Outsourcing moves to a new target

Today on Slashdot:

Call Center? That's So 2004


In short, Indian companies are finding out that call-center work doesn't pay enough and they're starting to try and ditch the call-center contracts. This is no big surprise. The drive of low-skill manpower intensive IT work to India has spiked the Indian economy significantly. And perfectly predictable, the drive was so hot, and so many companies started looking into outsourcing their call centers in India that the local economy rose as well. Now India isn't nearly as cheap as it was in 2001.

Which is why call-centers are moving elsewhere. Call-center work is to the IT industry what fabric weaving is to the fashion industry. And like fabric weaving, it is something that is most economical in areas where you can pay workers the least possible and still have them live. India's cost-of-living has gone up enough that India is now nolonger the cheapest place to find skilled IT workers. Eastern Europe has seen some pickup in call-center work, as has China. And certain African nations as well.

This is the global economy. Unlike the Slashdot piece which implies that Outsourcing is on the way out, quite the contrary. It is still here, but it isn't all going to India anymore. Economics.

Your rights in the US workplace

If you ever wondered what it meant to work in an 'at will' state, in short it means that the employer and employee can terminate the employment agreement for any reason short of something barred by the employment contract or overriding laws. Union shops tend to have these details in the contract, but non-union workers almost exclusively lack them. As for overriding laws, these are things like the non-discrimination laws preventing employers from discriminating on the basis of race, veteran status, handicap status, sex, and in some cases, sexual preferences.

The converse of this means that if you work for McDonald's, get caught by your manager in a Burger King and subsequently fired, you are out of luck and a job. Recently there has been traction in the media about companies using at-will to subtly and not so subtly urge employees into healthy habits. In this era of rising health-care costs for employers, this is seen as an area of major cost-savings. 60 Minutes just ran a segment about a pair of workers at an insurance agency that got terminated when they were unable to quit smoking in the 15 months allotted to them; at-will employment state, they were out of luck.

Some states have begun drafting legislation to prevent things like this. Back when HIV tests first became economical some companies attempted to sneak an HIV test in with the routine drug testing. Some states passed laws banning the practice of baring employment based on health status, but not many have. About five years ago some companies were caught doing genetic testing on employees to weed out the high risk ones for certain common and detectable illnesses. That also sparked a spate of legislation to ban the practice, but not much was done there either.

But this does bring into the discussion certain items that traditionally have been the purview of jack-booted governmental bogeymen. The actions of private corporations don't get nearly the oversight the government does with regards to civil rights protections. The government needs a warrant to search your home. A private corporation that you work for just has to threaten to fire you unless get your BMI under 30 within 24 months. The City Housing Authority can't deny you access to housing unless you are married, but a private corporation can withhold insurance coverage for children in a single-parent or same-sex household with no penalty.

Some states are not 'at-will' states, and those states have some worker protections. I'm not 100% on it, but I suspect Virginia is one of them as it is a 'commonwealth' and its legal code is based on English Common Law. There it is harder for employers to terminate employment. Not impossible, but harder than other places.

Unions modify the 'at-will' problem with the union contract. That may specify how terminations are to be performed and under what circumstances they are permitted. As the employees are bargaining collectively, the rules apply to all rather than on an individual basis. This is one way that workers can fight-back against such practices.

But there are other rights that are affected. I did a piece on this about two years ago. Private corporations are not bound by the same privacy guarantees as the government. A corporation can follow your every move with cameras, but the Police have to jump hurdles to put cameras in public places.

This is why the 'Big Brother' concept needs modification. It isn't the all powerful government telling you what you need to do to be a productive citizen, it is the combination of government and corporations. The Government can restrict your right of free movement (do-not-fly lists), and the corporations can limit your right to own property (bad credit-reports). In the United States, the Corporations are the bigger threat in my opinion.

It's time to start writing laws.