[Marxism] Down-Sourcing

[Chris Brady <cdbrady@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Down-sizing and outsourcing are the high-profile trends that negatively
affect US workers for the present (and that definitely ain?t no
Christmas present).  Even the comics pages of today?s local daily
newspaper carry themes based on this trend (see: ?The Norm? by Michael
Jantze, and ?Dilbert? by Scott Adams).  That only adds to the
realization that the phenomenon has resonance in the experience of the
mass media audience, i.e., the masses (Q.: Why do current writers avoid
using that term ?the masses? these days?  A.: Because it is a shibboleth
of a consciousness, and a politics inimical to capitalism).  It's a
given understanding by many in the work force that corporations give
pink slips in lieu of bonuses just before Christmas so as to save
money.  It puts a new twist on the familiar old "Christmas Goose."

Down-sizing is an effect of outsourcing; they may be considered as two
sides to the same coin ?and that coin IS profit.  Let me suggest a
neologism: ?down- sourcing?.  It has the added attraction of invoking
the search for lower labor costs in less-developed countries (LDCs), as
well as the increased suppression of the lower orders, i.e., keeping the
working class down.

The following piece adds to our discussions on how the priorities of the
profit drive reaches up the class ladder to drag down more workers --
workers who, heretofore, believed themselves beyond by the fray ---of
class struggle.

Bracing for the Blow

By BOB HERBERT
New York Times, December 26, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/opinion/26HERB.html?th

I.B.M. has sent a holiday chill through its American employees with its
plans to ship thousands of high-paying white-collar jobs overseas to
lower-paid foreign workers.

?People are upset and angry,? said Arnie Marchetti, a 37-year-old
computer technician at I.B.M.?s Southbury, Conn., office whose wife gave
birth to their first child in August.

The company has not made any announcements, and the employees do not
know who will be affected, or when. The uncertainty about whose jobs may
be sent to India or China, the two main countries in the current plans,
has raised workers? anxiety in some cases to an excruciating level.

?I understand that this is a lightning rod issue in the industry,? an
I.B.M. spokesman told me this week. ?It?s a lightning rod issue to
people in our company, I suppose. But I don?t think anybody expects us
to issue blanket statements to the work force about projections.?

Referring to employees who may be affected by the plans, he said, ?We
deal with them as they need to know.?

?Offshoring? and ?outsourcing? are two of the favored euphemisms for
shipping work overseas. I.B.M. prefers the term ?global sourcing.?
Whatever you call it, the expansion of this practice from manufacturing
to the higher-paying technical and white-collar levels is the latest big
threat to employment in the U.S.

Years ago, when concern was being expressed about the shipment of
factory jobs to places with slave wages, hideous working conditions and
even prison labor, proponents said there was nothing to worry about.
Exporting labor-intensive jobs would make U.S. companies more
competitive, leading to increased growth and employment, and higher
living standards. They advised U.S. workers to adjust, to become better
educated and skillful enough to thrive in a new world of employment,
where technology and the ability to process information were crucial
components.

Well, the workers whose jobs are now threatened at I.B.M. and similar
companies across the U.S. are well educated and absolute whizzes at
processing information. But they are nevertheless in danger of following
the well-trodden path of their factory brethren to lower-wage work, or
the unemployment line.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that I.B.M. had told its
managers to plan on moving as many as 4,730 jobs from the U.S. The
I.B.M. spokesman told me he was sure that figure was too high, but added
that no one had complained to The Journal about the number. He said he
didn?t know how many American jobs would be lost.

I.B.M. officials are skittish to the point of paranoia on this matter,
which has powerful social and political implications. Pulling the plug
on factory workers is one thing. A frontal assault on the livelihood of
solidly middle-class Americans ? some of whom may be required to train
the foreign workers who will replace them ? is something else.

James Sciales was the first of the company spokesmen to respond to my
inquiries this week. He was reluctant to even tell me his name and
nervously refused to answer any questions. Another spokesman was willing
to talk but asked that I not refer to him by name.

In a recorded conference call reported by The Times last summer, a pair
of I.B.M. officials told colleagues around the world that the company
needed to accelerate its efforts to move white-collar jobs overseas.
They acknowledged the danger of a political backlash, but said it was
essential to step up the practice.

?Our competitors are doing it and we have to do it,? said Tom Lynch,
I.B.M.?s director for global employee relations.

The outsourcing of good jobs has been under way for years, and there is
no dispute that the practice is speeding up. ?Anything that is not
nailed to the floor is being considered for outsourcing,? said Thea Lee,
the chief international economist for the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

Most of the millions of white-collar workers who could be affected by
this phenomenon over the next several years are clueless as to what they
can do about it. They do not have organized representation in the
workplace. And government policies overwhelmingly favor the
corporations. Like the employees at I.B.M. whose holiday cheer has been
dampened by uncertainty, these hard-working men and women and their
families have little protection against the powerful forces of the
global economy.





_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism