Slashdot Mirror
Age Discrimination, Indian-Style
theodp writes "In April, IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano told investors Big Blue hopes to dodge an estimated $6 billion in liability stemming from a judge's ruling that IBM violated U.S. federal age discrimination laws. In May, IBM closes on its $150-$200MM purchase of Indian outsourcer Daksh, whose age requirements for job applicants make Logan's Run seem progressive. On its Opportunities page, Daksh states that Customer Care Specialists should be between 21-25 years of age and Team Leaders should be no older than 27. Early Daksh investors included Citigroup and we-don't-need-no-stinking-unions Amazon."
If it's not legal in one country, just outsource to another where it is legal.
The only reasons companies discriminate based on age is that younger people are easier to persuade to work harder, longer hours, and that they usually doesn't require as high pay as older, more experienced applicants.
It is NOT because younger people are smarter or brighter than older people. And who says they are, anyway? IMO, any supposed loss in thinking quickly is easily made up by the experience and better problem solving skills of older people.
This is why we outsource to India. Less government regulation, fewer worker protection laws, fewer environmental regulations... I mean, are we to enforce our minimum wage laws on India? No.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Im 32 years old (in a couple days), thankfully i run a small buisness network of 60 systems spread out across a city. But if my job ever went south again i always thought i could fall back into computer/networking phone support once again. But unlike 10 years ago it seems there are little oportunities for someone my age to work in such a field, first because most of those jobs got shipped off to malaysia and india (fuck you dell), and now because im over the hill. Seems to be yet another reason to hang onto my current job with a iron griop.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -Fight Club
...there's a simple reason call centers want young people: they have to retrain them to use American accents (actually, they teach a neutral accent they call "Global English") and older learners have a harder time changing their accents. Old dog/new tricks and all. Judging by the posters selection of links, I'd say he is grasping for ways to bad-mouth the Indians in order to keep the jobs here.
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
Wow, this should get a gold metal for such a high number of mostly unrelated information given in a single article summary.
The age discrimination IBM was hit with was related to pensioners having their benefits plan changed; it had nothing to do with hiring.
The stuff on the Indian side of things, well, isn't really all that strange. The same thing happens informally in the US and in fact even the government has minimum ages for many elected representatives.
But of course this will just turn into another "Oh, woe is me, I can't believe that skilled people in other countries are getting jobs too." (Nevermind that it's still much harder for an Indian with strong tech skills to find a job than an American.)
I've heard a lot of arguments against this in my time (many of them on Slashdot), and most of them boiled down to this: IT workers, as professionals, shouldn't unionize. Unions are for blue-collar workers. While I suppose this is a nice way to think about your job and make you feel better about paying tens of thousands of dollars a year for a degree in Information Studies, it's ignoring reality. Perhaps the best way I've seen someone put it is, in reply to someone complaining about needing a buzzword-compliant resume, that such requirements should be a clue that IT workers are now a commodity. Like it or not, IT is the new factory worker of the 21st century, and if IT workers don't wake up and unionize, they'll get screwed so fast their heads will spin.
Maybe the AFL-CIO or UAW would be up to the task? They're only a postage stamp or a phone call away.
The best age group for IT related tasks will, at the moment be between around 28 to 35..... Why?
Well, people in this group grew up with the likes of the VIC 20, the ZX81, The Oric, The 80's 8 bit computers that we learnt and understood like riding a bike. No qualification, or degree will ever match what we know, and understand. Where students now learn computing in Uni, or secondary school, get taught IT skills, we learnt it through love of it, at 10 years of age, or earlier.
We are the David Beckhams of the industry, The Tiger Woods. Understand that in this era, we are kings, and our ability will never be surpassed by anyone just getting a degree, however young. I am 31, and the my best work (so far) has been in the last year or so. In my workplace, we have had people younger, but, though they can code well, they seam to just miss the point... They just analyze any problem, and apply it to what they've learnt at school or uni, they do not truly understand that problem, or how to realize the best solution.... and there solution is, well, ok, but never shows any innovation or 'Wow factor'
.... Tony.
Yes, this all sounds great but personally I would prefer not to have a bunch of kids who have no clue about the real world and no concept of responsibility be selecting who will run this country.
The problem with 14-17 year olds is not in their lack of intelligence, but in their lack of common sense. I think the main issue is that the majority of kids do not support themselves and until they do the really shouldn't have much of a say in how things should go.
I suppose I could possibly support a measure for them voting if they were not claimed as a dependent on anyone's tax return.
They can legally discriminate based on race, age, gender, religion, or anything they want. So companies can limit their applicants by flagrantly advertising age, gender, and other requirements that would be illegal in the US.
Businesses have much less regulations and worker protections than in the US and other industrialized countries, so they often collude to set artificially high prices for goods (although those prices may be still lower than in the US, due to the limited income of third-world consumers) and artificially low wages and working conditions for labor. And a handful of families control the majority of the wealth in the country.
US companies that outsource should realize that the countries and companies that have a blatant disregard for worker's rights and fair competition also aren't going to give damn about less tangible ideas like intellectual property and privacy.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
There is plenty of fodder in the above comments that could be remarked upon. (Bashing of US companies outsourcing jobs to India) But I think the current state of the economy shows that in the long run, the outsourcing of low wage/skill jobs to India and China is a good thing.
"we-don't-need-no-stinking-unions Amazon."
Unions are dead. Japanese car makers, Walmart, and many other business have show us this time and time again. Unions kill creativity, bring little benefit to workers anymore, and will only stagnate the company's growth.
Back in the days of the industrial age, older workers' experience was an asset. Hence the higher pay. Today, age means obsolescence, especially in hi-tech fields. The material taught in college cs classes changes almost every year. Why keep 30-year olds around when the kids out of college are better trained, better motivated, and will work for less?
If a company doens't hire someone because they're too old, then let them suffer the natural consequences of not getting the most effective people for the job. If a company hires a young person because they can pay them cheap and exploit them - make your own company, hire tham away, pay them more and pick the cream of the crop at will.
Of course, sometimes companies take advantage of the system to expolit people, like communisim. Other times they take advantage of phoney property rights like copyright and patnet monopolies, other times they take advantage of false barriers to entry - like excessive regulation of the railroad industry, or RF frequencies. Not to mention our centralized monitary/tax system routinely rips people off, and locks people into the system when it comes to credit or money. - But from my experience, these problems have more to do with the publics poor belief systems than free markets.
Moral: societies that have more libertarian values have more economic prosperity for the little guy.
In the Philippines, it is customary to include on your resume: age, religion, marital status, weight, height, a recent photograph, and if female, "measurements". If you don't, you probably won't be considered. The age of being "past your prime" is about age 25, professionally and maritally. You can be summarily rejected for employment for any of the above parameter values - being muslim as always been a strike against in the Catholic Philippines. Not being of the right sex or not being "pretty enough" to "decorate" the office is pretty common.
I'm sure other countries are similar. USian companies are required to follow the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; I wonder if it could apply to foreign age discrimination of subcontractors and subsidiaries?
This strategy is less likely to work if all your staff look like Alice Cooper.
As a country, this isn't an imposition of one country's labor laws on another--it's just an adjustment of tax codes to discourage commerce with countries who choose not to have standards equivalent to those of the importing country. Should that be a problem, the government of the exporting country has two choices: bring its labor standards up to facilitate commerce, or remain uncompetitive if it can't compete on a level playing field. This isn't coercion--there's no military force at work here.
Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag
You say that regulations "Drive businesses away," however, who said that nations need companies?
A company is just a group of people who are trying to make the most amount of money possible. Regulations merely say "This is what it takes to earn money legally in this country."
Therefore, for maximum profits, a company would need to function in the maxiumum number of countries, while following their regulations, and keeping production in the cheapest possible country.
The nation does not owe the corporations that dwell within a profit.
I have worked in a few IBM shops over the years at Fortune 100 companies.
They all had some sort of "vendor ethics" policy that stated that vendors (ie: such as IBM) had to have similar policies. These would include items such as harassment, ethical standards, EPA standards, age discrimination, etc. Mainly due to the contracting companies own liability.
Any contractor of IBM's that we would haven been exposed to would have to have the same standards.
Many large companies have these policies. There also seems to exist camps in these same companies that always want to throw IBM out for one reason or another.
This, IBM does business with contractors that engage in age discrimination, is exactly the sort of canon fodder that these people pray for. It does not matter if India allows this to happen, large US companies don't want to deal with this stuff.
"Somebody with the class and educational background to get this sort of job in India speaks English well enough. Your problem is not that the foreign workers speak bad English, but rather that you're intolerant of anybody who speaks it with a foreign accent, and undisposed to listen to them in the first place. (Of course you're not going to understand what somebody says if you don't listen to them.)"
Foreign accents, I don't mind. I work with Iranians at my workplace.
But I can't understand half the words Indians use. Which makes it TWICE as hard when you are trying to fix a server.
If Microsoft, Cisco, etc are going to charge me an arm and a leg per incident, they should provide someone who speaks English I can understand.
It's not racist, it's a fact. If I can't understand you, you are no use to me.
Corporatism != Free Market