RBC replaces Canadian staff with foreign workers

[Michael Hardner]

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 no longer have the capacity to start up ? What does that mean ? Impossible to reverse ?

You know, this conversation is really just you saying the same thing over and over, and it will be until you answer the question I have put to you twice already:

"One more time: are you arguing that job losses due to free trade are proof that free trade is a bad thing ? "

Until you answer that, this conversation will just be you reiterating over and over that jobs have been lost, which is elementary isn't it ?

[GostHacked]

We no longer have the capacity to start up ? What does that mean ? Impossible to reverse ?

You know, this conversation is really just you saying the same thing over and over, and it will be until you answer the question I have put to you twice already:

And I have answered your question twice already.

[hitops]

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.

I don't need an explanation of how market forces work. My question was about how you came to the conclusion that this move was 'better'. I don't see much evidence for that. The service will clearly be worse, we all know that from experience with outsourcing in other areas. RBC will suffer some blowback and lose a bunch of accounts, which we have seen because of the coverage. Furthermore RBC was making tons of money, so they obviously did not need these particular foreign workers to do that.

So I'm not really sure this will actually benefit them. You seem to believe that any warm body is interchangeable with the next in any job. That's obviously not the case, the quality of service, experience and skills of the locals represent a lot of value, that means real value in the free market. We're not talking about firing a few bolts and pulling a few levers, we're talking about IT support which requires more skill.

And again the issue here is not about market fundamentals. It is about illegal use of the temp worker program. That program is to bring workers to Canada, employed by Canadian companies, to do work in Canada where nobody else will. It is not for bringing in people to train them for your overseas contractors and then go do the work overseas.

Edited April 9, 2013 by hitops

[Michael Hardner]

And I have answered your question twice already.

Not really - you said "I don't see how I can make it clearer..." then something about fair trade vs free trade. Well here's the thing, you won't get any trade deal without a domestic industry suffering, and therefore job losses and economic loss in some sectors.

So I don't know what kind of alternative you're proposing but it doesn't seem realistic to me.

[eyeball]

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.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.

Oh right, the meetings where the government explained things, after we protested in the streets, fished illegally, seized seized fisheries offices, protested some more and this went on for about a year and a half. That was when they lied to us about renewing our fisheries. They even called their program Fisheries Renewal. Well, guess what...?

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.

We were making quite a bit of noise back in 1995. You didn't hear a thing? I knew we should have been blowing shit up but I got voted down.

I'm not surprised you didn't say a thing. That's who you are.

[eyeball]

We no longer have the capacity to start up ? What does that mean ? Impossible to reverse ?

You know, this conversation is really just you saying the same thing over and over, and it will be until you answer the question I have put to you twice already:

Until you answer that, this conversation will just be you reiterating over and over that jobs have been lost, which is elementary isn't it ?

Speaking of which, you also invariably keep referring back to the inevitability of change when I discuss my industry's demise which had nothing all all to do with outsourcing or free trade. You just cave in to the inevitability of the government's mismanagement policies at every turn. Because you got screwed too apparently.

[Michael Hardner]

We were making quite a bit of noise back in 1995. You didn't hear a thing? I knew we should have been blowing shit up but I got voted down.

I'm not surprised you didn't say a thing. That's who you are.

Well, you weren't speaking loudly enough either. As for who I am, I suppose it's interesting to speculate on that but you definitely don't know who I *was*.

[Michael Hardner]

Speaking of which, you also invariably keep referring back to the inevitability of change when I discuss my industry's demise which had nothing all all to do with outsourcing or free trade. You just cave in to the inevitability of the government's mismanagement policies at every turn. Because you got screwed too apparently.

I was posting to GH, which means I wasn't talking about your industry.

And - I already pointed out that people are making efforts to say that my opinion is due to subjectivity, even when they have opposing assessments of the situation.

[Bonam]

I was posting to GH, which means I wasn't talking about your industry.

And - I already pointed out that people are making efforts to say that my opinion is due to subjectivity, even when they have opposing assessments of the situation.

Different people react differently to the same situation. Some people get angry and rage at the situation, seeing it as an injustice or as bad policy, and want to see it changed. Others hope that others will be screwed over in the same way that they have been. You happen to fall into the latter category, others might fall into the first. There is no contradiction there, just different people feeling different things.

In 1998 Chinese people came to work in my company and I lost my contract. I didn't say anything about it.

The brutal truth is that we sell ourselves every day, and if the market goes away then often so does our self worth.

So your market went away, you "lost your self worth", and you didn't even say anything about it. Congrats I suppose. Don't worry, at least your forum facilitating duties haven't been offshored yet, but then again, you're already getting paid the lowest wage possible for them, zero.

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.

What's a wooden shoe? Is that something you walk around in to weigh yourself down after you've lost your self worth? And yes, if there existed a machine that could do the job I do (research and development of plasma sources, pulse power systems, and magnetic diagnostics for fusion energy and electric space propulsion), I'd be happy, for the reasons I mentioned. Not least of those reasons would be the boundless new possibilities and opportunities that would have been created by the development of such machines.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bonam

[Canuckistani]

And yes, if there existed a machine that could do the job I do, I'd be happy, for the reasons I mentioned. Not least of those reasons would be the boundless new possibilities and opportunities that would have been created by the development of such machines.

A good point that Michael made is the the savings of using such a machine will go to the shareholders of the company, while the people displaced, and all of us (social programs) bear the cost. Some of that cost has to be placed back on the company, IMO.

When i was in highschool in the 60's, I was told I could expect to work about 20 hours a week, since the lenght of workday was declining as machines did more work, so they had to teach me golf and tennis etc so I'd know what to do with my time. The expectation was, during a time of decreasing inequality, that I would make a fulltime wage from those 20 hours. Didn't happen of course, soon after OPEC turned off the taps and the West has never been the same, with people working more and more hours, those that have jobs. And many don't make a fulltime wage from their fulltime work. The point is that at one time the expectation was that the benefits of mechanization would be shared equally across society, not just the rich. It's the same with outsourcing - if we send our boring factory jobs overseas, taking away many jobs with good incomes, then we'd better have other jobs the people displaced can do for a similar income. If not, the country bears the cost, as we aare seeing.

[Michael Hardner]

Others hope that others will be screwed over in the same way that they have been.

Ok - job losses due to trade agreements is 'screwed over'. Got it.

And yes, if there existed a machine that could do the job I do I'd be happy

Yes, it's easy to have such an opinion when you believe in your heart that it could never happen. That's how I felt too. I don't think you'd be happy if you had to make do on less than 1/2 your paycheck. That's what happens in the real world.

[Michael Hardner]

A good point that Michael made is the the savings of using such a machine will go to the shareholders of the company, while the people displaced, and all of us (social programs) bear the cost. Some of that cost has to be placed back on the company, IMO.

In the example of banks more so than in other industries.

[Bonam]

Ok - job losses due to trade agreements is 'screwed over'. Got it.

Er, even if the trade agreement is beneficial overall (which is sometimes true and other times not, depending on the agreement on a case by case basis), the individual worker(s) that lose their jobs and can't find equivalent/better ones are indeed screwed over. What's not to get?

[Bonam]

Yes, it's easy to have such an opinion when you believe in your heart that it could never happen. That's how I felt too. I don't think you'd be happy if you had to make do on less than 1/2 your paycheck. That's what happens in the real world.

On the contrary, I very much believe it can, and will happen. I have often before posted on the topic of accelerating technological change, the development of strong AI, the technological singularity, etc. I believe that probably by sometime in the 2040s, artificial intelligence will outstrip human intelligence, and most natural human intellectual labor will likely become obsolete. I don't think I'll be having to make do on less than 1/2 of my paycheck though, because the developments leading to that future will have created countless new opportunities that we cannot even imagine today, and I'll make use of some of said opportunities.

You and August just don't seem to get that technological progress creates a whole slew of benefits to society, transforming it in a fundamental way over time, which is not in any way analogous to simply shipping jobs overseas (or shipping people from overseas to do jobs here).

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

Er, even if the trade agreement is beneficial overall (which is sometimes true and other times not, depending on the agreement on a case by case basis), the individual worker(s) that lose their jobs and can't find equivalent/better ones are indeed screwed over. What's not to get?

The term 'screwed' is what I don't get. It's like individuals in society are owed a livlihood in all cases. That's factually wrong, and if we're trying to say it's morally wrong then why do people (such as Ghosthacked) pussyfoot around saying it directly ?

Maybe because the implication of saying "job losses due to trade agreements are bad" is that trade agreements can't reasonably be executed.

[Michael Hardner]

You and August just don't seem to get that technological progress creates a whole slew of benefits to society, transforming it in a fundamental way over time, which is not in any way analogous to simply shipping jobs overseas (or shipping people from overseas to do jobs here).

In the long term, yes, but in the short term there's the part about telling Billy that daddy lost his job, figuring out whether to sell the 2nd car for now or whether mom should give up her job ...

That part, that's why they used to throw their shoes in the machines. And the exact same social issues govern job losses, from technology or from outsourcing because the owners and investors benefit and the workers don't, at least i nthe short term.

[Canuckistani]

It is morally wrong to make individuals bear the costs of outsourcing or new technology. It's also economically wrong, because those idled people cost us all money. Especially if we create whole regions of it, like the rustbelt say. It's a waste of human capital, breeds discontent, crime and poor health. Our state should be more collective in that sense.

[Michael Hardner]

It is morally wrong to make individuals bear the costs of outsourcing or new technology. It's also economically wrong, because those idled people cost us all money. Especially if we create whole regions of it, like the rustbelt say. It's a waste of human capital, breeds discontent, crime and poor health. Our state should be more collective in that sense.

Well, no one should make them bear the costs entirely. Government has the resources to aid in transition, and they have done this. But to make a blanket statement that people shouldn't be impacted - even majorly - by progress in any way is naive. Unfortunately, this is something the media doesn't buy into as the human interest story is a mainstay of what they do.

[GostHacked]

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

IN which I responded yes, I do not support free trade. I support FAIR trade, meaning we get something of equal value in return from the country we are shipping jobs to.

Do you thing there is any fair trade in China owning companies in Canada but we cannot invest or own Chinese companies?

And then you said.....

Seems pretty elusive. In fact, it's probably easier to just say no to everything and say you're waiting for "fair trade".

Especially if you're against job losses.

What is elusive about me stating that I do not support free trade? And it's good to be against job losses correct? Especially when they are shipped overseas with no equal value returning to Canada. Unless you view your job loss as a good thing, I am very surprised you are taking this stance.

But then we go back to the same question.

Sorry - let's be clear here. You seem to be arguing that job losses due to free trade are proof that free trade is a bad thing ? I just need to understand that before we continue. Is my assessment right ?

Yes yes and yes.

One more time: are you arguing that job losses due to free trade are proof that free trade is a bad thing ?

Yes yes and yes. How many times do you want to rephrase the question so I can keep answering with yes.

The term 'screwed' is what I don't get. It's like individuals in society are owed a livlihood in all cases. That's factually wrong, and if we're trying to say it's morally wrong then why do people (such as Ghosthacked) pussyfoot around saying it directly ?

How is saying something direct pussyfooting around?

Maybe because the implication of saying "job losses due to trade agreements are bad" is that trade agreements can't reasonably be executed.

Now you are getting it!!!

[Canuckistani]

Well, no one should make them bear the costs entirely. Government has the resources to aid in transition, and they have done this. But to make a blanket statement that people shouldn't be impacted - even majorly - by progress in any way is naive. Unfortunately, this is something the media doesn't buy into as the human interest story is a mainstay of what they do.

And I haven't seen anybody make that statement.

[Wilber]

Why on earth would we sanction foriegn workers coming to Canada in order to be trained so they can move jobs offshore. You can't stop companies from moving jobs offshore but why help them do it. Let them do their training offshore as well. This is nuts.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Wilber

[Canuckistani]

If we look at the Western European states, they have it figured out. Very high in the competitivness rankings (Switzerland is #1), yet with very solid social supports for people affected by job changes. Sweden is (#4) is deemed a model in how to make it easy to hire and fire people and yet support those people that are affected. We should be looking to emulate them, we're only #14. As I said, during the recession, German government and industry worked to keep people in their jobs at reduced hours. So when people started buying again, the industry was able to ramp ;up very quickly to meet demand. That's what GH (I thin) meant about just letting industries die - it's very hard to bring them back. Some industries do need to die, we can't keep everything, but we should be investing our natural resouce revenues in helping to build up industries that actually add value, instead of just partying iwth the money now. Not by subsidy, but by govt building the required infrastructure and providing the right training for people. We need a comprehensive industrial strategy and start acting like a country instead of a bunch of separate provinces.

[eyeball]

The term 'screwed' is what I don't get. It's like individuals in society are owed a livlihood in all cases. That's factually wrong, and if we're trying to say it's morally wrong then why do people (such as Ghosthacked) pussyfoot around saying it directly ?

Maybe because the implication of saying "job losses due to trade agreements are bad" is that trade agreements can't reasonably be executed.

They seem to be inevitable because trade agreements can't be honestly and justly executed. If there is only one thing we're justifiably entitled to it's honest transparent governance. Virtually all of our problems stem from a lack thereof and I have say it's people with an attitude of inevitability and that there's nothing that can be done about it are probably the biggest impediments to doing anything about it. Protesting and making noise alone just doesn't cut it. The only thing that seems inevitable is violence, it's just a matter of when.

[Michael Hardner]

IN which I responded yes, I do not support free trade. I support FAIR trade, meaning we get something of equal value in return from the country we are shipping jobs to.

It wasn't that clear to me, sorry.

Do you thing there is any fair trade in China owning companies in Canada but we cannot invest or own Chinese companies?

You pointed this out once, I believe, and I responded with an article indicating that Scotiabank is buying into a Chinese bank.

Can you quote me an example of countries who executed an agreement for "fair trade" ?

[Michael Hardner]

And I haven't seen anybody make that statement.

You're right - you didn't. It was this sentence that prompted my footnote:

"It is morally wrong to make individuals bear the costs of outsourcing or new technology."

So now that we've acknowledged that job losses can and will happen, what are some examples of acceptable losses.