RBC replaces Canadian staff with foreign workers

[August1991]

To the question: what is the difference between trade and new technology, you answer this:

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.

Trade achieves exactly the same, and it has all the same consequences.

I can produce oranges or butter on my own. Or, with trade, I can convert my time into oranges and butter. Or using the invention of a Nobel Prize winner, I can press a button in my kitchen and create butter. Whether trade or technology, I have found a better way to do things.

----

Productivity? Progress? Bonam, you use these words with abandon. But what do they really mean?

Imagine you employ two guys, widget-makers, each making one widget a day. Your business produces two widgets per day. Then, a new device/technology makes it possible to double widget-making "productivity". Do you make four widgets? Or do you lay-off one of your widget-makers?

What if the world only needs two widgets? (Not four.) Where is the "productivity" gain then?

The unemployed widget-maker is depressed, smokes cigarettes at home watching daytime TV. Until he discovers the doohinkey industry! The world has the same number of widgets as before (2), but now it has more doohinkeys.

There's your technology productivity progress, Sherlock.

====

If you object to RBC outsourcing its work, or hiring foreigners - if you object to free trade with foreigners - then logically you must object to using new technology.

Edited April 10, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

The difference is the money goes out of Canada. Instead of spending the money on something here, some efficiency, the bank will be shipping that money to India.

So if I buy oranges from Florida, or a shirt from Bangladesh, that's bad for Canada because "money goes out of Canada"?

Argus, are you a North Korean sleeper on MLW?

----

Worse, if I use a computer for e-mails and have less need to buy stamps and send letters, that's less money spent in Canada (for Canadian postal workers, and Quebec paper producers). Argus, do you "waste" your own money in Canada to buy stamps because you want to "spend money on something here"?

As I argue above, trade (outsourcing, délocalisation) is no different from new technology.

When you pay a bill online (rather than write a cheque), it is no different from buying a shirt made in Bangladesh (rather than in Canada).

Edited April 10, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

How is society better off? When you outsource hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs to a foreign country you now have hundreds of thousands of people who can't support themselves, who aren't paying taxes, who have to be supported by society, and who can no longer create commercial activity like they used to. They're not buying cars and TVs, for example. Now the economic theory is those people will now find more efficient employment in something Canada does better than other nations, but the reality is they generally wind up in much lower paying jobs, again, without the same ability to create economic activity, or often, to support themselves properly.

A hundred years or so ago Ford wanted his workers to earn enough money to buy his vehicles. He helped create the middle class. Well, the workers at US auto makers now, the younger ones, in the renegotiated agreements, often can't afford to buy those cars. So the more we outsource our middle class jobs the less the population will be able to afford the goods and services these companies produce.

If a modern Ford discovered a way to make a car run on sunlight, or a simple way to store energy, everyone (Left & Right) would hail the person. She/he would win a Nobel Prize.

And yet, such a person would destroy the oil business, and cause unemployment to millions. (Condo prices in Fort McMurray would collapse... Ugh.)

Nevertheless, the world would be better off.

Edited April 10, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

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.

I love such logic - because it's good common sense.

Kimmy, why would you object to what RBC is doing? Do you object/care if your neighbour is sleeping with foreigners?

-----

In life, we deal with others. And in this modern world, we seem to be more aware about who is doing what with whom, as if that matters.

Edited April 10, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

You guys have been moving away from the actual issue for the last ten pages. The issue is not, in this case, about outsourcing jobs to India. It's actually about bringing workers from India to Canada as 'temporary workers'. The temporary worker program is a Tory invention which basically is built to do an end run around Capitalism. Capitalism is something all business pays lip service to but really doesn't like when it works against them.

I tend to agree with Argus that RBC has been unfortunately caught in the cross-hairs. This news meme is really about "temporary workers", Conservatives and immigration.

OTOH, I completely disagree with Argus that this has anything to do with "Capitalism".

[kimmy]

I love such logic - because it's good common sense.

Kimmy, why would you object to what RBC is doing? Do you object/care if your neighbour is sleeping with foreigners?

If they can show me how sending jobs to India provides a tangible benefit to me, they're welcome to do so. As it stands, I see a tangible benefit to them, but none at all to me.

If a textiles company decides to have its labor done in India instead of Canada, they can point to an obvious benefit for me: a lower price. What's the benefit to me when RBC decides to have labor done in India? Are they going to lower their banking fees so that they can get an edge on their competitors? No, they are not. If they have a good argument as to how *I* benefit, I have yet to hear it. They have provided vague newspeak about "improved services at reduced costs" and "initiatives that enhance the client experience." That's crap. They have never ever reduced my costs, and I can't recall anything they've ever done to "enhance" my "client experience".

I'm of the opinion that there's a tangible benefit to me if RBC hires a Canadian, and a tangible detriment to me if RBC lays off a Canadian and has that person's work done in a foreign country. The counter-argument seems to be that this Canadian has been liberated to do some new and more valuable sort of work. I am skeptical; I doubt these middle-aged and semi-skilled bank employees will be off to start the next Facebook or Apple now that they've been "liberated" from their jobs.

If the best RBC can do is tell me that it's not really my business if they outsource some of their back-room type work, that's not very compelling. If they have an explanation of how their current policy benefits me, rather than just their shareholders, I have yet to hear it.

I imagine that RBC's competitors will be coming forward to make their own case, and given the public relations debacle this is turning into for RBC, that will be an easy case to make.

-k

[August1991]

I'm of the opinion that there's a tangible benefit to me if RBC hires a Canadian, and a tangible detriment to me if RBC lays off a Canadian and has that person's work done in a foreign country.

And presumably, you also feel the same way if your neighbour, down the hall, has a guest from China spend the night, rather than a, uh, Canadian.

If a textiles company decides to have its labor done in India instead of Canada...

Indians and Chinese are cheap. But robots/computers are much cheaper. In the long run, they cost nothing. What if the textile company hires a robot to do the job? 24/7, for nothing?

How can unionized Canadian workers in proper, civilized, regulated conditions compete against a robot who works for nothing?

This is a "race to the bottom" that workers will lose.[/sarcasm]

Edited April 10, 2013 by August1991

[kimmy]

And presumably, you also feel the same way if your neighbour, down the hall, has a guest from China spend the night, rather than a, uh, Canadian.

That's a ridiculous non-sequitur, August. Weird, even by your increasingly weird standards. The nationality of my neighbor's houseguest has no bearing at all on me. My neighbor's employment and well being certainly do.

-k

[Bonam]

More on this story:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/04/09/canada-bank-foreign-workers.html?cmp=rss

The short version is that over the last several years, contracting work out to Indian offshoring companies like Infosys, Tata, and iGate that bring in temp workers to be trained by the people they are replacing is standard banking industry practice.

[August1991]

That's a ridiculous non-sequitur, August. Weird, even by your increasingly weird standards. The nationality of my neighbor's houseguest has no bearing at all on me. My neighbor's employment and well being certainly do.

Weird? Non sequitur?

Presumably, you have no objection if an RBC manager marries a foreigner, but you object if the same manager hires one - on the spurious grounds that a houseguest is somehow different from an employee.

----

Let me return to my broader point: Foreigners are like robots.

If you object to RBC hiring foreigners to replace Canadian workers, then you must (logically) object to the use of cellphones since they too replaced Canadian workers.

Edited April 10, 2013 by August1991

[kimmy]

Presumably, you have no objection if an RBC manager marries a foreigner, but you object if the same manager hires one - on the spurious grounds that a houseguest is somehow different from an employee.

Spurious grounds? It's not spurious at all.

As I said before, there's no effect at all on me if my neighbor marries a foreigner. But there is a tangible effect on me if my neighbor is unemployed.

If my neighbor loses their job, then:

-there's one fewer taxpayers

-there's one more person receiving tax-funded benefits.

-their condo fees might not get paid.

-they might even break into my apartment while I'm at work.

Perhaps you think you live in a world where you're completely detached from the people around you. But you're wrong.

Maybe you don't think it be like it is, but it do.

But it do.

-k

Edited April 10, 2013 by kimmy

[Bonam]

There you are still repeating the same nonsense, not realizing the distinctions between robots and people, marriages and houseguests, workers and cellphones, etc.

[August1991]

Spurious grounds? It's not spurious at all.

As I said before, there's no effect at all on me if my neighbor marries a foreigner. But there is a tangible effect on me if my neighbor is unemployed.

If my neighbor loses their job, then:

-there's one fewer taxpayers

-there's one more person receiving tax-funded benefits.

-their condo fees might not get paid.

-they might even break into my apartment while I'm at work.

So, you would prefer to pay higher taxes so that your neighbour could stay, uh, in a "value-destroying" or "abusive relationship" rather than become "unemployed".

There you are still repeating the same nonsense, not realizing the distinctions between robots and people, marriages and houseguests, workers and cellphones, etc.

Thankfully, ambulances and firetrucks use GPS to arrive faster.

In 1980, GPS didn't exist. Since then, how many people lost jobs because of GPS?

Because of Deng Tsiao-Peng, China has changed. Since then, how many people lost jobs because of Deng?

----

Whether Deng or GPS, the world is a better place.

Edited April 10, 2013 by August1991

[kimmy]

So, you would prefer to pay higher taxes so that your neighbour could stay, uh, in a "value-destroying" or "abusive relationship".

Higher taxes? As I stated earlier, RBC has not provided me with lower costs by making use of lower-cost labor. As I said earlier, I do often buy foreign-made goods when they are considerably cheaper than a domestic equivalent. But if there is no benefit to me, then I'll certainly buy a Canadian product over a foreign-made one. If RBC wants to become the equivalent of foreign-made tube-socks, and their price is going to be the same as the Canadian-made tube socks, then I'll buy the Canadian made tube socks, because all other things being equal I would prefer that my purchase support Canadian jobs than foreign ones.

-k

[August1991]

As I stated earlier, RBC has not provided me with lower costs by making use of lower-cost labor. As I said earlier, I do often buy foreign-made goods when they are considerably cheaper than a domestic equivalent. But if there is no benefit to me, then I'll certainly buy a Canadian product over a foreign-made one. If RBC wants to become the equivalent of foreign-made tube-socks, and their price is going to be the same as the Canadian-made tube socks, then I'll buy the Canadian made tube socks, because all other things being equal I would prefer that my purchase support Canadian jobs than foreign ones.

I cannot argue.

======

Let me return to my broader point: Foreigners are like robots.

If you object to RBC hiring foreigners to replace Canadian workers, then you must (logically) object to the use of cellphones since they too replaced Canadian workers.

Edited April 13, 2013 by August1991

[TimG]

The short version is that over the last several years, contracting work out to Indian offshoring companies like Infosys, Tata, and iGate that bring in temp workers to be trained by the people they are replacing is standard banking industry practice.

Anyone who knows anything about the industry knows that that outsourcing back office s/w development to India is standard practice for ALL large organizations including governments (yes - Canadian federal and provincial governments DO outsource "jobs" to India too but they hide it well for political reasons).

The s/w industry in North America depends entirely on small and medium sized companies that are extremely entrepreneurial and develop a niche expertise and/or new product ideas.

Large scale enterprise systems are largely routine tasks that require technical expertise but little imagination - work that is easiest to justify outsourcing to the lowest cost worker.

Edited April 10, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

Anyone who knows anything about the industry knows that that outsourcing back office s/w development to India is standard practice for ALL large organizations including governments (yes - Canadian federal and provincial governments DO outsource "jobs" to India too but they hide it well for political reasons).

The topic is not outsourcing. The topic is bringing workers into Canada on temporary work visas and requiring existing employees to train their own replacements. The entire practice is completely against the spirit of Canadian employment law, though I'm sure it follows the letter of it, that's what all the lawyers are for.

[TimG]

The topic is bringing workers into Canada on temporary work visas and requiring existing employees to train their own replacements.

If that is the topic then this thread has gone completely off the rails because everyone is arguing about virtues of outsourcing.

That said, I am not sure what temporary worker permits has to do with the topic.

Would it make a difference if old workers were sent to India to train their replacement?

What about training done by webex?

Seems to me that temporary worker permits are a red herring.

The real issue is the fact that people are being asked to train their replacements and I agree that is an issue - but no one is talking about it.

[GostHacked]

There's just a negative sentiment towards trade, it seems. Your point seems lost to those who just assume Canada is too expensive.

No you are wrong. No one here said they are against trade. People are against getting shafted with trade deals that do not reciprocate as much coming in as it does going out, resulting in a net loss for Canada.

[GostHacked]

when the jobs are largely unskilled. customer service requires the right personality but requires little skill.

I would say that customer service is a skill. Making sure a customer is happy with the service or product is key to having a return customer. So many times have I been disappointing with how I am greeted or lack of greeting when making purchases at some stores.

[Michael Hardner]

No you are wrong. No one here said they are against trade. People are against getting shafted with trade deals that do not reciprocate as much coming in as it does going out, resulting in a net loss for Canada.

Oh, come on. You're against free trade, you admit that. You want *fair trade, but effectively it's impossible to execute so why not just say you're against trade ?

[GostHacked]

Oh, come on. You're against free trade, you admit that. You want *fair trade, but effectively it's impossible to execute so why not just say you're against trade ?

Do you like words being put in your mouth? This is not very becoming of a forum facilitator.

I am not against trade. I am against free and unfair trade. You are definitely showing signs of Stockholm Syndrome.

Edited April 10, 2013 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

Do you like words being put in your mouth? This is not very becoming of a forum facilitator.

I am not against trade. I am against free and unfair trade. You are definitely showing signs of Stockholm Syndrome.

The 'fair trade' that you speak of, as defined by you, has no examples on this thread. Can you provide one ? If not, I am going to assume it's mythical.

[GostHacked]

The 'fair trade' that you speak of, as defined by you, has no examples on this thread. Can you provide one ? If not, I am going to assume it's mythical.

How do you expect one to give an example of 'fair trade' when there is none? Of course fair trade is mythical .. that's the whole point of my argument. Do you need to ask the question again so I can answer you with the same but with slightly different words???? You are getting to be a broken record here Mike.

[Michael Hardner]

How do you expect one to give an example of 'fair trade' when there is none? Of course fair trade is mythical .. that's the whole point of my argument. Do you need to ask the question again so I can answer you with the same but with slightly different words???? You are getting to be a broken record here Mike.

Right - so you're in favour of trade theoretically but not in favour of any trade agreements that have happened.

Excuse me for being cynical about your support for trade, then.