Gangs of New Jersey
Gangs of New Jersey
Date: Sunday, March 09, 2003 1:17 PM
H-1B and JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
www.ZaZona.com
New Jersey State Sen. Shirley Turner and TechsUnite.org sent pleas for
help to save her anti-outsourcing bill. She became concerned that her
outsourcing bill was under attack by "special interest groups". Before
Turner could escape, Harris Miller and his band of thugs from the ITAA
teemed up with the gang-bangers at Nasscom to ambush her bill.
Harris Miller flexed his muscle and Shirley Turner got bruised. Her
anti-outsourcing bill was tabled (i.e. clubbed, killed) very quickly
while she got a lesson in the real world of power politics.
New Jersey workers are probably better off now that the gang fight is
over and the bloodshed is removed from the streets. Harris "the
Butcher" Miller should be thanked for his efforts in cutting this
legislation to shreds - even if his motives were far from altruistic.
Turner's bill prohibited foreign outsourcing but it did nothing to keep
the bodyshop cartel from using H-1Bs and L-1s to take the jobs. Turner
doesn't care if the work is done by nonimmigrants or citizens as long
as the work is done in-state, and New Jersey gets the tax. In her view
the H-1Bs or L-1s would generate tax revenues whereas the money would
be lost if the work was done in foreign countries. What she doesn't
understand, or doesn't care about, is that H-1Bs and L-1s often don't
pay taxes, or they pay less tax than American workers and that will
cost New Jersey. State budgets are also hit hard as American workers
displaced by H-1Bs draw unemployment, welfare, and other state
benefits.
Turner said that H-1B is a federal issue, not a state issue. She is
wrong because H-1Bs take New Jersey jobs and that makes it a state
issue. Given a choice between having H-1Bs doing the work in the U.S.,
or sweatshops doing the work abroad, the latter is far better. H-1Bs
tend to permanently take jobs from Americans whereas outsourced work to
foreign countries can be brought back by simple legislation.
Once again, we have to rely on Indian newspapers to find out what is
going on since the U.S. owned media has more important things to report
on, like for instance, how bad the sand storms are in Iraq and who is
going to win an Oscar. My vote is for Martin Scorsese.
District 15"
Date: Wed, Mar 5, 2003, 6:58 PM
I am writing to appeal to you for assistance regarding my bill, S1349,
in which you have expressed support and interest. S1349 provides that
only citizens or legal residents of the United States may be employed
in performing certain State
contracts. S1349 and its Assembly version, A2425, are being considered
by the Assembly State Government Committee on Thursday, March 6 at 2
p.m.in Committee Room 15, 4th Floor, State House Annex. I apologize for
the short notice of this request, but if you are able to join me on
Thursday to testify in support of this bill, your assistance would be
greatly appreciated.*
Today, I was informed that this bill is in trouble because of the
special interest groups that are mobilizing to oppose the bill. These
groups have suggested certain amendments that would "gut" the bill. I
am vehemently opposed to these amendments.
Your testimony as to how outsourcing is personally affecting you would
be greatly beneficial to the bills passage. Please contact my office
to inform me of your availability. If you have any questions or
concerns, or if you require any information or even driving directions,
please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Thank you for your support. I am certain that if we work together to
see this bill through the legislative process, American workers will
greatly benefit from the effort. I look forward to seeing you at the
Committee meeting and hope that we will
have the opportunity to meet.
Sincerely,
Shirley K. Turner
Senator - 15th District
Phone: (609) 530-3277
SKT:mlo
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/NJoutsourcing
Take Action!
Stop NJ Offshore Outsourcing
Even if you've managed to make it through the tech implosion without
losing your job, it is increasingly likely that the job you have now
may not even exist in this country in the very near future. Recent
reports indicate that U.S. employers will move about 3.3 million
white-collar service jobs and $136 billion in wages overseas in the
next 15 years. IT giants such as Microsoft, HP and IBM are leading the
way.
The results are clear for U.S. technology workers increased job
insecurity, lower wages and fewer benefits. In New Jersey, a state bill
aimed at curtailing the offshore outsourcing of work done on state
government contracts is currently stalled due to employer lobbying and
opposition. Passage or defeat of this bill could have implications for
any US state. Act now, and tell New Jersey legislators that you believe
they should get this bill moving again, and vote for its passage.
Your message will be automatically addressed and sent to every member
of the New Jersey Senate and Assembly. While your address and state
will appear at the bottom of your message, if you live in New Jersey,
please consider customizing the message below to reflect your
individual experience or concerns.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=39605101
Outsourcing bill may drop India name
K YATISH RAJAWAT
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SATURDAY, MARCH 08, 2003 01:56:33 AM ]
MUMBAI: The New Jersey Bill, which would have prevented outsourcing of
the state governments projects to India, has been postponed due to
lobbying by the Information Technology Association of America and
Nasscom.
The New Jersey state legislature, which is in session, is unlikely to
clear the Bill in its current form. Senator Shirley K Turner who had
tabled the Bill has been convinced by the ITAA that the legislation
will have negative repercussions on the US industry also, according to
Nasscom officials.
The Senate had passed the Bill and it was sent to the New Jersey state
Assembly the state legislature consists of a 40-member Senate and the
80-member General Assembly on December 16, 02, where it was referred
to the Assemblys State Government Committee.
It seems this committee has now sent the Bill back to Senator Turner.
Nasscom has been lobbying hard to prevent the Bill from being cleared.
Nasscom officials claim that Senator Turner has been convinced that the
wording of the Bill should be changed to drop any mention of
outsourcing and India in the Bill.
ET had reported earlier on the Bill. Confirming the development which
took place today in New Jersey, Kiran Karnik, Nasscoms president,
told ET, "We have been trying to get this done for some time. The
current Bill which was against all tenets of free trade will now be
redrafted/changed and a fresh Bill might be introduced which will not
have any mention of outsourcing or India in it."
According to Harish Mehta, executive council member of Nasscom, "This
is a major victory for the industry as this Bill was being keenly
watched by several other states as a case study. Its passage would have
created a wrong precedent in the US."
Though the New Jersey Bill did not have a direct impact on Indian
software or Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) companies, it was being
seen as an example of protectionism by the industry.
Non-Resident Indians in New Jersey had also been lobbying against the
Bill. Nasscom had also started an e-mail campaign asking all its
members and their customers in US to write to New Jersey legislators.
"The New Jersey legislature is rightly concerned about protecting jobs
in the United States. However, in our opinion it would be a disservice
to both the global IT industry and New Jersey taxpayers to move forward
with this legislation as currently drafted. As currently drafted, this
legislation is contrary to the basic tenets of the World Trade
Organisation and sends the wrong signal to the United States global
trading partners about the ability and need for US businesses to
compete on their merits in the global marketplace. In addition, the
legislation severely limits the Governors ability to negotiate high
quality, cost-effective contracts and will ultimately result in lower
quality service and higher taxes for state residents," the letter to
New Jersey legislators state.
According to Mr Karnik, "The legislators who were pushing the Bill have
been convinced that it will not be cleared in its current form and may
now present a new Bill."
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=39658011
The US BPO backlash: History favours India
ADITYA CHATTERJEE
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SATURDAY, MARCH 08, 2003 02:11:16 PM ]
NEW DELHI: Its been a mixed week for the Indian Business Process
Outsourcing (BPO) industry. While on one hand UK telecommunications
giant British Telecom (BT) announced setting up call centre operations
in India that could see creation of 2,200 jobs, there were tense
moments owing to events at the New Jersey Senate.
The Senate was hearing a Bill introduced by Senator Shirley K Turner
which sought to stop the import of US government's BPO work from other
countries. Thankfully, the Senate put the Bill on hold giving Indian
interests in BPO work a temporary reprieve.
The provocation for moving the Bill had come in the form of
Arizona-based eFunds Corp., a contractor hired by the New Jersey
government to manage a welfare programme, relocating its
customer-service operations to Mumbai from Wisconsin. Other than New
Jersey, four other states -- Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin, and
Connecticut -- are also considering similar legislations.
Bills, like the one introduced at the New Jersey Senate, are
specifically designed to protect local US jobs. With job losses
becoming a big issue in the West, employment of the local population
has become a highly sensitive subject -- taking strong political
overtones. Many unions are protesting outsourcing work too. Even BTs
proposed venture has seen Britain's largest Communication Workers Union
(CWU) issuing threats of nationwide demonstrations and strikes.
That pink slips and rising unemployment are forcing Western politicians
to look at protectionist measures is understandable. Even the US media
(cover stories in magazines like Business Week and others) have
recently highlighted the migration of white-collar jobs from the US to
developing countries in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe. One actually
sympathises with US concerns. And why not?
Any government worth its salt has to cater to local sentiments.
Large-scale unemployment wreaks havoc to the social fabric of a nation.
Today, it is the US politicians who are screaming murder. Tomorrow, who
knows? May be, it will be India's turn to cry foul.
Perhaps in these difficult times, it's a good idea to focus on the
long-term benefits of outsourcing work. In today's market-driven
economy, geographical loyalties do not have any place, it is the
interests of global shareholders that are paramount.
Take the service of Indian firms to US globo-corps as example.
Outsourcing is helping Corporate USA not only to cut costs, it is also
resulting in higher profit, better growth, and therefore better returns
to investors. That more-efficiently run and richer corporates will
eventually create more jobs is also a given.
A recent internal analysis by Nasscom has shown that the American
banking and financial sector alone has been able to save around $8
billion in the last four years due to outsourcing their requirements.
Simply put, the quality of IT services offered by India is better than
what US-based firms can get in that country. Besides, the affiliates
and subsidiaries of Indian IT companies contributed around $215 million
to the US exchequer as taxes last year.
Coming back to the New Jersey Bill and others of its kind, all these
definitely make up bad news from the Indian point of view. For, not
only do such Bills raise the bogey of job losses to non-US residents in
an environment where the US economy continues to be sluggish, there's
also the fear that once the anti-off-shore lobby gains enough momentum,
it could transcend the BPO segment and affect software services as
well.
On the face of it, an anti-outsourcing Bill - if enacted - will only
prohibit US government agencies from giving BPO work to India. The
effect of this will be only marginal since public-sector work accounts
for only a small part of India's software and services exports to the
US.
India, however, has to contend with the chilling after-effects of a
blanket prohibition. US companies may just be reluctant to send work
overseas lest it complicate dealings with American government agencies.
God unwilling, if this happens, it will be disastrous for India. The
$10 billion software and services industry is hugely important for
India. The industry has grown robustly despite the broader slowdown in
technology spending, as Western companies and especially American ones,
have cut expensive jobs at home and contracted out software development
and support, call-centre operations and other functions to low-cost
suppliers in India and elsewhere.
More than half of the world's top 500 companies, including General
Electric and American Express, outsource work to India.
Thanks to these outsourcing operations, India earned a revenue of $6.9
billion in the last three quarters of 2002 from software and services
exports. Despite the worldwide downturn, the figures showed a 28 per
cent improvement from the comparable period of 2001, according to
Nasscom data.
India is heavily betting on software services for a booming economy. By
2008, the Indian government expects the industry to account for 8 per
cent of the country's GDP, up from 2.9 per cent currently. All these
plans could come unstuck, if US senators turn spoilsport.
History, thankfully, is kind to Indian interests. Three years back, the
US Supreme Court had struck down a Massachusetts state law, which
boycotted companies engaging in trade with Myanmar for alleged
violation of human rights in that country. The ruling had come after
the EU and Japan challenged the law in the WTO along with several trade
organisations.
Sidney Weiss, president, US Custom and International Trade Bar
Association, for one, believes that the proposed Bill at the New Jersey
Senate will fail the test of constitutional validity as well as the
yardsticks set by the WTO. Such legislations fundamentally violate the
provisions of US Constitution and the WTO agreement, he said.
"The US Constitution does not grant powers to the states to enact laws
that are under the realm of the federal government," Weiss recently
said, adding, "The New Jersey law is also likely to meet the same fate
of the earlier Massachusetts state law. For India's sake, let's hope
that Weiss is right in his judgement.
Help to Keep ZaZona.com Online
Donate to the Cause at
http://www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe or Unsubcribe send an email to
Back to archives