CBA hiring Indian ICT workers after firing Australians
ia.acs.org.au
ia.acs.org.au
Where is the line between that and plain slavery?
If we want to go the pedantry way, this is the definition I found: “a condition of having to work very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation.”
Emphasis in proper mine.
Local options should always be preferred to protect local job markets. Any company only exists because they can do business locally, so they should support local or be burnt to the ground.
I now live in the UK, when I got hired here they had to advertise my position to see if they could fill it locally before they could grant me a visa for it - this is the way.
Once I worked there for a month and befriended my team, one of them showed me how they posted a fake job listing with exactly my experience, and we all laughed about it.
All of the implementations of this legislation seem trivial to rig. Even though it feels good to assume you outcompeted everyone in the UK with your leet skills and they had no option to import the heavy guns.
EU work visas are like a rubber stamp compared to US ones.
Everything is trivial to rig, we live in a world of apathetic morons who want fat, sugar, salt, dopamine - people who vote like political parties are sports teams, who want to pay the lowest price available even if it polluted the planet with cheap plastic crap, who care only about them and their tribe and not humanity as a whole. People who don't care about the betterment of society or accumulation of wealth so long as they get to hate the group that they've chosen to hate for mostly arbitrary evolved chemical reasons with no bearing in the modern world.
I only say hire local because I've given up. Because our species is too fucking stupid to ever have a borderless utopia. And we don't fucking deserve one either.
Blaming immigrants instead of systematic explotation and inequality takes us down the disasterous Brexit path.
Just before their last big US layoffs, Microsoft announced: "Microsoft is expanding our presence in India with a $3 billion investment"
The vast majority of companies in the world are run by MBAs. Welcome to the club.
SV companies were an exception to this rule for a short time in history since tech moved faster than the dinosaurs in suits could comprehend or regulate, so it made sense to put engineers in charge to innovate quickly. Having zero interest rate money also helped a lot.
But now that the tech market has matured and consolidated, it's becoming like all the other "uncool" traditional industries, run by MBAs. Except unlike those old traditional industries, there's no credential barrier to entry or unions to protect them, for better and worse.
It was then torn apart and turned into a joke by a different set of MBAs. So… perhaps it is a little more complicated than just having an MBA
Why? Cuz this is not just about cross border diff in labor rates but also in interest rates, real estate/rent, corporate tax rates, forex rates, regulations, govt subsidies, energy costs etc etc.
Sum it all up and the cost differential can't be swept under the carpet.
MBAs getting drilled to focus on the short term / maximize shareholder value which has created all kinds of issues. But that is not hard to change. Lot of schools exist that don't focus only on that. What's hard to change is the underlying calculus without global coordination.
Correct.
> which means its not up to individuals or orgs, but the entire system across the board has to change... [but it's] hard to change the underlying calculus without global coordination.
That's the hard way, and I mean, the extremely hard way that will never happen. The core systemic issues are local to the US and if they cannot be changed locally, there's no hope for global coordination. The EU is in the same boat but it would be considerably easier for them to change if the US led the way.
Once we cannot hide behind the back of "global coordination", a major question arises, where is the systemic analysis of the US economy and who is responsible for it? If parties and judges cannot agree even on the question "Can the US executive branch regulate the economy", what hope is there for a proper systemic analysis, unencumbered by partisan and lobbying influence?
ACS is being a hypocrite since: 1) they charge $$$ fees for validating IT experience so they would never advocate lowering the immgiration rate (its also a conflict of interest). So they have a hand in dismantling Australian tech jobs. 2) they inform the government that there's still a "skills shortage" of developer , when in reality, they do it to suppress wages.
ACS has a nice government-granted monopoly on assessing the qualifications of work visa applicants (at significant cost) so anyone reducing the demand for IT worker visas (by off-shoring those jobs) is going to hurt ACS directly.
that is also approximately all ACS does as far as I remember, they seem to never lobby for anything useful or go against the government for the exact same reason.
ACS had a hand in blowing up Aussie jobs.
(And yes we are pissed about it)
Look out for the new round of layoffs that get blamed on "AI" next year?
From the article:
> “FSU will take CBA to the Fair Work Commission over the issue”
(FSU being the Finance Sector Union, and Fair Work Commission being a governmental body that does have some powers.)
CBA like all large corporations don't care about their staff nor their customers. Their only priority is to pander to their shareholders and pay their executives ever larger salaries and perks.
Government powers don't work. Lobbyists and party donors make sure that they own the decision makers. Politicians, like the corporations are only in it for what they can personally gain.
Because it’s great business: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-27/australias-internatio...
Because Australian universities are a path to citizenship.
Australia is one of the richest per capita nations on the planet and has been for almost 200 years.
People seek a better life. My ancestors did too, that's why I'm Australian.
At this point, a plurality of our new immigrants come from one or two states in India.
I would challenge you to go to a coffee shop in any major city and try to find a Canadian worker.
Not sure what the future is for a Canadian worker, but it's bleak.
States encompass territory, but nations are defined by their people and culture.
https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran...
This is especially true in Toronto, where immigrants from the subcontinent grow up in enclaves surrounded by other immigrants.
Citation please, because this is sweeping. Two questions to consider:
1. Are these enclaves representative of the subcontinent, or of a few over-represented communities that is actually a small fraction of the Indian subcontinental population?
2. Of all the people from the Indian subcontinent here, how many live in enclaves versus otherwise?
Brampton, Thorncliff, Scarborough, etc. There's no shortage of immigrant heavy neighborhoods.
Heck, I'm in Durham and the demographics are changing rapidly.
So it turns out immigrants are just people too and behave in the only way they possibly can. Although maybe don't just let anyone in, dump them in the middle of nowhere and hope they turn out well. That'll probably end poorly. Setting people up with economic opportunities make for happy societies.
A big part of the problem seems to be the opposite: Canada has dense cultural centers of specific immigrants, and not suprisingly new people from the same origins want to land there too. The challenge is this doesn't necessarily match with where people are needed the most.
In most existing societies, that patchwork follows normal distributions centered around recognizable points. This is obvious even in the U.S. Sure, you’ll meet chatty people in rural Oregon and curt people in rural Georgia. But if you’re culturally calibrated to make small talk like in Georgia then you’ll piss off most cashiers in Oregon.
Once you acknowledge that these differences exist, you also have to acknowledge that these differences aren’t merely superficial. It’s not just food and dress, but also attitudes about honor, conflict resolution, trust, saving, debt, justice, and government. Look at Minnesota (historically) as compared to Scandinavia (from where a lot of Minnesotans immigrated). You can easily see the through lines connecting the governance of those places. You can easily see the differences in governance between Iowa and Alabama.
There isn't a question here that different people have different cultures and migration changes culture. Indeed, if we assume that migrants migrate to places with cultures that promote success then change the culture that'd suggest that migrants cause mean-reversion for the worse. But on the other hand that mean reversion happens anyway, cultures change anyway and migrants tend to be a bit smarter and more motivated than the locals so it is hard to really be certain.
It is still a bit of a non-issue that immigrants don't assimilate into something that doesn't really exist in an environment that was changing anyway. I wish more people from my own culture would assimilate into it a bit better and maybe keep to some of the good ideas a little more diligently. Or even just agree on what they were.
The "something that doesn't really exist" is what allows immigrants to come in the first place, an accepting and tolerant culture. It's what allows women to walk home at 2 AM and what made people fight for gay marriage.
Does this nihilistic view of culture cut both ways by the way? Was Nazi Germany just fine culturally speaking?
Yes, but the center of the distributions along various axes will shift. To give an example: I grew up in Northern VA, which in the 1990s was quite WASPy. One aspect of that culture was austerity: it was hard to tell the people worth tens of millions apart from upper middle class doctors and lawyers. Now, the influx of immigrants from Asia and the Middle East has totally destroyed that norm. Relatively discrete brick mansions are being turn down and replaced with enormous and ostentatious displays of wealth.
> Indeed, if we assume that migrants migrate to places with cultures that promote success then change the culture that'd suggest that migrants cause mean-reversion for the worse.
That’s the concern. And it’s not just “success.” But orderliness, egalitarianism, democracy, etc. Most societies are much less successful on all those fronts than America. The only direction we can really go is down.
What I want to address about this comment is the implicit identity associations involved. It's clear that you're drawing an identity distinction between "Canadian" and "Indian".
One of the things I've noticed about my own personal associations is that my own identity as an "Indian" kind of dissolved over the course of a decade or so after I immigrated as a child.
And when it evolved it didn't evolve in the direction of "Canadianness", for some generic definition thereof. My cultural identity broadened along horizons that had nothing to do with nationality.
When I think of "my tribe" now, it's on a values and interest basis. "My people" aren't Canadians or Indians, they're programmers and engineers and scientists and mathemeticians. Where I draw identity lines, it's no longer along national lines. My tribe's Gods are Turing and Church. Our saints are Torvalds and Carmack and Stroustrup and Van Rossum and Wall. We are friendly with the neighboring tribes that follow Euler and Goedel, as well as the yonder followers of Einstein and Newton and Feynman.
And I think that perspective dichotomy is reflective of an underlying deep shift in how people form identities, one that's being driven by the rise of instant, rich global communications through the internet.
So when I read comments like yours these days, I see yet another sign of the tension between that old structure and the new.
To bring this back to a Canadian context, Stephen Harper (former conservative PM) actually called this out very astutely a long time ago when talking about the Somewheres vs the Anywheres:
https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-has-some-...
> Harper argues that today’s conservative populism deserves a respectful hearing because it harnesses the legitimate anxieties of the Somewheres, who haven’t been doing all that well in the globalized economy. As for the Anywheres, they don’t get it.
I'd only disagree about that last statement. I get it :) It's just that having been born in a very Somewhere place and having become an Anywhere, I really can't explain the depth of freedom you feel when you escape those identity bounds.
It's not that I don't understand the cultural perspective of the Somewheres. It's just that I see it as a prison.
These new fragmented identities are self-selected.
The real problem is that it's happening from the inside out, and it's happening everywhere. The reality is that Canadians of one stripe or another will identify more with an American of that same stripe, or a European or Asian origin person of that same stripe, than they will with somebody else of a different stripe of their own nationality.
That national association has been fading for a long time. And ironically, it's been driven along by American brand culture, which has done its level best to introduce people to aligning themselves on brand identities because that's a potent source of revenue.
A few generations have come and gone now with people slowly being trained to de-emphasize national identity.
And the internet came along and gave everyone access to an infinite regenerating pool of communities that people can align and re-align with.
This is a phase change in society and it's about as unstoppable as continental drift.
I don't wish you to be uncomfortable, I'm happy to hear your comfort increases as you age. Still, maybe it's worth taking note that the kinds of people that believe in great replacement will never see you as anything other than Indian, same for your children.
You may feel less Indian and more something else, but others disagree.
Check out the first reply to your comment. Ignored everything you said about identity, just says "Gee, sounds like you brought the Caste system from India to Canada!"
Please keep a wary eye out. Reminds me of that Jubilee video that just came out with a bunch of fascists vs Mehdi Hasan - there's a couple non white conservatives there who watch supposed ideological allies say directly in front of them that they don't want non whites in the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo
Oh I'm absolutely aware of this. The collectives around you trying to force an identity on you is one of the core tensions everyone faces. That tension manifests everywhere. Go back to India and the entire country tries to reimpose my identity as a Hindu.
There's baggage that comes with the pigment for sure.
The thing I want to point out is that there is a deep schism in the process of occurring - within the local "native" population as it were. The simple fact is that if you go talk to an urban progressive Canadian and ask them to choose between identifying with me and one of their less progressive born-in-Canada fairer skinned fellow citizens.. most will pick me. Because I can relate to them, and I talk like them, and I share their culture.
The problem with this reformulation of identity is that it's a threat to other identities that depend on numbers - like national identity. The people strongly tied to the old identity systems that depend on numbers for strength, see their framework eroding in significance, but they don't quite understand why. This leads to the scapegoating of various specific identities - whether that be immigrant or gender identity or sexual identity - which we can see happening now.
My identity as a cultural interloper is just one part of this. The explosion of social interest in gender identity and sexual identity, and the nationalist reaction against it, is part of the same trend. The fact that all of this and the reaction to all of this is happening globally - across countries, across continents.
We are in the middle of one of the biggest, most consequential upheavals in social order since the enlightenment. It's an incredible thing to witness (and yes, deeply unsettling at a personal level when you think of the consequences of this in terms of real harm to real people).
Why do Canadians put up with going to coffee shops that make you call into a call center in another country to order coffee?
I thought outsourcing meant we get cheaper goods like iPhones and laptops. Now we can outsource middle-class service jobs for cheaper services?
I'm not against realistic economics and open markets leading to a more balanced world, but this is just shark-toothed capitalism with contempt for individuals and the societies the organisations exist in.
The point is that companies rest on the infrastructure of society, they are only possible because of everything from the physical infrastructure of energy to the institutional infrastructure of courts and markets. These things are for the most part provided by the tax base in their home country. There are for the most part rules, laws, and norms about how much and what kind of economic activity must accrue back to the society that incubated and hosts the company.
Arbitraging those rules and norms to extract rents is not in general a social good.
The quote I am replying to stands on its own regarding criticism. "Government" is supposed to just be The People, and preventing "government interference" becomes a dog whistle for "let the market do what it wants, if people with capital use it to further acquire capital at the expense of those without, so be it."
Not saying company X isn't off shoring to save costs and hurting local jobs. But it is also perhaps true that company Y is growing and selling their services/products in N countries but only has jobs in one(or few) of countries perhaps. Why is this fair if the first one isn't ?
Feels like in the medium term, the West survives by importing both goods and skilled engineers/researchers, because it provides a ready-made environment conducive for business. Feels like that is just an aberration that lower cost countries will eventually match.
I’m sick of “American tech startups” that consist of some US-based VC investors, a figurehead “founder”, a few beefy executives who only care about their headshot, and all engineering/manufacturing done in Asia.
It’s not like we can export our realtor and insurance salespeople to 3rd world countries either…
Entirely outsourcing all critical goods and services is foolish. Who wants to be vulnerable to the whims of other countries?
While it was paying off handsomely, in the short term, the grumblings were muted. Now that the invisible hand of the invisible debt collector has come a-calling, it is unsurprising that the WITCH-hunt (hehe) is gathering momentum.
Given that these are generational phenomena, is it surprising that one generation torpedos local labour laws and labour protections, and their children and grandchildren wake up one day faced with the prospect of having to pay the price?
This is neither 'right', not 'wrong' much less shameful; it is simply the logical extension of the socio-economic system we all willingly subscribe to. The only alternative, would be to establish different forms of community owned organisations (should all businesses be owned by employees?) allied with protectionism to prevent leaner, more efficient capitalist firms from outcompeting the co-ops.
Can't have your cake and also eat it. This trend is one excellent example of the inherent, unsolvable issues with capitalism.
Do we subscribe to it willingly? I dare say there's been plenty of scenarios and places where the population would favour protectionism of some form but find their desire subverted by capital.
Willingly? I don't remember being asked if I want to be replaced by an imported offshore worker.
Most workers don't want this version of capitalism, people want their politicians and businesses to prioritize the interests of local workers first. Hence why you see them voting for the most extreme and radical political candidates since the status quo have made it clear they see the locals as interchangeable cogs in the economic meat grinder.
First, CBA lied. They said the workers were "redundant" when they were actually being replaced with cheap offshore labor. They lied because their actions were shameful and they were rightfully ashamed.
Second, capitalism is an economic system, not a moral code. If you discover that your rich neighbor's car dealership has a policy of hard selling expensive cars to vulnerable old ladies, would you think "welp, I can't hold that against him, because capitalism incentivizes maximalizing profits"? Obviously not.
Companies have (at least in the US) the same rights as biological humans. And we've observed corporations long enough to realize that if they were humans, they would be PSYCHOPATHS. Quick, how do you reign in a psychopath? With wishes, hope, or the strong arm of the law? It's option 3, of course. But we don't have a strong arm of the law, we barely even have law these days, and what little law we DO have has been co-opted by the corporations, and generally only wakes up when it's time to defend corporations against the "little guy".
And THAT is why hoping that the government will just willingly "do the right thing" and reign in the psychopathic corps will never work, either.
We need a groundswell of people who demand change pushing upward on the corrupt power structures. When enough people want it, it's what everyone talks about, and politicians can't sidestep the issue any longer, THEN change will occur.