East India Inc.
George Monbiot (The Guardian)
October 30
Page 1 of 3
If you live in a rich nation in the English-speaking world, and most of
your work involves a computer or a telephone, don't expect to have a job in
five years'time. Almost every large company which relies upon remote transactions is
starting to dump its workers and hire a cheaper labour force overseas. All
those concerned about economic justice and the distribution of wealth at home
should despair. All those concerned about global justice and the distribution of
wealth around the world should rejoice. As we are, by and large, the same people,
we have a problem.
Britain's industrialisation was secured by destroying the manufacturing
capacity of India. In 1699, the British government banned the import of woollen
cloth from Ireland, and in 1700 the import of cotton cloth (or calico) from
India. Both products were forbidden because they were superior to our own. As the
Industrial Revolution was built on the textiles industry, we could not have
achieved our global economic dominance if we had let them in. Throughout
the late 18th and 19th centuries, India was forced to supply raw materials to
Britain's manufacturers, but forbidden to produce competing finished
products. We are rich because the Indians are poor.
Now the jobs we stole 200 years ago are returning to India. Earlier this
month,the Guardian revealed that the National Rail Enquiries service is
likely to move to Bangalore, in south-west India. Two days later, HSBC
announced that it was cutting 4,000 customer service jobs in Britain and shifting them to Asia.
BT,British Airways, Lloyds TSB, Prudential, Standard Chartered, Norwich Union,
Bupa, Reuters, Abbey National and Powergen have already begun to move their
call centres to India. The British workers at the end of the line are
approaching the end of the line.
There is a profound historical irony here. Indian workers can out-compete
British workers today because Britain smashed their ability to compete in
the past.
Having destroyed India's own industries, the East India Company and the
colonial authorities obliged its people to speak our language, adopt our
working practices and surrender their labour to multinational corporations. Workers
in call centres in Germany and Holland are less vulnerable than ours, as Germany
and Holland were less successful colonists, with the result that fewer people
in the poor world now speak their languages.
The impact on British workers will be devastating. Service jobs of the kind
now being exported were supposed to make up for the loss of employment in
the manufacturing industries which disappeared overseas in the Eighties and
Nineties. The government handed out grants for cyber-sweatshops in places
whose industrial workforce had been crushed by the closure of mines,
shipyards
East India Inc.
George Monbiot (The Guardian)
October 30
Page 2 of 3
and steelworks. But the companies running the call centres appear to have
been testing their systems at government expense before exporting them somewhere
cheaper. It's not hard to see why most of them have chosen India. The wages of
workers in the service and technology industries there are about a tenth of those
workers in the same sectors over here. Standards of education are high and almost
all educated Indians speak English. While British workers will take call-centre
jobs only when they have no choice, Indian workers see them as glamorous. A
technical support company in Bangalore recently advertised 800 jobs. It
received 87,000 applications. British call centres moving to India can choose the
mostcharming, patient, biddable, intelligent workers the labour market has to offer.
There is nothing new about multinational corporations forcing workers in
distant parts of the world to undercut each other. What is new is the extent to
which the labour forces of the poor nations are also beginning to threaten the
security of our middle classes. In August, the Evening Standard came across some leaked
consultancy documents suggesting that at least 30,000 executive positions
in Britain's finance and insurance industries are likely to be transferred to
India over the next five years. In the same month, the American consultants Forrester
Research predicted that the US will lose 3.3 million white-collar jobs
between now and 2015. Most of them will go to India.
Just over half of these are menial 'back office' jobs, such as taking calls
and typing up data. The rest belong to managers, accountants, underwriters,
computer programmers, IT consultants, bio-technicians, architects,
designers and corporate lawyers. For the first time in history, the professional
classes of Britain and America find themselves in direct competition with the
professional classes of another nation. Over the next few years, we can expect to
encounter a lot less enthusiasm for free trade and globalisation in the parties and the
newspapers which represent them. Free trade is fine, as long as it affects
someone else's job.
So a historical restitution appears to be taking place, as hundreds of
thousands of jobs, many of them good ones, flee to the economy we ruined. Low as the
wages for these positions are by comparison to our own, they are generally
much higher than those offered by domestic employers. A new middle-class is
developing in cities previously dominated by caste. Its spending will
stimulate the economy, which in turn may lead to higher wages and improved conditions of
employment. The corporations, of course, will then flee to a cheaper
country, but not before they have left some of their money behind. According to the
consultants Nasscom and McKinsey, India will be earning some $ 17 billion a
year from outsourced jobs by 2008.
East India Inc.
George Monbiot (The Guardian)
October 30
Page 3 of 3
On the other hand, the most vulnerable communities in Britain are losing
the jobs which were supposed to have rescued them. Almost two-thirds of
callcentre workers are women, so the disadvantaged sex will slip still further behind.
As jobs become less secure, multinational corporations will be able to
demand ever harsher conditions of employment in an industry which is already one
of the most exploitative in Britain. At the same time, extending the practices of
their colonial predecessors, they will oblige their Indian workers to mimic not
only our working methods, but also our accents, our tastes and our enthusiasms, in
order to persuade customers in Britain that they are talking to someone down the
road. The most marketable skill in India today is the ability to abandon your
identity and slip into someone else's. So is the flight to India a good thing or a
bad thing. The only reasonable answer is both. The benefits don't cancel out the harm.
They exist side by side. This is the reality of the world order Britain
established,and which is sustained by the heirs to the East India Company, the
multinational corporations. The corporations operate only in their own interests.
Sometimes these interests will coincide with those of a disadvantaged group, but only
by disadvantaging another.For centuries, we have permitted ourselves to ignore the extent to which
our welfare is dependent on the denial of other people's. We begin to
understand the implications of the system we have created only when it
turns against ourselves.
George Monbiot (The Guardian)
October 30
Page 1 of 3
If you live in a rich nation in the English-speaking world, and most of
your work involves a computer or a telephone, don't expect to have a job in
five years'time. Almost every large company which relies upon remote transactions is
starting to dump its workers and hire a cheaper labour force overseas. All
those concerned about economic justice and the distribution of wealth at home
should despair. All those concerned about global justice and the distribution of
wealth around the world should rejoice. As we are, by and large, the same people,
we have a problem.
Britain's industrialisation was secured by destroying the manufacturing
capacity of India. In 1699, the British government banned the import of woollen
cloth from Ireland, and in 1700 the import of cotton cloth (or calico) from
India. Both products were forbidden because they were superior to our own. As the
Industrial Revolution was built on the textiles industry, we could not have
achieved our global economic dominance if we had let them in. Throughout
the late 18th and 19th centuries, India was forced to supply raw materials to
Britain's manufacturers, but forbidden to produce competing finished
products. We are rich because the Indians are poor.
Now the jobs we stole 200 years ago are returning to India. Earlier this
month,the Guardian revealed that the National Rail Enquiries service is
likely to move to Bangalore, in south-west India. Two days later, HSBC
announced that it was cutting 4,000 customer service jobs in Britain and shifting them to Asia.
BT,British Airways, Lloyds TSB, Prudential, Standard Chartered, Norwich Union,
Bupa, Reuters, Abbey National and Powergen have already begun to move their
call centres to India. The British workers at the end of the line are
approaching the end of the line.
There is a profound historical irony here. Indian workers can out-compete
British workers today because Britain smashed their ability to compete in
the past.
Having destroyed India's own industries, the East India Company and the
colonial authorities obliged its people to speak our language, adopt our
working practices and surrender their labour to multinational corporations. Workers
in call centres in Germany and Holland are less vulnerable than ours, as Germany
and Holland were less successful colonists, with the result that fewer people
in the poor world now speak their languages.
The impact on British workers will be devastating. Service jobs of the kind
now being exported were supposed to make up for the loss of employment in
the manufacturing industries which disappeared overseas in the Eighties and
Nineties. The government handed out grants for cyber-sweatshops in places
whose industrial workforce had been crushed by the closure of mines,
shipyards
East India Inc.
George Monbiot (The Guardian)
October 30
Page 2 of 3
and steelworks. But the companies running the call centres appear to have
been testing their systems at government expense before exporting them somewhere
cheaper. It's not hard to see why most of them have chosen India. The wages of
workers in the service and technology industries there are about a tenth of those
workers in the same sectors over here. Standards of education are high and almost
all educated Indians speak English. While British workers will take call-centre
jobs only when they have no choice, Indian workers see them as glamorous. A
technical support company in Bangalore recently advertised 800 jobs. It
received 87,000 applications. British call centres moving to India can choose the
mostcharming, patient, biddable, intelligent workers the labour market has to offer.
There is nothing new about multinational corporations forcing workers in
distant parts of the world to undercut each other. What is new is the extent to
which the labour forces of the poor nations are also beginning to threaten the
security of our middle classes. In August, the Evening Standard came across some leaked
consultancy documents suggesting that at least 30,000 executive positions
in Britain's finance and insurance industries are likely to be transferred to
India over the next five years. In the same month, the American consultants Forrester
Research predicted that the US will lose 3.3 million white-collar jobs
between now and 2015. Most of them will go to India.
Just over half of these are menial 'back office' jobs, such as taking calls
and typing up data. The rest belong to managers, accountants, underwriters,
computer programmers, IT consultants, bio-technicians, architects,
designers and corporate lawyers. For the first time in history, the professional
classes of Britain and America find themselves in direct competition with the
professional classes of another nation. Over the next few years, we can expect to
encounter a lot less enthusiasm for free trade and globalisation in the parties and the
newspapers which represent them. Free trade is fine, as long as it affects
someone else's job.
So a historical restitution appears to be taking place, as hundreds of
thousands of jobs, many of them good ones, flee to the economy we ruined. Low as the
wages for these positions are by comparison to our own, they are generally
much higher than those offered by domestic employers. A new middle-class is
developing in cities previously dominated by caste. Its spending will
stimulate the economy, which in turn may lead to higher wages and improved conditions of
employment. The corporations, of course, will then flee to a cheaper
country, but not before they have left some of their money behind. According to the
consultants Nasscom and McKinsey, India will be earning some $ 17 billion a
year from outsourced jobs by 2008.
East India Inc.
George Monbiot (The Guardian)
October 30
Page 3 of 3
On the other hand, the most vulnerable communities in Britain are losing
the jobs which were supposed to have rescued them. Almost two-thirds of
callcentre workers are women, so the disadvantaged sex will slip still further behind.
As jobs become less secure, multinational corporations will be able to
demand ever harsher conditions of employment in an industry which is already one
of the most exploitative in Britain. At the same time, extending the practices of
their colonial predecessors, they will oblige their Indian workers to mimic not
only our working methods, but also our accents, our tastes and our enthusiasms, in
order to persuade customers in Britain that they are talking to someone down the
road. The most marketable skill in India today is the ability to abandon your
identity and slip into someone else's. So is the flight to India a good thing or a
bad thing. The only reasonable answer is both. The benefits don't cancel out the harm.
They exist side by side. This is the reality of the world order Britain
established,and which is sustained by the heirs to the East India Company, the
multinational corporations. The corporations operate only in their own interests.
Sometimes these interests will coincide with those of a disadvantaged group, but only
by disadvantaging another.For centuries, we have permitted ourselves to ignore the extent to which
our welfare is dependent on the denial of other people's. We begin to
understand the implications of the system we have created only when it
turns against ourselves.