Guy outsources his job gets sack, employers who do it get praised?

[ECCOnoob]

I will have one more go with you. I will put this in simple terms.

 

EMPLOYER - owns company and all IP and assests. They put THEIR money into it. They invest continually THEIR money into it. They are the ones who will lose some or all of it when things go tits up. Therefore they can run it exactly how they like. Close it, outsource it, sell it, merge it or anything else in between. THEY pay the employees wages and therefore can hire, fire, make redundant or reduce hours they see fit. As long as they are within the law. Its their money - they pull the strings.

 

EMPLOYEE - servant or agent to that company contracted to do a specific job role specified controlled and wholly managed by the employer in return for a contracted salary and statutory and/or additional benefits.

 

i.e. has NO money, investment or liabilities into the company. i.e has absolutly naff all control or ownership over the assets or intellectual property. i.e. cannot choose to use said assets (which they dont own) to make money for themselves (which is illegal) when the company is be paying them to do work (which becomes a breach of contract)

 

 

So effectively what your saying is that we'll make laws to make it legal for employers to do this but not for employees.

 

Of course. EMPLOYERS own the bloody assets and property. They can do what they like with them. Its their property.

 

Employee owns naff all. Thus no right to so much breathe on anything without the employers authorisation.

 

Thank you for backing up my assertion that we have one set of rules for employers and another for employees.

 

Of course. How else woud it work.

 

Employee and Employer are two very different things.

 

I happen to think this is morally wrong, what do you think?

 

Could not care less. I have told you earlier. Businesses are there to make money not be moral.

 

If you dont like it that way make sure YOU are the employer rather than the employee. Hey, you could choose to run your business all moral and equal and fair.... just the way you think it should be.

 

That would be great eh??? Just think of all the money you could potentially make being all fair and moral. Im sure you employees would think just the same and not take the p*** at all.

[ronthenekred]

So if an employer outsources his work to India he increases his profits and gets praise.

 

Whereas if an employee does it he get sack.

 

One rule for bosses and another for workers if you ask me.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21043693

 

 

Outsourcing your job and making a profit is in effect creating a company/business within/on the back of another business without the knowledge of the person entrusting you with the original job. Unless you were specifically employed to outsource your role as defined in the contract then basically that business has become host to a parasite business.

 

The idea of developing a company is to control that company from the top, the investor, otherwise you may as well start one, employ someone and say..Ok you have the helm, never mind about me..I only invested the initial capitol, idea etc...

 

I also have a rule. While any of my employees are working on their paid time and they glean any work from my customers or otherwise as a sideline...their fired, as I see it as theft.

[Titanic99]

You seem to be fighting a one man campaign to make yourself look like a moron, and you are doing really well.

 

I would politely point out that given that you’re the only person posting on this thread that has resorted to offensive name-calling, that it is you that is looking the fool.

 

So could I please ask that if you continue to contribute to the thread, that you do so in a civil manner.

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2013 at 08:32 ----------

 

You seem to be under some delusion that the profit making world of business has a moral duty to look after you no matter what the costs to the business.

 

WAKE UP.

 

A business has one sole purpose. Make money.

 

An employee is paid to do as they are told and be a cog in thier machine. Your reward for being there is your nice regular salary and statutory benefits. If you dont like what that particular company does - then you are free to leave and go to another one or start your own. You are entitled to a regulated amount holiday and leave. You are protected by a maximum working hours. You are entitled to statutory break periods and time between shifts.

 

On the flip side an employer is free to recruit or make redundant as they see fit in line with their profits and overheads. They are perfectly free to reduce, cut or outsource those overheads. They are perfectly free to close the firm if they see fit. Harsh as it is - the law offers statutory redundancy and statutory rights for those unfortunate employees in that situation.

 

See some laws benefit employees/some laws benefit employers. 50/50.

 

Remember, they are not there to operate morally. They just need to act legally and within their terms of employment. An employee does not have to be moral either they just have to adhere to their terms of employment. 50/50 again.

 

Now back to this rediculous thread. This clever dick (an I am convinced that's exactly what he though he was) employee outsourced was not his to do so. He had absolutely no right legally or morally (since you are so keen on the subject) to use his employers property and send it to another party to make money for HIMSELF.

 

You can dress it up how you want but as far as I can see its pure theft. Whichever way you look it. This guy was using somone else's resources/intellectual property/data/possessions without authority/permission or ownership.

 

Whether you like it or not the company is in the right here. I dont know quite what planet you are on but you really need to come down to earth and take your place in the real world.

 

If you want to live in some morally fair utopia then you are out of luck. The human race has never been equal. There will always be workers and there will always be bosses. You cant have everyone equal. How would society really work like that?

 

I will have one more attempt at responding.

 

Put very simply, we both are in agreement that rules are in place that effectively allows employers to outsource work abroad, but not employees, so we can both stop stating what is blindingly obvious.

 

Therefore we both agree that this guy shouldn’t have done this, even if it seems that he’s done a very good job in monitoring the quality of the work done.

 

The area we vehemently seem to disagree on is that you believe it to be acceptable that employers are able to outsource work abroad to boost profits and in so doing make good people redundant.

 

So all I’ve done with this thread (which you believe to be ridiculous) is point out the double-standards that we both agree clearly exist and open them up for discussion.

 

Simple really, you think it acceptable for employers to do this but not for employees. I think it acceptable for neither to do it.

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2013 at 08:41 ----------

 

Looking at the way capitalism has panned out with all of the wealth now concentrated in very few hands I think the 99%/occupy movement is only the start of things to come, more and more people are gradually being asked to suffer under austerity whilst obscene (and ever increasing) amounts of money are being thrown around at the top. How is it sustainable without some kind of mass unrest?

 

Anyway, on topic but the breach of security is obviously the main issue here but that said even if it weren't the issue the business could have just outsourced to China themselves if they had wanted to, he should have been grateful just to have such a lucrative job given that someone in China would do it for 5 times less. Just because businesses exploit people without any conscience doesn't make it right for people to exploit people.

 

I agree with your first paragraph and by allowing companies to continue outsourcing work abroad then this obscene unfairness will continue.

 

Regarding the breach of security being the issue, I'm not convinced of that argument. What seems to have happened is that the quality of the work done is of the highest within the company and there is a strong argument that given this guy wasn't doing the work he had time to put systems in place that comply with security matters and to monitor the quality of the work.

[Anna Glypta]

I would politely point out that given that you’re the only person posting on this thread that has resorted to offensive name-calling, that it is you that is looking the fool.

 

So could I please ask that if you continue to contribute to the thread, that you do so in a civil manner..

OK. I will apologise if you will explain why you think it wrong for a company to transfer production overseas in order to make itself more competitive, but OK for you to buy their goods when they do so.

[gnvqsos]

OK. I will apologise if you will explain why you think it wrong for a company to transfer production overseas in order to make itself more competitive, but OK for you to buy their goods when they do so.

 

Having seen your one man moron comment you should not make your apology conditional.

[Eater Sundae]

So if an employer outsources his work to India he increases his profits and gets praise.

 

Whereas if an employee does it he get sack.

 

One rule for bosses and another for workers if you ask me.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21043693

 

If a company I employ (ie use to provide a service, eg a bank, a broadband provider etc) chooses to outsource its technical phone support to India, I can accept this or I have the right to move to a different provider who do the support in the UK - ie sack my current employee and move to using one at home. The employer of this man had the same choice, and chose to take it. So no difference at all.

 

(Edit: Similarly, in principal at least, I can choose to buy a product made in the UK, and refuse to buy one made in a foreign country. It is my choice. A supplier takes a risk in sourcing from overseas if many buyers (ie employers) will only accept products sourced in the UK)

 

Businesses are not praised for outsourcing labour. What they do is a business decision, and they succeed or fall on their business decisions. The same happened to this man, and in his case, he fell. This is ignoring any contractual relationship with his employer (which I don't know) which might have specifically precluded this anyway.

[Titanic99]

OK. I will apologise if you will explain why you think it wrong for a company to transfer production overseas in order to make itself more competitive, but OK for you to buy their goods when they do so.

 

I don't see why any apology should be conditional on answering the question, but I'll answer it anyway.

 

I purchase many things daily, do I have the knowledge to make an informed decision on the morality of the company in question No.

 

So in answer to your question no I don't, if I did have the relevant information at hand then yes I would consider the ethics of the company in question when making the decision on which product to buy.

[BoroB]

It's not the same thing though is it.

 

If an employee is leaving for a bigger salary the employer can match it if he wants to keep them.

 

If an employer wants to increase his profits by outsourcing work abroad then the employee can do nothing about it.

 

So the two are totally different.

 

The two are not totally different.

 

Both parties have choices at different ends of the argument.

 

The employee has the choice to change jobs if they want, there is nothing the employer can do about it if the employee is adamant that they wish to leave. The employee gains and the employers loses out.

 

The employer has the choice to outsource jobs if they want, there is nothing the employee can do about it if the employer is adamant that they wish to take this course of action. The employer gains and the employee loses out.

 

Sure the employer could offer more money to keep valued employees, same as unions can negotiate to stop jobs being outsourced.

 

Ultimately though the employers chooses who they want to carry out work for them and likewise employees have the choice of who they want to work for.

[Anna Glypta]

I don't see why any apology should be conditional on answering the question, but I'll answer it anyway.

 

I purchase many things daily, do I have the knowledge to make an informed decision on the morality of the company in question No.

 

So in answer to your question no I don't, if I did have the relevant information at hand then yes I would consider the ethics of the company in question when making the decision on which product to buy.

 

I'm surprised someone who is so clearly politically motivated as you wasn't aware that Ford had systematically closed it's factories in the UK and moved them to other countries. Yet you still seem happy enough to buy their products. Do you really expect that buying a vehicle manufactured outside the UK would not be at the expense of jobs of people who manufacture here?

 

If you believe that a manufacturer has an obligation to pay high wages to people to manufacture here, then you have an obligation to pay the price to buy them. If however you are happy to buy goods made overseas because of price you shouldn't be surprised when UK factories close and production moves abroad.

[JFKvsNixon]

Communists believe that the 'exploited' working class will eventually rise up against the upper classes (business owners etc), our whole world is built around the exploitation of others really.

 

Looking at the way capitalism has panned out with all of the wealth now concentrated in very few hands I think the 99%/occupy movement is only the start of things to come, more and more people are gradually being asked to suffer under austerity whilst obscene (and ever increasing) amounts of money are being thrown around at the top. How is it sustainable without some kind of mass unrest?

 

Anyway, on topic but the breach of security is obviously the main issue here but that said even if it weren't the issue the business could have just outsourced to China themselves if they had wanted to, he should have been grateful just to have such a lucrative job given that someone in China would do it for 5 times less. Just because businesses exploit people without any conscience doesn't make it right for people to exploit people.

 

Couldn't you argue that capitalism has spread the wealth a lot fairer than what preceded it in this country?