Obama Supports Outsourcing American Jobs

Ron Hira, college professor, author, scholar and IEEE-USA leader has published a devastating critique of Barack Obama's selection of pro-outsourcing advocates to high positions within his administration. As I cautioned people months ago, Barack Obama does not believe in the sort of change many of us seek: Obama is not the agent of "change we can believe in".

Opinion: The Obama administration promotes outsourcing

Ron Hira
(02/04/2009 9:30 AM EST)
URL: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=213001145

We know from a recent EE Times survey that offshoring is the No. 1 career concern for EEs. The Obama Administration has been in office just a few weeks now, but we already know how it will address the offshoring of engineering jobs.

It will promote it.

EE Times, the Wall Street Journal and InformationWeek all recently published important stories on IBM's layoffs and the company's links to offshoring. IBM is now using the euphemism, "resourced actioned" to describe layoffs. The most remarkable aspect of the story was IBM's ability to take the Fifth Amendment on questions about the geographic distribution of layoffs, and even refusing to publicly state the number of U.S. workers it has.

Here's what the Journal published on Jan 27: "IBM Chairman Samuel Palmisano told workers in an e-mail last week that worldwide employment topped 400,000 at the end of 2008, up from 386,000 at the end of 2007. He didn't break out U.S. employment, and IBM spokesmen declined to do so."

IBM's unwillingness to publicly disclose its massive offshoring operations is no surprise, especially as it lobbies Congress and the Obama Administration for billions in taxpayer handouts as part of the economic stimulus package now being debated by Congress. What is remarkable is that the company is able to get away with it in the current job market with this President and this Congress.

InformationWeek reported on a new initiative by IBM, called Project Match, which is supposed to connect displaced U.S. workers with job openings in low-cost countries like India. But the catch here is, of course, that U.S. workers would be paid Indian salaries. How many U.S. workers can take those jobs and still hope to retire back in the U.S.? The answer is none.

So, where is President Obama, the politician who campaigned against outsourcing? The EE Times story that detailed the stealth layoffs and reactions of IBM workers, appeared on the same day that the President was chumming around with IBM's CEO Palmisano. Here's what President Obama said about why he invited to the White House Palmisano and nine other CEOs who are offshoring jobs:

"They make things, they hire people," the President said of the meeting participants. "They are on the front lines in seeing the enormous problems in the economy right now. Their ideas and their concerns have helped to shape our recovery package in order to get this economy back on track."

Can President Obama really be this naive? Or is it simply that he doesn't believe offshoring matters?

There is clear evidence that the latter is the case. On the very same day he was meeting with "CEOs [who] outsource American jobs"--a phrase he repeatedly and derisively used during his campaign, he named McKinsey's & Co.'s Diana Farrell to his National Economic Council, the inner circle of economic advisors in the White House. Farrell has done more to promote outsourcing than nearly anyone else in America.

Farrell was the lead author of the infamous "Offshoring: Is it a Win-Win Game?" Now she'll be operating at the highest levels of the Obama administration. Her phony "study" did more damage than any other in the debate over offshoring. And her propaganda was used to mislead the American public about the true impact of offshoring.

Moreover, Farrell's firm made millions of dollars consulting with companies, advising them to accelerate their offshoring. And she publicly made the rounds to convince policymakers and the public that offshoring was good for them and the country. It's also no coincidence that the IBM and Nasscom, the Indian IT outsourcing industry association, were major McKinsey clients. They benefited from McKinsey's lobbying as well as its consulting services.

This week (Feb. 3), President Obama nominated Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) to be the next Commerce Secretary. Gregg is a staunch proponent of outsourcing and expanding the H-1B visa program, destroying even more job opportunities for American engineers.

During the campaign, then-Senator Obama pledged to put American workers ahead of corporate profits. Now we know that this was simply a bad joke. A joke that all of us, except the CEOs, will pay dearly for in the years ahead.

The larger issue though is why President Obama can get away with these inexcusable and hypocritical actions? It's really quite simple: American workers have no real representation in Washington. While unions, like Alliance@IBM are doing yeoman's work on labor issues, it's simply not enough because their ranks, and therefore their resources, are too small.

Think about it for a moment: Who represents American engineers' interests in Washington? Sam Palmisano? Diana Farrell? President Obama? Do you think the President even raised the issue of offshoring with Palmisano?

Professional societies like IEEE are global institutions and are unwilling to do what's necessary to lobby on behalf of its U.S. members. I know, I've been active in IEEE's policy activities for years.

It's time for each individual to do his or her part if real change on jobs is to be achieved. Our leaders, politicians, university presidents and CEOs have little or no interest in helping engineers. You must help yourself, and that means becoming politically active. The offshoring of U.S. jobs isn't a partisan issue; both Democratic and Republican politicians are actively working against your career interests.

The first step is to begin communicating with your elected representatives about your interests and concerns. It's as simple as writing an e-mail. Then begin to organize and communicate in larger numbers through your local institutions, whether it is a professional society like IEEE or your place of worship.

This is not a time to mourn, it's time to take action.

—Ron Hira is an assistant professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology and author of "Outsourcing America"

Edwards assails the Clinton corruption machine

John Edwards summed up the "choice" Americans will have should Hillary Clinton become the Democratic Party presidential candidate: "Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine."


Hillary Clinton represents a sort of "one America" (far different from that proposed by John Edwards). Hillary's "one America" is for the very greedy special interests...

Indeed, Clinton's so-called "Middle Class Express" bus tour could have been more aptly termed the "Throw the Middle Class Under the Bus" tour...

Time after time, Clinton has voted against the interests of most Americans and for the powerful lobbies which insist on re-making American law and American society for the benefit of corporations and the rich elites which control them.

Updates...

Hillary Clinton accuses rivals of desperation

"Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country?" said Mr Edwards.

"You know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don't think that's going to happen."

Increasingly defensive, Mrs Clinton raised her voice to levels that may have made her campaign staff wince off stage [...]"

Is Hillary the one who is really desperate???

That is, desperate to avoid answering hard questions regarding her policy positions and legislative votes? Desperate to avoid being identified as part of the "culture of corruption" -- being a "corporate Democrat"... Hillary has been adept to obfuscation and avoiding hard questions. I'm pleased to hear John Edwards sharpening the debate and demanding some answers.

Offshoring US Jobs: IBM Seeks Patents on the Processes

Not content with slashing it's American and European (i.e., middle class) workforce with a noticeable age-biased twist and moving all possible work to low wage Third World nations like India where IBM now has an immense and growing workforce doing work formerly performed by middle class Americans, IBM is seeking to patent the methodologies and processes for offshoring jobs -- planning to sell the use of these patented processes as services to other companies which will then eliminate even more American jobs and put more middle class Americans into the large pool of uncounted under-employed and unemployed.

While "IBM" is supposed to be shorthand for "International Business Machines", the job-killing "offshore outsourcing" employment practices of this one-time American company leads one to ask if IBM hasn't become "India Business Machines" with an implicit message of "no middle class Americans need apply"?




Here then is the informative item from slashdot (hat tip to kdawson and theodp along with" /." for the excellent story):

IBM Seeks US Patents For Offshoring US Jobs

Posted by kdawson on Saturday September 29, @02:38PM

theodp writes

"IBM and other corporations are seeking patents for inventions covering the offshoring of US jobs. The USPTO is considering IBM's patent application for Outsourcing of Services, a 'method for identifying human-resource work content to outsource offshore of an organization' to 'countries where cheaper labor prices and/or cheaper materials are available.' Then there's Big Blue's Electronic Marketplace for Identifying, Assessing, Reserving and Engaging Knowledge-Workers for an Assignment Using Trade-Off Analysis, which provides a handy-dandy IBM calculator that drives home the point that you'll pay less for IGS India workers, whether onshore or offshore. And with its System and Method of Using Speech Recognition at Call Centers to Improve Their Efficiency and Customer Satisfaction, IBM describes how to operate in 'low cost foreign countries' with 'support people not having good English language skills, or having an accent that makes it difficult to understand them' by exploiting technology developed for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as other accent reduction techniques."

The Rich Get Richer, We Get Poorer

In my last post, I commented on EDS permanently whacking another 12,000 middle class American jobs (Offshoring jobs to low labor cost nations). Afterward, I wondered how much money the current CEO, Ronald Rittenmeyer is paid given that EDS is allegedly so concerned with cost cutting.

Well, in 2006, Rittenmeyer received a salary of $770,000 plus a bonus of $310,000. Salary and bonus for CEO Rittenmeyer in '06 was $1,080,000 -- over a MILLION dollars. But that's not all: there's this "Latest FY other long-term comp." item totaling over FOUR MILLION DOLLARS: $4,318,694. The real total 2006 compensation for the cost-cutting CEO of EDS is $5,399,527. Look at that number real hard. That reads FIVE MILLION, THREE HUNDRED, NINETY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Of course in 2006, Rittenmeyer was just a peon at EDS, merely the "President/COO/Director" -- not the "CEO". The CEO of EDS in '06 was Michael H. Jordan who received total cash compensation from EDS of $13,639,711 and stock options of $11,007,630. (Total: $24,647,341)

So, look what Rittenmeyer has to look forward to: there's some real room for income growth between $5,399,527 and $13,639,711. Hmm... if Rittenmeyer replaces enough American workers with cheaper workers in India, he can make a good case for pushing close to that THIRTEEN MILLION DOLLAR figure. And don't forget the ELEVEN "MIL" in stock...

EDS plans to hire lower cost workers in, among other places, India to replace the expensive middle class American workers. This is a well known situation: American middle class jobs being destroyed and American middle class workers without comparable job opportunities. This is how "free trade" really works. Corporations eliminate jobs and job opportunities for Americans until Americans are willing to accept the same Third World wages that Indians and others in low labor cost nations are willing to accept. Supporters of "free trade" and unrestricted offshore outsourcing (like Sen. Hillary Clinton) have publicly dismissed this as merely the workings of "global competition".


I note the peculiar injustice and hypocrisy of CEOs like Ronald Rittenmeyer and politicians like Hillary Clinton acquiring tremendous wealth while millions of middle class Americans face an endless "Race to the Bottom" in wages and living standards. While most business leaders and many political leaders claim that free trade is good for America, I think the truth is that offshore outsourcing American jobs is good for them and bad for us.

Remember, "Free Trade is Good for Americans"

EDS is whacking its U.S. workforce again...

Though, I wonder if EDS management ever stops axing its American workforce? (Answer: "Don't think so")

Look at the numbers below. Another 12,000 American middle class jobs are set to be permanently eliminated by EDS alone this year. This is on top of 5,000 American jobs cut in '03 and 20,000 cut in '04! Working with just these figures alone, that's 37,000 middle and upper middle income jobs permanently GONE in America!!!

I wonder if all the people who thought free trade would be a "win-win" feel "punked"? (Of course, I mean those people not in upper corporate management, working on Wall Street, insulated in political jobs or enjoying the fat rewards of high corporate dividends 'cuz the the company ditched it's "expensive" American workers and moved ops offshore...)

Remember, how our "leaders" told us back in the '90s that it's ok if the "dirty" factory jobs go to places like China and Mexico?? Americans, said the assorted business and political "leaders, will have cool "information age" jobs? That's what Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich said around the time they rammed NAFTA through the Congress back in the early '90s...

Well, it sure worked out "different" didn't it? (Isn't it ironic that Hillary Clinton and ex-prez Bill are still claiming that free trade is "good" and we just need to better "compete" to keep jobs?? Well, that is called the "Race to the Bottom".

If we're gonna go that route -- cutting our incomes to keep the jobs from going to places like India -- I want Hillary Clinton to take a 25% per year cut in salary -- you know, so she is like competing with Indian politicians to keep her job. Seems fair to me. After all, Hillary wouldn't ask American workers to make any sacrifices she herself isn't willing to make, right Maybe it's time for all of us to start thinking "different" and voting "different" -- you know vote for people "different" from the ones who support "free trade" and letting corporations "offshore outsource" all the middle class American jobs they want.

EDS Offers 11% of Work Force Early Retirement
[Note: That 11% figure refers only to the EDS American workers]

The outsourcing giant has been cutting jobs in the U.S. while hiring workers in lower-cost countries.

September 12, 2007

By Deborah Perelman

At an estimated cost of between $70 million to $130 million, outsourcing giant EDS said in a Sept. 12 Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it will offer early retirement packages to about 12,000 U.S. employees in the fourth quarter, or more than 11 percent of its 136,000 worldwide work force.

After receiving board authorization Sept. 6, the company announced the offer to its staff on Sept. 11. Employees have until Oct. 30 to accept or reject the offer.

Workers who opt for the early retirement will receive an additional $10,000 from the retirement plan, as well as extra credits to their retirement account, according to the filing.

This benefit is equal to five times the allotted annual funds made to their company retirement plan.

Officials were unable to nail down the exact price it would run them until they knew how many employees would accept the offer.

Second in revenue to only IBM among United States technology services companies, EDS, based in Plano, Texas, has cut costs over the last several years. The cuts have included the elimination of 5,000 jobs in 2003 and 20,000 in 2004.

Its current CEO, Ronald Rittenmeyer, took over on Sept. 1 and is said to be hiring workers in India to revive profit by replacing more-expensive U.S. employees. Rittenmeyer said he would be bringing its work force in low-cost countries, including India, Brazil and the Czech Republic, from 38,000 to 45,000 by the end of 2008.

EDS also offered 9,200 workers early retirement in 2004, an offer accepted by 1,500.

Clinton Hypocrisy: Bill "Giving" Himself Undeserved Praise...

I'm reading this...

The Hypocrisy of Bill Clinton's New Book 'Giving'

Summary:

Bill Clinton has written a new book about charity, a "fitting subject" for a president who betrayed the poor and led his party into the arms of corporate America.

Noteable Quote:

The misery sweeping across the American landscape may have begun with Ronald Reagan, but it was accelerated and codified by Bill Clinton. He sold out the poor and the working class. And Clinton did it deliberately to feed the pathological hunger he and his wife have for political power. It was the Clintons who led the Democratic Party to the corporate watering trough.

The Clintons argued that the party had to ditch labor unions, no longer a source of votes or power, as a political ally. Workers would vote Democratic anyway. They had no choice. It was better, the Clintons argued, to take corporate money and use government to service the needs of the corporations. By the 1990s, the Democratic Party, under Clinton’s leadership, had virtual fund-raising parity with the Republicans. In political terms, it was a success. In moral terms, it was a betrayal.

I'll add that while Bill Clinton is rightfully slammed for NAFTA, he also initiated the H-1b non-immigrant visa "guest worker" program with no "labor test" safeguards for American workers. This omission has permitted corporations to claim phantom labor shortages and import lower wage, more compliant foreign workers as replacements for middle class American workers. (There are obvious indicators of age discrimination here too; the imported replacement workers are mostly 20-somethings...)

H-1b has proven a highly effective tool for offshore outsourcing the very "information age" jobs which Clinton claimed Americans would fill in the wake of the loss of manufacturing and industrial job movement out of the U.S. due to NAFTA and future "free trade" agreements.

The fact that Bill Clinton makes regular free trade pilgrimages (junkets) to Davos where he continues to sing the praises of the corporate managed trade system (WTO) he helped ram through Congress is a source of endless disgust.

Bill Clinton's profitable relationship with corporations such Cisco which wholeheartedly embrace the offshore outsourcing paradigm is an indication of how little he cares about Americans who must work for a living.

In Opposition to Hillary Clinton...

Hillary Clinton supports laws, regulations and trade agreements which subordinate the broad general good of all Americans and the long term interests of the United States to the whims of corporations controlled by monied elites. Hillary Clinton believes in the same radical corporate-managed trade and labor policies supported by the Bush Administration. These radical pro-corporate policies, established in law and government regulation, enable corporations to destroy good paying jobs for Americans undercutting the very idea of a broad middle class society.

Indeed, Hillary Clinton has displayed a pattern of studied indifference to the plight of working Americans while eagerly accepting corporate gifts, favors, and financial reward. From support for UN-FAIR trade agreements to promoting corporate "guest worker" programs used to replace American white-collar workers with imported lower-cost non-Americans, Senator Clinton well represents the corporate interests of the Offshore Outsourcing lobby in the U.S. Senate.

However, effective advocacy and unwavering support for the interests of corporations and slavish devotion to business lobbies are not popularly-accepted qualifications for election to the office of President of the United States. While it is convenient for some to confuse the short-term objective of winning elections with the principles necessary to govern for the broad general welfare of all Americans, self-serving political opportunism must be recognized for what it is.

Therefore, "The Modern Patriot" opposes the candidacy of Hillary Clinton for the office of President of the United States and urges others to closely examine the beliefs and conduct of Senator Clinton. True democrats do not support policies which destroy the livelihoods of American families and lead to deteriorating living standards for all except the wealthy and well-connected.

Cross-posted to Raising Kaine on 09/18 and the Daily Kos on 09/19.

Hillary Clinton Supports Destruction of American Jobs, Takes Pay-Offs For Helping Outsourcers

Continuing on the theme of my previous posting re. Hillary Clinton's support for corporate programs to eliminate jobs for American workers, I read a comment by an angry Clinton constituent on Progressive Geek

The one-time Clinton supporter discussed Hillary's promise to work to improve the jobs situation in Upstate New York when she first ran for the U.S. Senate. Clinton has done just the opposite and cynically used the jobs issue for election but has no interest in helping American workers once in office.

Here's a brief part of the comment:

"Her entire career in upstate New York has been of a piece in a series of token gestures, creating 10 token window-dressing American jobs for Tata Consulting in Buffalo (what a great trade -- there are more than 10 Indian consultants right now just in my cubicle cluster in Albany!!). It's endemic up here, cheap token gestures like renaming empty streets leading to dead malls and empty office campuses "Computer Avenue" and "Silicon Way"; pointless PR campaigns "re-branding" upstate New York as "Tech Valley"; setting up a local non-union "Charter School" in technology with enrollments of 40 kids who probably spend more time being photographed with politicians than learning."


The comment came in response to a very important story of how the Clinton campaign was actively seeking the support of key U.S. and foreign "big money" in the Offshore Outsourcing business. The article referenced appeared in the LA Times, "Clinton woos the outsourcers feared by U.S. workers". This article is also well worth a read, essentially underscoring the tremendous reality lost in the much misunderstood Obama campaign claim that Hillary Clinton was essentially representing the interests of the Indian offshore outsourcing business elites.

Here's one fine quote from the article which gives some indication of how offshore outsourcing money is helping to power the Hillary Clinton campaign:

"Clinton is successfully wooing wealthy Indian Americans, many of them business leaders with close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas. Her campaign has held three fundraisers in the Indian American community recently, one of which raised close to $3 million, its sponsor told an Indian news organization.

But in Buffalo, the fruits of the Tata deal have been hard to find. The company, which called the arrangement Clinton's "brainchild," says "about 10" employees work here. Tata says most of the new employees were hired from around Buffalo. It declines to say whether any of the new jobs are held by foreigners, who make up 90% of Tata's 10,000-employee workforce in the United States."

The quote from John Miano at the Programmer's Guild reminds me very much of the criticisms faced by Harris Miller in last year's Virginia Dem. primary:

"It's just two-faced," said John Miano, founder of the Programmers Guild, one of several high-tech worker organizations that have sprung up as outsourcing has expanded. "We see her undermining U.S. workers and helping the offshoring business, and then she comes back to the U.S. and says, 'I'm concerned about your pain.' "

TATA or TCS, the Indian Offshore Outsourcing and H-1b bodyshop mentioned in the article imports thousands of Indian guest workers into the US to facilitate offshore outsourcing of jobs to India or replace American workers in the U.S. with imported Indian workers also in the U.S. The key in both cases is the so-called "guest worker" programs (e.g., H-1b, L-1) supposedly created because of "shortages of American workers" (a widespread myth concocted at great effort and cost by outsourcing and anti-worker lobbies).

Hillary Clinton is all about LIES -- lies propping up bigger lies to help make the rich and powerful more rich and more powerful leading to the sort of sharply reduced living standards for the majority of Americans now increasingly in evidence all over the U.S.

Hillary CLinton's Offshoring Ties Face Scrutiny

It seems that contrary to Hillary Clinton's claim that there's nothing new to talk about re. her past, the Sept. 8 Washington Post has an interesting article, "Unions Press Clinton on Outsourcing Of U.S. Jobs", filled with information about Senator Clinton's ties to monied elites who profit from the elimination of American middle class jobs.

The Obama campaign's fumbled criticism of Hillary Clinton's ties to Indian outsourcing corporations (e.g., "Sen. Clinton, D-Punjab") and mainstream press failure to explore the facts, notwithstanding there's plenty of grist for the mill here.

Millions of middle and working class Americans want to know what the he!! an alleged "democrat" is doing allied with the people responsible for declining standards of living and rising inequities in America.

Assuredly, this is the conversation that Hillary Clinton does NOT want to have with American journalists and voters.

The reality is that Hillary likes the cash that comes from being the friend of business lobbies who wish to continue their middle class job-killing policies without government interference.

My suggestion to those interested in seeing whose interests Hillary is concerned with: follow the money. The money trail to Hillary leads back to corporate boardrooms and CEO mansions in the U.S. and offshore -- to people who have grown immensely rich while the lives of middle and working class Americans have deteriorated.

Isn't it interesting that Hillary Clinton is trying to downplay her offshore outsourcing lobbyist ties now? Voters in last November's elections put two outspoken critics of offshore outsourcing into the U.S. Senate: Jim Webb (Virginia) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio)

Perhaps Hillary realises that she has to get past democratic voters in states where her outsourcing lobby money may count less than it does in New York -- states like Virginia and Ohio. Democrats in these states have elected leaders diametrically opposed to the economic/jobs/labor policies that Hillary has joined Republicans in supporting during her time in the Senate.