Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Liberal Xenophobia
Tim Lee at Tech Liberation Front spots legislation being pushed by Senate Dems that would require call-center workers to identify the country in which they're located. There is, as he notes, something ironic about self-described liberals promoting protectionism by means of a law which works mostly by prompting nativists to yell at dark-skinned people who're just trying to make a living.
|4.12.06 @ 12:43PM|#
This is what transparency looks like, J. Although I generally dislike regulations, regulations that expand consumer information are pretty gr8 in my book. Like the warning on my cigs. like the ingredient listing on my food. Like the list of counterindications on my diet pills. Not all regulations deserve kneejerk opposiition.
|4.12.06 @ 12:45PM|#
To call this "liberal xenophobia" is inaccurate. Call it
"liberals taking advantage of conservative xenophobia in the name
of protectionism." Okay?
JMJ
|4.12.06 @ 12:47PM|#
Maybe it would be better if the law was that if you ask the person in the call center what country they are in, they have to tell the truth?
|4.12.06 @ 12:55PM|#
Aaaaaahhh come one....
Knee Jerk!
Have you ever tried to call the Dell Consumer Line?
I tell you what, the guy I spoke told me, in the thickest Indian
accent that his name was 'Gary'. He was telling porkies....
Have a go at Corporations for abusing identities and taking
advantage but don't call people Xenophobic because they don't like
having the piss taken out of them.
|4.12.06 @ 12:57PM|#
This is what transparency looks like, J. Although I
generally dislike regulations, regulations that expand consumer
information are pretty gr8 in my book.
Perhaps they should also be required to identify their race,
religion, and sexual orientation in case some callers are sensitive
to those characteristics as well.
|4.12.06 @ 12:59PM|#
"regulations that expand consumer information"
Agreed in principle, bullshit in this case. Requiring a doctor to
disclose whether he's (say) gotten any money from pharam companies
whose drugs he's prescribing, or restaurants to post a notice if
they allow smoking, is a sensisble consumer information regulation.
Requiring the doctor to inform you if he's gay, or the restaurant
to tell you the races of the kitchen staff... well, not so much.
Consumers can always ask if they're that interested.
|4.12.06 @ 1:04PM|#
Like the warning on my cigs. like the ingredient listing on
my food. Like the list of counterindications on my diet pills. Not
all regulations deserve kneejerk opposiition.
Oh really? Does it even need to be pointed out that in those cases
the information relates directly to the quality and/or risks to the
consumer of using the product? Does identifying the country in
which they're located have anything to do with that?
You could try to claim they are hard to understand, but if so that
is patently obvious and requires no warning. If it is not obvious
then the nationality of the person is totally irrelevant, so again,
no need for a warning.
But of course we all know that isn't what this is about. To say
this is about transparency is so obviously wrong to even a casual
observer as to be absurd. One wonders why you even try such an
argument.
Maybe we should we pass a law that requires all call center workers
to tell you their race too? And how about their gender or sexual
orientation while we're at it. I mean, if it's just about
transparency, why not?
|4.12.06 @ 1:07PM|#
Apologies to MikeP and Julian for duplicating their argument - I should hit "refresh" before posting...
|4.12.06 @ 1:18PM|#
Consumers can always ask if they're that
interested.
Right, and what's to prevent them from lying?
I have heard of cases where the support person refused to
acknowledge whether they were in another country or not, and as
Mark said earlier, when someone who barely speaks english tells you
their name is Gary, somehow the whole "Ask them" argument seems a
little naive.
Does it even need to be pointed out that in those cases the
information relates directly to the quality and/or risks to the
consumer of using the product? Does identifying the country in
which they're located have anything to do with that?
You don't think knowing the location of the person taking down your
personal information is not related to the risks of a consumer?
Esp. when many of these countries have little to no privacy laws
and can sell your info to anyone at all??
The reality is that businesses don't want to have to tell their
customers that their "support staff" is overseas because they are
afraid that people will be (justifiably) more worried about their
personal info, thus forcing them to make a decision as to whether
to keep a lower cost overseas support staff v. keep a potentially
large number of customers happy.
|4.12.06 @ 1:20PM|#
Does identifying the country in which they're located have
anything to do with that?
Sure it does. Let's say that I, as a consumer, want to patronize
businesses that have what I consider to be humane labor practices,
and want to avoid patronizing businesses from places that I
consider to have barbaric labor practices. A regulation that
requires disclosure allows me to excercise (arguably rational)
consumer choice in this regard.
Of course that other poster's suggestion about the law merely
saying that an honest answers needs be given to customer inquiries
would do the trick without burdening the uncurious with verbiage.
Hopefully that can be our compromise solution.
|4.12.06 @ 1:26PM|#
The reality is that businesses don't want to have to tell
their customers that their "support staff" is overseas because they
are afraid that people will be (justifiably) more worried about
their personal info
That is so incredibly not the reality. It makes
one wonder why you try to claim that it is.
Who is more likely to have either the desire or the means to misuse
your personal info: "Jerry" in Reno or "Gary" in Delhi? Perhaps
call center workers should be required to disclose their drug
habits and current indebtedness.
|4.12.06 @ 1:32PM|#
How do you know that call center folks are dark skinned?
Twice, I've called my phone company, only to be directed to their
call center where I've spoken to a Sven and an Alice with extremely
thick northern european accents, who I very much doubt could even
get a tan if they tried.
|4.12.06 @ 1:34PM|#
Does identifying the country in which they're located have
anything to do with [consumer protection]?
Sure it does.
No it doesn't. Your rationale has nothing to do with protecting
you. You simply stated a personal preference which you want the
government to coerce others into helping you satisfy. It is no
different than someone who prefers to deal only with straight
people because of his um... "faith." Whether you agree with his
heartfelt convictions is irrelevant. Why should we force people to
cater to your subjective preference and not his?
|4.12.06 @ 1:35PM|#
MikeP, how can you just dismiss that out of hand? Of course
people are going to distrust foreign locales - whether they should
or not!
JMJ
|4.12.06 @ 1:42PM|#
I have called the Dell consumer hotline, too. I outright asked
the person helping me where they were working from. He said India.
I said, "O RLY?" and we got into a brief discussion about what time
it is there and how the weather is and blah blah.
Am I xenophobe now? Or am I just cheeky and curious to the point of
rudeness (more likely)?
Taylor|4.12.06 @ 1:44PM|#
Witness the incredible bureaucracy that is blog etiquette:
H&R links to Tech Liberation Front who hattips Techdirt who
cites the real article in Travel Weekly, which requires a
subscription. Come on guys.
Here's a good, less
crazy link to the primary source in question.
It's in your best interest to learn the advantages of dynamic
links. With just the slightest change in address, we can call an
entirely different web function... in this case, the 'print'
command.
|4.12.06 @ 1:46PM|#
I would also add tat having a customer service representative
that is acculturated in your culture is not an irrational
preference either.
The US traditionally has high standards of customer service, but
then again the US goes way out of its way to empower the type of
people who work at call centres (with education, welfare safety
net, union law, minimum wage, overtime law, etc, etc). Some other
countries also do this.
Still other countries have a culture where low level employees know
their place and are less divided in their allegiances,
understanding that the boss is always right no matter how
ridiculous she is being.
It is rational for customers to prefer one or the other type, to
want to express this preference and to want to use geography as a
surrogate for something as important but slippery as
culturation.
Pigment differences aren't the only kind of probabilistic
differences that correlate with these imaginary lines on maps, you
know.
fyodor|4.12.06 @ 1:47PM|#
Dave W,
Let's say that I, as a consumer, want to patronize businesses
that have what I consider to be humane labor practices
You obviously have the right to that preference, but that clearly
does not "relate directly to the quality and/or risks to
the consumer of using the product"!
Requiring this disclosure would be more analogous to requiring
disclosure on all manner of employer/employee relations, or on the
corporation's charitable actions, etc. In other words, it relates
to your view of the company as being a good or bad company.
Now for the moment I'm setting aside whether or not it's good to
require these kind of disclosures. Obviously you can guess where I
stand. Perhaps you find the examples I cite as worthy of
regulations as well, maybe not. My point at the moment, however, is
simply that you clearly err to relate this type of disclosure to
ones that, again, "relate directly to the quality and/or risks to
the consumer of using the product." If you still disagree, please
note the use of the word, "directly."
|4.12.06 @ 1:52PM|#
Of course people are going to distrust foreign locales -
whether they should or not!
I have seen absolutely zero evidence for this claim. And I have
every reason to believe that one would distrust an American with
personal or financial disclosure more than one would a
foreigner.
Recognition of what is important. Familiarity with the application
of the misappropriated info. Ability to make use of the stolen info
in the right country. Even the need for stealing at all. ... All of
these indicate one would trust the American less. I cannot think of
a single reason one would trust the foreigner less.
If you can, do tell. And please also let me know why the government
should enable whatever pathology you come up with.
|4.12.06 @ 1:55PM|#
Fyo,
Looks like we kind of cross posted. My main response to your
contention is in the For Quality Assurance post.
At a deeper level, for some people where a product is made, the
conditions under which it is made do relate to quality of the
product. if you feel icky using something that was made in a
sweatshop or under an apartheid regime, then this icky feeling is
part of the quality of the product regardless of how well your
South African investment performs or how high those Nikes allow you
to jump.
|4.12.06 @ 2:02PM|#
I would also add tat having a customer service
representative that is acculturated in your culture is not an
irrational preference either.
I know what you mean. Take the bank... it's full of Jews! They are
NOT part of MY culture! When choosing a bank I'm careful to choose
somebody who looks Christian. But sometimes this is difficult. On
the phone it's impossible. If I ask them, they usually will hang up
on me or lie.
This is clearly a situation where the government needs to step in
and allow us to know who the Jews are in order to promote consumer
disclosure. Maybe they should make the Jews where something to
identify themselves... a piece of flair maybe?
fyodor|4.12.06 @ 2:02PM|#
Wow, Dave W,
You really think someone needs to be warned of a customer service
person's whereabouts so that one would not have to risk wasting
their time with someone based on their country's "safety net"?
OMIGOD THAT'S NUTS!! Even throwing in vaguely more sensible matters
such as education and employment laws, the customer will find out
if the service rep is good or not in due time without risking more
than a little time, distinctly unlike the risk one might take with
prescription medicine. The quantitative difference is
staggering.
Nevertheless, Dave W's use of such a "rational" argument does help
to show where opening the door to regulations that avowedly "relate
directly to the quality and/or risks to the consumer of using the
product" inevitably end up.
|4.12.06 @ 2:03PM|#
It's just as easy for a Dell help desk person in India to be
unhelpful and rude as it is for one in Texas.
Actually, Dell's policies on customer help are so weird and
annoying that I have to think that their intent is to get you NOT
to call them for help and to get you off the line quickly when you
do. And that has nothing to do with the nationality of the flunky
on the other end of the call--though a very thick Indian accent
only furthers their purpose, I suppose.
|4.12.06 @ 2:07PM|#
Actually, Dell's policies on customer help are so weird and
annoying that I have to think that their intent is to get you NOT
to call them for help and to get you off the line quickly when you
do.
ChrisO,
I absolutely agree with you. I am pretty sure they read from a
script. Not kidding. I had to call them a few times a couple of
years ago, and I could virtually predict what they would say next,
accent or no.
And yes, the point is so that you stop calling them. Most computer
"help" is usually just that.
|4.12.06 @ 2:09PM|#
MikeP, all I'm saying is that people can be a little xenophobic,
that's all. You disagree? Fine. As for the gov't making these sorts
of rules - actually, on this one, I'm more with you guys.
JMJ
fyodor|4.12.06 @ 2:10PM|#
if you feel icky using something that was made in a
sweatshop or under an apartheid regime, then this icky feeling is
part of the quality of the produc
As others have pointed out, one can just as easily say the same
thing about using something that has been made by homosexuals or
people of a different race. Luckily, you might not find a majority
of people to favor such disclosures in today's world. But that's
the only thing that stands between a statist's logic and a
nightmarish world: the wisdom of the majority.
Just to be clear, I don't personally give a damn what country a
customer service rep is in any more than I care if the rep is
homosexual. But I think there should be higher principles keeping
the government from wringing disclosures out of workers regardless
of the currently fashionable "rational" sense of ickiness.
|4.12.06 @ 2:15PM|#
Of course they read from a script. It's actually more like a
flow chart. They have questions to ask you, and based on your
response, they move to another set of questions on the their flow
chart. It does not matter where they're from...they just need to be
able to read english and speak it back. If you really want help,
you'll have to get rude and try to talk to a "manager", hopefully
someone in the states.
But this law is ridiculous.
|4.12.06 @ 2:21PM|#
"At a deeper level, for some people where a product is made,
the conditions under which it is made do relate to quality of the
product. if you feel icky using something that was made in a
sweatshop or under an apartheid regime, then this icky feeling is
part of the quality of the product regardless of how well your
South African investment performs or how high those Nikes allow you
to jump."
Fuck someone's superficial "icky" xenophobia. No, this "icky"
feeling is a subjective, superficial quality that has no bearing on
the actual pragmatic quality or safety of the product. As pointed
out by TrueAmericanMale's sarcasm, David Duke could just as easily
say that, since he hates dem niggas, and he doesn't want any
product or service that was performed by dem niggas, that he
somehow has a "right" to be informed of their race when he calls
customer service. Yawn. This is a slippery slope into subjective
obscurity---which is precisely why we need to stick with actual,
quantifiable factors that actually affect quality/safety.
|4.12.06 @ 2:27PM|#
Let's say that I, as a consumer, want to patronize
businesses that have what I consider to be humane labor practices,
and want to avoid patronizing businesses from places that I
consider to have barbaric labor practices. A regulation that
requires disclosure allows me to excercise (arguably rational)
consumer choice in this regard.
Actually, there already is a mechanism for identifying the location
of the person you're speaking to. It's called an "accent".
Besides being silly, this law is probably unenforceable. How do you
enforce US laws in foreign countries? What happens if the call
center worker doesn't identify the country he's from? Is the FBI
going to fly to Bangalore and arrest him? Good luck with that.
|4.12.06 @ 2:33PM|#
if you feel icky using something that was made in a
sweatshop
I still don't see why this is fundamentally different than feeling
"icky" about dealing with a gay person. I'm sure it is different to
you but not really to me. I think a concern about
"sweatshops" generally means a rich westerner trying to soothe
their conscience at the expense of a poor third-worlder whose only
option is a poor paying job or no job at all. To me, invoking what
amounts to an aesthetic, self-indulgent concern while sipping a
fair-trade cappuccino, yet which has the real effect of leaving
those one is claiming to "protect" scavenging garbage dumps is just
about as immoral as anti-gay bigotry.
That said, it simply isn't the job of government to satisfy
consumer preferences - that is the job of businesses catering to
those consumers. No matter how much you defend the possible
"rational" (and who decides what is rational?) reasons why one
might prefer to know the nationality of the person on the other end
of the line, it isn't the purpose of government to dictate how a
business should seek accommodate those concerns. If there really is
a wide-spread demand for local call center workers there is simply
no way a profit-seeking company will not seize upon that
opportunity and exploit it by advertising their use of only
American workers. I'd still say that is playing to the xenophobes
more than any rational concern, but at least it would be a private
choice.
|4.12.06 @ 2:48PM|#
if you feel icky using something that was made in a
sweatshop
I still don't see why this is fundamentally different than
feeling "icky" about dealing with a gay person.
I stand behind the right of private individuals to refuse to deal
with gay people. then again, I am somewhat libertarian.
Side to Fyo: I typed in a nice long story for you about how I
managed to get auto insurance in Canada and the telephone rep's
role in that. sadly the server ate it.
|4.12.06 @ 2:57PM|#
You didn't get anyone, Dave. We're talking about a law being
proposed that makes call-centre people disclose the location
they're calling from.
We're arguing there shouldn't be a silly law like this.
We would also argue that private individuals can refuse to deal
with gay people, but that wasn't the question on the table.
|4.12.06 @ 2:58PM|#
Haven't read the thread.
Is it safe to assume that Dave W. is off his meds again?
|4.12.06 @ 3:00PM|#
The Dems position seems to be that you cannot work hard in your own country because doing so might take a job from an American. You can, however, feel free to move the United States, legaly or otherwise, and take all the welfare you can find.
|4.12.06 @ 3:01PM|#
I also see a privacy convern since my international
communications can be warrantlessly tapped by executive order,
whereas purely domestic can not...
oh shit..never mind.
|4.12.06 @ 3:07PM|#
Who is more likely to have either the desire or the means to
misuse your personal info: "Jerry" in Reno or "Gary" in Delhi?
Perhaps call center workers should be required to disclose their
drug habits and current indebtedness.
The laws concerning privacy are much more strict in the US than
they are in India. "Jerry" probably has a higer risk associated
with his misuse of the informationa and can much more easily be
tracked down in the US v "Gary" In New Dehli
And as far as appearances go, anecdotally speaking, most people I
have encountered have been very turned off by foreign call/support
centers, and get very frustrated when they have a support staffer
who can barely speak english. I don't think its a stretch to
believe that most companies want to hide that from their customers
if they can.
|4.12.06 @ 3:10PM|#
I ALWAYS ask call-center employees their location. They ALWAYS
tell me. And when their response is Bangalore, I always respond
"good for you!"
On the one hand, in America, we export any jobs Americans can and
are willing to do, to the lowest bidder (e.g. call-centers) in
order to increase earnings.
On the other hand, for the jobs Americans don't want to do (e.g.
fruit picking, restroom cleaning, child rearing), we import
illegals.
What we have here is a candle burning at both ends.
|4.12.06 @ 3:12PM|#
If the government's going to pass laws about call-center
identification, I'd rather they make it a requirement that people
on the phone say whether or not they are serving time in prison. I
read an article some time ago which horrified me--a lot of
companies have prison labor answering phones and taking things like
catalog orders.
Call me paranoid if you must, but I'm just not comfortable with the
idea of giving my credit-card number and home address to a
convicted rapist.
|4.12.06 @ 3:15PM|#
Me: I still don't see why this is fundamentally different
than feeling "icky" about dealing with a gay person.
Gotcha: I stand behind the right of private individuals to
refuse to deal with gay people.
Yeah? Good for you. Me too - if people want to be bigots that is
should be their right however ignorant I may find it. Of course
that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
|4.12.06 @ 3:17PM|#
smacky
I always ask where they are calling from, then tell them to have a
nice day. I just think it is cool that someone thousands of miles
away is helping me fis my computer
|4.12.06 @ 3:18PM|#
David Duke could just as easily say that, since he hates dem
niggas, and he doesn't want any product or service that was
performed by dem niggas
Didn't you hear? David loves us coloreds now.
|4.12.06 @ 3:19PM|#
plus I've had jobs calling complete strangers, and anything to break the monotiny was always welcome.
|4.12.06 @ 3:24PM|#
Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue
at hand.
If you go back through the thread, you will notice that I wasn't
the first person to mention gays here. or the second. or the third.
eventually I decided to respond and now I get to hear how
irrelevant homosexuality is to this discussion. Where were you
hiding when the storm broke?
Let me spell out why homosexuality is irrelevant: it is irrelevant
because it violates privacy of the individual employee as an
individual. Race questions would implicate a similar privacy
problem. Ditto for asking for real names.
I do not believe that coerced disclosure of what country you are in
upsets any reasonable privacy concerns of the individual. As far as
the corporation, I don't think they have very many legitimate
privacy concerns (eg, trade secrets) at all, and the location of
their call centre certainly isn't one of them.
|4.12.06 @ 3:25PM|#
On the one hand, in America, we export any jobs Americans
can and are willing to do, to the lowest bidder (e.g. call-centers)
in order to increase earnings.
On the other hand, for the jobs Americans don't want to do (e.g.
fruit picking, restroom cleaning, child rearing), we import
illegals.
What we have here is a candle burning at both ends.
Perhaps if we didn't punish capital investment, the demand for
labor would be greater than the supply of labor, and so jobs
wouldn't be an issue.
People want the government to do everything to discourage the
creation of new jobs, and do everything to create an incentive for
companies to move overseas... then they are suprised when it
happens.
|4.12.06 @ 3:25PM|#
Jennifer,
I agree with you about the prison workers. If some guy in India can
get a decent job good for him, but using slave prison labor is a
problem.
|4.12.06 @ 3:27PM|#
I also seem to recall that there have been actual fraud and stalking problems with using prisoners on the telephones. This would have been back in the early 90s I think, so hard to recall.
|4.12.06 @ 3:32PM|#
The laws concerning privacy are much more strict in the US
than they are in India.
I'm confident this is spelled out in the contract between the US
Corporation and the offshore center. Dell has a hell of a lot to
lose if their call centers compromise the information they
gather.
|4.12.06 @ 3:37PM|#
I also seem to recall that there have been actual fraud and
stalking problems with using prisoners on the telephones. This
would have been back in the early 90s I think, so hard to
recall.
Actually, I think it would have been the late 90s--I
watched no TV in the early 90s because I was too cheap to spring
for cable and my ancient TV got almost no reception, but I remember
watching a TV expose about some slimeball rapist talking about how
he started stalking a woman after he talked to her over the phone
while he was a prisoner and she placed a catalog order. Since I
watched it on my home TV, it couldn't have been earlier than around
1998 or '99.
So to hell with making people say whether or not they are in a
given country--just make them say whether or not they are serving
time for a felony conviction.
fyodor|4.12.06 @ 3:47PM|#
I do not believe that coerced disclosure of what country you
are in upsets any reasonable privacy concerns of the
individual.
Nice of you to decide that for others.
|4.12.06 @ 3:57PM|#
Me: I still don't see why this is fundamentally different
than feeling "icky" about dealing with a gay person.
Dave: I stand behind the right of private individuals to refuse
to deal with gay people.
Me: Yeah? Good for you. Me too - if people want to be bigots
that is should be their right however ignorant I may find it. Of
course that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at
hand.
Dave: If you go back through the thread, you will notice that I
wasn't the first person to mention gays here. or the second. or the
third. eventually I decided to respond and now I get to hear how
irrelevant homosexuality is to this discussion. Where were you
hiding when the storm broke?
Jesus Dave... You get to hear about it because you didn't respond
to the issue being raised but instead through in the point about
private bigotry. That is what I clearly said was irrelevant - the
issue of an individual's private bigotry, which we agree is his
right. That was in response to your claim to support that private
right which was nice but not relevant to the previous mention of
gays on this thread. Where were you hiding?? Those
previous mentions were about the quite relevant comparison of a law
forcing a business to cater to an individual's private (even
bigoted) concerns, whether anti-gay bigotry or a (to me misguided)
concern for sweatshops.
The point is that to some (however bigoted) people it might be
important that they don't deal with a gay person. You can't simply
say that's a private matter in order to dodge the philosophical
implications of forcing companies to satisfy preferences you deem
worthy but not others. But to play your game, if a person (quite
reasonably) fears that being forced to disclose his location would
unreasonably hurt his ability to keep his job and feed his family,
who are you to say that is any less a privacy concern than being
forced to disclose say your race?
But this is a typical tactic of those who want their preferences
forced on everyone through a law - assume your motives are just and
reasonable and anyone else's is unjust and unreasonable and
therefore dismiss the objection that other people might want those
unjust preferences legally sanctioned as well.
|4.12.06 @ 4:21PM|#
Dave W. - So you're essentially down to arguing for a Federal law to require the disclosure of information that isn't a particularly good metric of anything directly related to the service provided, stokes xenophobic sentiments, and wastes the call center's employees time because folks like you are afraid that you won't be able to get an answer if you ask a question that call center employees typically don't have any issues with answering, but it's all ok because you're not engaging in major violation of the employee's privacy?
|4.12.06 @ 4:23PM|#
On the one hand, in America, we export any jobs Americans
can and are willing to do, to the lowest bidder (e.g. call-centers)
in order to increase earnings.
...thereby freeing up Americans to do higher value jobs.
On the other hand, for the jobs Americans don't want to do
(e.g. fruit picking, restroom cleaning, child rearing), we import
illegals.
...thereby freeing up Americans to do higher value jobs.
What we have here is a candle burning at both ends.
What you have is a lack of understanding of comparative
advantage.
|4.12.06 @ 4:46PM|#
that isn't a particularly good metric of anything directly
related to the service provided
The market will tell us whether it is a good metric or not. If the
people who pay a premium for insisting on doing business with local
call centers thrive, then we determine that that prejudice is
economically rational despite how morally horrid it might look to
your more PC types. On the other hand, if the "racist" customers
are systematically wasting their resources paying for this
preference to no offsetting gain in productivity (which is what I
gather you would predict), then the antiracists will thrive and
displace the racists with their relative economic success.
The free market is the way to decide this question. Soon the market
will actually begin pricing segmentation to offer a choice of their
call centre local from amongst numerous choices. "Okay, now that'll
be an extra $20 if you want Reyjavik." that sort of thing. This way
we can determine which city has the most effective call centres.
Customers will clamor for the box with the "Reyjavik Call center
Servicing" sticker. Good for Reyjavik. Good for the world!
We deserve the opinion of the oracle of the free market on these
important questions of practical, applied economics. only consumer
information can put this tiger in our tank on our high octane
spiral to heights of material well being. I want to live a world
where everybody has a lighbulb.
|4.12.06 @ 4:50PM|#
I want to live a world where everybody has a
lighbulb.
I'd rather live in a world where you occasionally make sense,
Dave.
|4.12.06 @ 5:25PM|#
...thereby freeing up Americans to do higher value
jobs.
So you're saying the supply of higher value jobs in America is
infinite?
|4.12.06 @ 5:47PM|#
I want to live a world where everybody has a
lighbulb.
. . . where you occasionally make sense . . .
"In" Okay, sorry it was missing the word "in." Supposed to
be:
live in a world where . . .
It was just a typo.
R C Dean|4.12.06 @ 5:48PM|#
JMJ:
actually, on this one, I'm more with you guys.
I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm rethinking my opposition to
this law.
fyodor|4.12.06 @ 6:20PM|#
Dave W,
The dynamic you describe already has every chance to work.
Companies already have the choice to advertise that they use
American service reps only, and if they're lying, it will most
likely come out, in one way or another. In fact, many of us here
would likely even back such a concrete statement of fact being
susceptible to fraud charges (witness that no one has taken issue
with Mex You Can't's post that we should simply criminalize lying
to someone's question about the issue). FORCING workers to divulge
their location is hardly necessary to allow the free market to
decide the relative merits of where to locate service reps.
|4.12.06 @ 6:33PM|#
Guess what Dave-o - the evaluation of overseas outsourcing as an effective cost-cutting measure for call centers by the market has ALREADY BEEN HAPPENING AND CONTINUES TO HAPPEN. Companies have watched what other companies - if there was sufficent consumer demand for high levels of English fluency/extra privacy protection to maintain a multi-tiered system, it would have been introduced. If it make economic sense, then companies would ask customers if they wanted to pay extra, since it is another opporunity to sell a service. What you're asking for is special pleading for your particular hangup - the subtext of a required warning is that it is something the consumer should be concerned about. It's not necessary to achieve the free market outcome and is arguably contrary to it.
|4.12.06 @ 6:33PM|#
So you're saying the supply of higher value jobs in America
is infinite?
I'm saying the supply of higher value jobs in America is greater
than the number of jobs that can be taken by either exported
production or imported labor. Not only does the "displaced" worker
get freed up to do something the "displacing" worker couldn't do
more cheaply, but the wealth added to the economy by the
"displacement" provides new resources that can be directed to new
higher valued areas.
Thirty years ago everybody was worried that machines were taking
all our jobs. Today that sentiment would be considered ridiculous.
Exporting production and importing labor increase wealth and
opportunity in exactly the same way.
|4.12.06 @ 7:15PM|#
. . . dynamic you describe already has every chance to work
. . .
I don't know. The way I look at it, there really are customers who
care about the call center location issue, for reasons fair and
foul. Yet somehow this strong preference never gets used on the
supply side as a product feature, as a way to get a leg up on the
competition, or to charge a premium. I have little problem tipping
the balance of power at the margins a bit where the supply side is
acting so slack in adopting to express customer preferences.
fyodor|4.12.06 @ 7:30PM|#
The way I look at it
But that's just the way YOU look at it. The TRULY free market (or
at least freerer than if YOU had YOUR way) has spoken. It doesn't
need your help, thank you. But...
I have little problem tipping the balance of power
At least you're being honest here instead of feeding us the bull
that your favored forms of coercion are somehow more conistent with
the free market than laissez-faire libertarianism.
|4.13.06 @ 12:05AM|#
I think a legal mandate like this is sheer stupidity, but, due
to recent and painful experience, figuring out that the company you
deal with has outsourced their call support makes you realize that
said company does not give a damn about its customers. First, when
the guy with the thick Indian accent identifies himself as "Gary",
there's the sick feeling that you are being lied to, and poorly at
that. Then having to repeat your question, two or more times
because the person on the other end does not quite get American
English. If someone whose basic job description is communicating
with the customers and they have difficulty understanding what the
customers are saying and making themselves understood, then the
company has failed to hire a competent employee, no matter how
knowledgable that person is. Furthermore, from what I have
experienced, technical competency is also at issue, particularly
when it comes to deviating from their script. I suppose
companieshave seen significant cost savings in doing this, but the
quality of customer service has suffered, greatly.
I suppose accusing frustrated American consumers of xenophobia
enables globalization groupies to ignore the bad effects of some of
these pratices and still sleep the sleep of the just.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245