ourselves every day, and if the market goes away then often so does our self worth.

Seems like you do want to come out against outsourcing but just shy a little bit of actually saying it.