Slashdot Mirror


Asian Call Center Workers Trained With US Tax Dollars

gManZboy writes in with a troubling story about tax dollars being used for overseas call center training. "Despite President Obama's recent call for companies to 'insource' jobs sent overseas, it turns out that the federal government itself is spending millions of dollars to train foreign students for employment in some booming career fields--including working in offshore call centers that serve U.S. businesses. The program is called JEEP, which stands for Job Enabling English Proficiency. It's available to college students in the Philippines through USAID. That's the same agency that until a couple of years ago was spending millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money to train offshore IT workers in Sri Lanka. Congressman Tim Bishop (D-New York), told about the program on Tuesday, called it 'surprising and distressing.' Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts."

25 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. Duh? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just in: Politicians lie. Film at 11.

  2. Much like tax breaks for the wealthy.... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They *do* increase employment. In China.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Much like tax breaks for the wealthy.... by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think he's talking about 3rd and 4th generation Americans. I know many who still ain't got no good grasp ov da inglash layngwidge.

      I have friends of all races, some who only came here in the last few years, I have no problem with someone wanting to live here, bring with them parts of their culture not better left behind, and integrate into our society; that's what made this country great.

      What I, and many others, take issue with is that some of these people come over here and bring with them the very parts of their culture they were coming here to get away from. If you're going to come here to live your life exactly as you were living it in your home country, go back home. Immigrating to America is supposed to be about improving your life and our country; if you're not interested in doing at least one of those things, we're not interested in having you here.

      My mexican, puerto-rican neighbors, korean, japanese, and indian friends and neighbors all seem to agree with the above, it's not a racist statement, it's what this country was founded on.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:Much like tax breaks for the wealthy.... by El+Rey · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Philippines are not a US territory. Where have you been since 1945?

    3. Re:Much like tax breaks for the wealthy.... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That would be puerto rico, also illegally seized from Spain in the same war. But the Philippines was independent from the US since 1946. Which also means they have very strong ties with the US, having just been on the allied side in WW2.

      It's a fair point to complain about the US government say training chinese or indians to some degree. Although there is a legitimate place for development aid, whatever you may call it. China and India are after all strategic competitors to the US (along with Russia, Brazil, Indonesia and the EU, even if they are only regio), but the Philippines remains very much a staunch US ally against china, a US friend (insofar as the US has any of those left in the world), and a potentially expanded market for US sales.

    4. Re:Much like tax breaks for the wealthy.... by guanxi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt persons saying "ax" instead of ask are using an older form of English or German, since most of their ancestors originally spoke an African tongue. (Sorry; just speaking truth.) They are merely mispronouncing the word, in the same way that mispronounce "po" instead of poor.

      You're missing the point. The point is that language and pronunciation changes. I bet yours is imperfect too.

      What's really absurd is for so many Americans with so many regional accents and dialects, from the South to Boston 'Southie', to pick on one dialect as a problem but not the others. Their priority they put on proper pronunciation is also a little hard to fathom. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that it's not the dialect that they have a problem with.

    5. Re:Much like tax breaks for the wealthy.... by guanxi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't mind immigrants to the US, it has what has made the country so great.....however, I want them to at least sign the guest book on the way in, do it legally, and try to become a citizen.

      Immigrants that do it the right way...DO try to learn the language and become part of the melting pot that is (or at least was) the USA.

      I agree it should be done legally, but America was built on immigrants who didn't learn the language or blend in, many of whom were illegal (and the ancestors of those complaining). It's always been that way. Per one study I saw, by the third generation ~80% intermarry outside their ethnicity and only 3% speak their grandparents' native tongue at all (the latter is kind of sad).

      I know that if I was 40 years old and moved to Poland (to pick a random country), I would learn some Polish to get by but I would be reading English websites, watching English TV and movies, etc. My kids would grow up speaking Polish, and their kids would laugh at Grandpa's funny accent and condescendingly translate.

      To be frank, I think many people are uncomfortable with different cultures and change, and try to rationalize their feelings by finding problems with immigration. It's human nature, but America is great because we have overcome it and accepted all.

      Have some sympathy for people who have come so far, with so little, to an alien world that speaks another language and is populated by many who hate immigrants just because they're different. Hardly a threat; they are really in need of our help and compassion (and admiration -- I doubt many people would have the guts to leave everything behind for that experience!).

  3. Posturing by Zibodiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts.

    So they're saying that they're no longer going to purchase HP, Dell, or Acer PCs? Somehow I suspect that bill is just posturing, and will not amount to anything.

    1. Re:Posturing by frosty_tsm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bishop recently introduced a bill that would make companies that outsource call centers ineligible for government contracts.

      So they're saying that they're no longer going to purchase HP, Dell, or Acer PCs? Somehow I suspect that bill is just posturing, and will not amount to anything.

      Or it will force them to open call centers in the US to serve US customers. I would presume that the requirement would be serving US customers onshore but doesn't bar them from serving offshore customers with offshore centers.

  4. ESL Program? by sunwukong · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if USAID would be willing to sponsor a similar program up here in Canada?

    We have lots of friendly college folk who need ESL training and an economic leg up -- so what better way than to operate your call centers up here?

    It's as near shore as you can get and these ESL trained immigrants would do the natural, Canuck thing, and spend their USAIDed wages across the border at Costco and Wal-Mart.

  5. SallieMae by DaKong · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's ironic. Recently SallieMae called to talk to me about one of my employees who's delinquent on his student loans. The caller was clearly Indian. I remarked that it hardly seems to help American students repay their loans, in general, if SallieMae itself outsources its operations to India, thus depriving a number of Americans from the opportunity to repay their loans.

    The rep hung up on me.

    --
    If not us, who? If not now, when?
    1. Re:SallieMae by gweihir · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is the "shame them" model of dept collection. Call employer, family, friends. It is criminal in quite a few countries.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. We need to raise taxes... by superdave80 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...or else important programs like this will have to be cut!

  7. Working at a call center sucks. by s0nicfreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do we fight so hard to keep/return the shitty jobs?

    1. Re:Working at a call center sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are entry level positions. The US job market's becoming more and more top heavy in the tech industry. People are having harder and harder times getting relevant experience as the foot-in-the-door positions have been moved overseas. Even worse, the same thing's started happening for more experienced positions.

      In my current work environment, I've watched T1-3 jobs shuffle overseas. I'm one of the last people that was able to work my way up from an entry level position. Job listings have been demanding higher education coupled with experience, yet the latter is becoming rarer and rarer to come by. It's something that's been building for years and we're staring at a large experience gap in the industry.

  8. Obama... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Obama critque is not irrelevant. The problem with this election is that the guy against him has one goal and that is to help his corporate buddies. The GOP doesn't need to spend the time or the money on a platform committee this year because choosing Mittens makes it their sole platform plank. Romney already goes on the stump and says only what his pals want him to say (not to mention different things for different crouds.) Obama is a corporatist without a doubt, but at least he thinks about the little guy 1% of the time.

    1. Re:Obama... by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 3, Funny

      Go Ron Paul!

    2. Re:Obama... by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I do hope that's sarcasm...

      From a platform of eliminating income tax in favor of reliance on consumption taxes, cutting public service projects, and basing economic plans on intentional ignorance, Ron Paul's just about the perfect candidate for a stereotypical evil wealthy businessman. His approach to leadership is that the Founding Fathers had everything all figured out 250 years ago, and all those major changes like the Industrial Revolution are just bothersome little things that shouldn't concern us.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:Obama... by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My apologies for the long post, but Ron Paul pisses me off. From his own website:

      Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

      First line of his tax platform, and we've established that he wants to get rid of the income tax, which is currently the most direct way to put the burden of social support on those who benefit most: the wealthy. If you're of the opinion that everyone should support society equally, whether or not they can afford it, then I guess removing income tax makes sense. That's not my opinion.

      To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes...

      Excise tax is often connected to "sin tax" for good reason. The government gets to put a tax on anything it wants. The paranoid folks worry about the influence of government on our right to purchase particular things, but what actually concerns me more is the likelihood that a "fair" excise tax is applied to practically everything, so all prices rise by some amount, increasing the total cost of living. If wages also increase, then it's just inflation, and nothing changes (except we're in a worse position in the global economy). If wages don't increase, then the taxes affect the lowest-income population the most, while the middle and upper classes are unaffected.

      ...non-protectionist tariffs...

      I don't think I've ever heard of any tariff that's not protectionist. Raising the price of an import necessarily makes outsourced manufacturing more expensive. Unfortunately, this isn't the 1800's, where America was capable of being (more or less) self-reliant. Americans want their electronics from Asia, and modern companies know this. The higher prices from the tariffs will be passed on to the consumers, which again will mostly hurt the lowest-income population. I don't think that's right.

      massive cuts in spending

      He defines what will be cut elsewhere. Notably, he intends to close the Department of Energy (because who needs energy research anyway, when you have big energy companies working on fossil fuels?), Housing and Urban Development (which currently manages federal programs for low-income people to buy homes), and the Department of Education (because the states do such a great job already). Less specifically, some other goals are "returning responsibility for security to private property owners" which I interpret to mean cutting federal support for emergency services, and "stopping foreign aid", of which the #1 recipient is Afghanistan. Sure... once we've screwed over a country for 10 years, let's cut off support to rebuild, so we can cut back 1% of the federal budget. He also boasts about his promise to take a personal salary of only $39,000, which is a savings of almost 0.00001% from the federal budget. Then there's his spending freezes, on Medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps, family support, and child nutrition programs.

      “I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. ...

      He wants to cut out 45% of income, but his vaunted $1 trillion in cuts only total about 33% of expenses. Without replacing the missing 12% of the budget, he's going to have a hard time meeting his promise to have a balanced budget in two years.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  9. Re:Better idea - reduce all government spending by Dutchmaan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Across the board spending cuts are supposed to take effect in January of 2013... You know who's crying about them already... The military. I can already hear the backtracking in congress about how dangerous it is to cut military spending, and I'm sure we'll have across the board cuts in 2013... for social programs.

  10. Re:Quality Jobs by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gee, I hope they succeed in bringing all of the call center work back to the United States! I would love to pay higher prices so that my countrymen can work menial jobs for 10 times the pay of their Asian counterparts (which still fails to provide a decent standard of living here), because more expensive products are good for everyday Americans already struggling to get by!

    Actually, and all sarcasm aside. you are quite right. The few dollars more that you might spend on your PC, for example, could create living wage jobs for people here in this country. We need some major adjustments to the economy, but the math is what it is and when you stop sucking dollars out of it by off-shoring your labor, things are better. Period. We saw this throughout the eighties in the Pacific Northwest. Reagan's corporate welfare policies allowed corporations to make more money shipping raw logs overseas than they could by processing them into salable products here. The result was the virtually complete collapse of the timber industry. Entire communities became ghost towns when the paper and lumber mills shut down. Same shit, different decade, only on a much bigger scale.

  11. Re:Better idea - reduce all government spending by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could cut military spending to zero, and you'd still have a huge deficit. The only ways to eliminate the deficit are big cuts everywhere, big tax increases, or big economic growth.

  12. Re:Quality Jobs by s.petry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sorry, but since I detect no sarcasm I have to assume you are really ignorant. You do understand that an Economy needs to be able to accommodate every level of education and desire to work in order to be an economy right?

    The Political speak of the last decade or so tends not to mention how important that is. "American's don't want to work in factories" is another good line. It's great rhetoric that has been working to increase the wealth disparity gap in the US, put millions of Americans out of work, and made a select few more wealthy than they already were.

    Look, I'm not going to try to teach you the fundamentals of economics and sociology. I simply don't have the time or energy to even try. I will suggest that you do some research before repeating propaganda targeting lower and middle class Americans and giving benefit to the wealthy. Spend some time reading about the economics of Rome prior to collapse. Greece is another great example and much more recent. Read some of the works by the founder of Capitalism Adam Smith, Marxx's commentary is very good as well. Both will point out the short comings and dangers of the system rather nicely.

    In all societies, the majority of people are content with menial work for fair pay. There is a minority on either end. When the top owns enough to steal from everyone below them, the society is doomed. Plato's "The Republic" is an excellent reference for that aspect. And yes, the United States is a Republic and founded that way intentionally. Though it has been turning in to something completely different very quickly.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. That's what USAID does, duh. by Loosifur · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The whole point of USAID since inception has been to very publicly give financial aid to allies and countries with whom we want to establish stronger ties, and to less publicly give American foreign service personnel an excuse to be in a foreign country with a bunch of cash. And that's not some Cold War stuff, either. Like, right now, American military advisors and CIA operatives act in places like Afghanistan under the auspices (and budget) of the USAID, which, ironically, stands for United States Agency for International Development. It's a major foreign policy arm of the US, and if you think the government, no matter which party is in power, is going to rush to put a leash on it just because outsourcing has some feathers ruffled, you're very much mistaken.

    --
    This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!