When You Hear The Heavy Accent & The Poor Phone Connection... HANGUP!!! ------ 2tDMpvDi

I would perfer that you don't try to intrerpret my moral standpoint,
as you appear to have missed the point of the original post.

I was referring to the morality of banks & telcos outsourcing call
centres as the original post referred to. I have personal knowledge
of both these industries, & helping oversea economies is their lowest
priority, in fact it isn't even taken into consideration.

Their sole aim is to reduce costs & increase their share price, once
again at the expense of the Australian workforce & their customer
service.

John L.


On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:56:02 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:


John L was clearly arguing about the morality of outsourcing; I was just
identifying that his argument was incorrect.

You are looking at this from a business perspective of whether the lower
quality of the service justifies the lower cost ... this is a case by case
argument. If its something that requires local knowledge, then maybe it
isn't a good prospect for an offshore call centre - like your application.

The single best thing the rich West can do for the world's poor is to give
them jobs. Trade in services is particularly attractive, as it allows the
development of an urban middle class. Moving call centres off-shore is far
better than giving aid to the recipient country ...

"John L" wrote in message
...
I would perfer that you don't try to intrerpret my moral standpoint,
as you appear to have missed the point of the original post.


No, I understood exactly the point of the original post. And your moral
viewpoint is somewhat clear, from thew remarks "the common denominator is
that this outsourcing is being done by the greediest & most socially immoral
entities (Banks, telco's etc.)"

I simply pointed out that many other industries have previously outsourced,
so outsourcing cannot be taken as evidence of (or as a cause of)
outsourcing.

I was referring to the morality of banks & telcos outsourcing call
centres as the original post referred to. I have personal knowledge
of both these industries, & helping oversea economies is their lowest
priority, in fact it isn't even taken into consideration.

Ha ha. I guess your personal knowledge is you own a phone and have a bank
account.


Their sole aim is to reduce costs & increase their share price

Yep. That's the law (Corporations Act); the Directors of the company have to
act solely in the interest of shareholders.


Peter Webb

"John L" wrote in message
...
I believe the original poster was referring to call centres, & my
reply was to that post. Without stooping to personal abuse I stand by
my statements regarding Telcos & Banks.

Where was the personal abuse? (There is some now - you are clearly bot a
very logical thinker)

I'm not in the habit of
regularly calling my local textile group or footwear manufacturer for
banking information or registering complaints re lack of service
provided by my telco.

Uhh, no, and I guess you don't buy shoes at a Bank. Here's another one - you
don't ring your telco to cancel a cheque. What's this got to do with the
morality of moving low paid, low skill jobs offshore, which is the point you
tried to make? How is working in a call centre fundamentally different to
working in a shoe factory at a moral level?


I do have to do this on a regular basis due to
the pathetic service offered by the major banks & telcos in Australia.

I had the misfortune to contact a bank call centre last week, I got to
listen to a number of catchy Indian tunes after being put on hold
every time I asked a question as the operator had to refer to a
manager in Australia.

Idiots. Should have been playing Australian music. This is evidence only of
incompetence, which happens all over the world - unless you have some
(*cough*) moral objection to Indian music?


At least once a week I get a call from an overseas call centre trying
to convince me to change telcos (sometimes asking me to change to my
current carrier). I have a good ear for accents but have had to hang
up a number of times due to a complete inability to comperhend what
they are saying.

Again, this isn't a moral judgement on the call centre being overseas? Would
it be morally OK if they spoke perfect English (as some do?).


I'm interested if Peter agrees with outsourcing call centres, or is
simply employed in one of these industries as a manager & is trying to
justify their cost cutting actions in order to earn (productivity?)
bonuses at the expense of customer service.

John L.


No, I don't work in banking or telecommunications, or having anything to do
with call centres on a professional basis.

Yes, I agree with outsouring call centres offshore in principle (individual
cases need individual consideration). The increased global trade in services
has significant benefit to people in third world countries, and if it makes
services cheaper to purchase they are to the benefit of the Australian
consumer.

Any other position would be morally very hard to support. Shoes made in
Australia are of exceptional quality, but start at $300 or so. Do you buy
them? No, I bet you don't. When YOU are making the economic decision, you
decide to purchase the cheaper (and generally inferior) product manufactured
offshore in an outsourced facility. But then you claim the Banks are "the
greediest & most socially immoral
entities", for doing exactly what you have been doing for years. Does strike
me as somewhat hypocritical.

You seem to base all your arguments on how I think, what I buy,
& what my occupation is. Therefore your arguments have absolutely no
validity, as you have no idea what I buy, how I think or my
profession. Perhaps you would like to give some validity to those
spurious statements by stating what my profession is & what brand of
shoe I wear, I don'y buy inferior products or your inferior arguments.

Try to stick to facts & don't impose your fantasies regarding the
buying habits & thoughts of other people. It appears you believe a
little spin makes your own arguments appear more legitimate.. Your own
hypocrisy is breathtaking.

If you support overseas call centres why do you call the Indians
idiots for playing Indian music, would it be better in your eyes if
they conned people into believing they were in Australia. Your attempt
to add a little (cough) racism says more about your own moral outlook
than any of your spurious arguments. You'd do Warney proud with your
spin.

It's more than a little curious why the companies would prefer their
customers not know the call centres were overseas. Could it be they
are aware of the slippery moral grounds for outsourcing? Where is the
benefit to the Australian consumer when it puts other Australians out
of work & the taxpayer has to foot the unemployemnt bill.

John L.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:26:45 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:


"John L" wrote in message
.. .
I believe the original poster was referring to call centres, & my
reply was to that post. Without stooping to personal abuse I stand by
my statements regarding Telcos & Banks.

Where was the personal abuse? (There is some now - you are clearly bot a
very logical thinker)

I'm not in the habit of
regularly calling my local textile group or footwear manufacturer for
banking information or registering complaints re lack of service
provided by my telco.

Uhh, no, and I guess you don't buy shoes at a Bank. Here's another one - you
don't ring your telco to cancel a cheque. What's this got to do with the
morality of moving low paid, low skill jobs offshore, which is the point you
tried to make? How is working in a call centre fundamentally different to
working in a shoe factory at a moral level?


I do have to do this on a regular basis due to
the pathetic service offered by the major banks & telcos in Australia.

I had the misfortune to contact a bank call centre last week, I got to
listen to a number of catchy Indian tunes after being put on hold
every time I asked a question as the operator had to refer to a
manager in Australia.

Idiots. Should have been playing Australian music. This is evidence only of
incompetence, which happens all over the world - unless you have some
(*cough*) moral objection to Indian music?


At least once a week I get a call from an overseas call centre trying
to convince me to change telcos (sometimes asking me to change to my
current carrier). I have a good ear for accents but have had to hang
up a number of times due to a complete inability to comperhend what
they are saying.

Again, this isn't a moral judgement on the call centre being overseas? Would
it be morally OK if they spoke perfect English (as some do?).


I'm interested if Peter agrees with outsourcing call centres, or is
simply employed in one of these industries as a manager & is trying to
justify their cost cutting actions in order to earn (productivity?)
bonuses at the expense of customer service.

John L.


No, I don't work in banking or telecommunications, or having anything to do
with call centres on a professional basis.

Yes, I agree with outsouring call centres offshore in principle (individual
cases need individual consideration). The increased global trade in services
has significant benefit to people in third world countries, and if it makes
services cheaper to purchase they are to the benefit of the Australian
consumer.

Any other position would be morally very hard to support. Shoes made in
Australia are of exceptional quality, but start at $300 or so. Do you buy
them? No, I bet you don't. When YOU are making the economic decision, you
decide to purchase the cheaper (and generally inferior) product manufactured
offshore in an outsourced facility. But then you claim the Banks are "the
greediest & most socially immoral
entities", for doing exactly what you have been doing for years. Does strike
me as somewhat hypocritical.

Your obviously don't believe in the adage"it's better to shut your
mouth & be thought a fool, than open it & prove it". My profession
involves consultancies with both telcos & banks, & I'm quite aware of
the Corporations act. I don't believe it says anywhere in the act
that companies have to act immorally.

None of the companies I deal with have outsourced & all are showing
higher profits than their counterparts.

John L.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:13:50 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:


Ha ha. I guess your personal knowledge is you own a phone and have a bank
account.


Their sole aim is to reduce costs & increase their share price

Yep. That's the law (Corporations Act); the Directors of the company have to
act solely in the interest of shareholders.


Peter Webb

"John L" wrote in message
news
You seem to base all your arguments on how I think, what I buy,
& what my occupation is. Therefore your arguments have absolutely no
validity, as you have no idea what I buy, how I think or my
profession.

Look back at the thread. You speculated on my employment - specifically that
I worked for a telco or Bank. I did not speculate on yours.


Perhaps you would like to give some validity to those
spurious statements by stating what my profession is

Ummm where did I do that? No its not "or is [he]
simply employed in one of these industries as a manager". That was YOU
speculating on MY employment.

Forgetting which side you are arguing on?


& what brand of
shoe I wear, I don'y buy inferior products or your inferior arguments.

Try to stick to facts & don't impose your fantasies regarding the
buying habits & thoughts of other people. It appears you believe a
little spin makes your own arguments appear more legitimate.. Your own
hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Gee, so I guess this is put up or shut up time. Do you buy Australian made
shoes? From where? How much did they cost?
How about your clothes - made in Australia, or at an overseas factory? Of
course, your kids toys - no doubt all made in Australia?

Unless you have never bought a pair of shoes that cost less than $300 (and
this is the time and place to state this is true), you have made an economic
cost-cutting decision to use an outsourced offshore supplier - exactly the
same behaviour as you critisice the Banks for. This makes you a "greediest &
most socially immoral entity" - somewhat worse than the Banks and telcos, as

1. They are not flaming hypocrites
2. You did it long before you did
3. They act this way to save some-one else's money - their shareholders -
you do it for completely selfish reasons.


If you support overseas call centres why do you call the Indians
idiots for playing Indian music, would it be better in your eyes if
they conned people into believing they were in Australia.

Better for them, yes. Because there are people who (rightly or wrongly)
believe that the call centre industry should be protected from overseas
competition.

Your attempt
to add a little (cough) racism says more about your own moral outlook
than any of your spurious arguments. You'd do Warney proud with your
spin.

It's more than a little curious why the companies would prefer their
customers not know the call centres were overseas. Could it be they
are aware of the slippery moral grounds for outsourcing?

No. Its purely a matter of business. They win no friends in Australia by
moving their call centres offshore. Doesn't of course mean that they are
wrong to do so, its just that they have better things to do than explain
macro-economic theory to bozzos on newsgroups.


Where is the
benefit to the Australian consumer when it puts other Australians out
of work & the taxpayer has to foot the unemployemnt bill.

John L.


Everybody else in the developed world understood this argument 50 years ago.

Lets take it from the top.

Q) How is moving a call centre offshore morally different to moving a shoe
manufacturing facility offshore?

Or do you think Australia should prohibit the importation of shoes,
textiles, pharmaceuticals, factory equipment, aircraft, industrial
chemicals, software, and patent rights from overseas? Alternatively, if you
think that these industries should be open to offshore competition, explain
to me just one more time why call centres should be protected when none of
these other (strategically more important) industries are not?

Do that, and you can kick my arse with the $400 shoes, hand made in the
Strand Arcade, that you are presumably wearing.

John L wrote:
Your obviously don't believe in the adage"it's better to shut your
mouth & be thought a fool, than open it & prove it". My profession
involves consultancies with both telcos & banks, & I'm quite aware of
the Corporations act. I don't believe it says anywhere in the act
that companies have to act immorally.

None of the companies I deal with have outsourced & all are showing
higher profits than their counterparts.


bwahahaha!!!...(more thought...) bwahahaha!!!


michael

John L wrote:
Your obviously don't believe in the adage"it's better to shut your mouth &
be thought a fool, than open it & prove it". My profession involves
consultancies with both telcos & banks, & I'm quite aware of the
Corporations act. I don't believe it says anywhere in the act that
companies have to act immorally.

None of the companies I deal with have outsourced & all are showing higher
profits than their counterparts.

Uh huh.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

John L wrote:
If you support overseas call centres why do you call the Indians
idiots for playing Indian music, would it be better in your eyes if
they conned people into believing they were in Australia.

It would be better if they tried as hard as possible to make potentially
anxious callers feel comfortable.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

If it's put or shut up time, trhen let's have your credentials on
show. I believe it was you that stated & continue to state what shoes
& clothes I wear, & appear to consider yourself the expert on business
principles. Sadly for you, you don't make the rules in this
discussion.

Interedting that you raise a raise a recist inference to the argument
then conveniently skate over it when confronted. You should be
working for Bush he needs that kind of talent.

As a matter of interest, what's a "bozzo". Would that be similar to me
calling you a "Trool"?

John L.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:11:12 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:


"John L" wrote in message
news
You seem to base all your arguments on how I think, what I buy,
& what my occupation is. Therefore your arguments have absolutely no
validity, as you have no idea what I buy, how I think or my
profession.

Look back at the thread. You speculated on my employment - specifically that
I worked for a telco or Bank. I did not speculate on yours.


Perhaps you would like to give some validity to those
spurious statements by stating what my profession is

Ummm where did I do that? No its not "or is [he]
simply employed in one of these industries as a manager". That was YOU
speculating on MY employment.

Forgetting which side you are arguing on?


& what brand of
shoe I wear, I don'y buy inferior products or your inferior arguments.

Try to stick to facts & don't impose your fantasies regarding the
buying habits & thoughts of other people. It appears you believe a
little spin makes your own arguments appear more legitimate.. Your own
hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Gee, so I guess this is put up or shut up time. Do you buy Australian made
shoes? From where? How much did they cost?
How about your clothes - made in Australia, or at an overseas factory? Of
course, your kids toys - no doubt all made in Australia?

Unless you have never bought a pair of shoes that cost less than $300 (and
this is the time and place to state this is true), you have made an economic
cost-cutting decision to use an outsourced offshore supplier - exactly the
same behaviour as you critisice the Banks for. This makes you a "greediest &
most socially immoral entity" - somewhat worse than the Banks and telcos, as

1. They are not flaming hypocrites
2. You did it long before you did
3. They act this way to save some-one else's money - their shareholders -
you do it for completely selfish reasons.


If you support overseas call centres why do you call the Indians
idiots for playing Indian music, would it be better in your eyes if
they conned people into believing they were in Australia.

Better for them, yes. Because there are people who (rightly or wrongly)
believe that the call centre industry should be protected from overseas
competition.

Your attempt
to add a little (cough) racism says more about your own moral outlook
than any of your spurious arguments. You'd do Warney proud with your
spin.

It's more than a little curious why the companies would prefer their
customers not know the call centres were overseas. Could it be they
are aware of the slippery moral grounds for outsourcing?

No. Its purely a matter of business. They win no friends in Australia by
moving their call centres offshore. Doesn't of course mean that they are
wrong to do so, its just that they have better things to do than explain
macro-economic theory to bozzos on newsgroups.


Where is the
benefit to the Australian consumer when it puts other Australians out
of work & the taxpayer has to foot the unemployemnt bill.

John L.


Everybody else in the developed world understood this argument 50 years ago.

Lets take it from the top.

Q) How is moving a call centre offshore morally different to moving a shoe
manufacturing facility offshore?

Or do you think Australia should prohibit the importation of shoes,
textiles, pharmaceuticals, factory equipment, aircraft, industrial
chemicals, software, and patent rights from overseas? Alternatively, if you
think that these industries should be open to offshore competition, explain
to me just one more time why call centres should be protected when none of
these other (strategically more important) industries are not?

Do that, and you can kick my arse with the $400 shoes, hand made in the
Strand Arcade, that you are presumably wearing.