An Open letter to President Bush (End run vs. Outsourcing)

Me | Me

[Havoc]

Dear Mr. President,

You don't know me, nor do I expect you to. But I'm one of those voices out here in the ether that actually did vote for you. I'm not one of those seminar caller types nor a Democrat pretending at being a republican to subvert the party faithful in dishonest fashion because their ideas aren't popular enough to win them anything. No, I'm a life-long republican who cherishes the memory of Ronald Reagan and who thought highly of you right up to the time you sunk a knife in my back economically.

Sir I understand it's a hard job being president. I also understand that in IT my job causes me to have to think on my feet and respond to an everchanging environment just to keep it. And while I was busting my behind for a company I happened to love doing a job I happened to love, you decided it's a good thing to do an endrun around equal protection and hand my job to a Mexican worker at 1/3 of the rate I'm being paid. Sir, Retail employees get paid more than that Full time and they're earning below the poverty level. The Job I hold for the moment requires a lot of hard work and problem solving skills, it requires good customer care skills, and it requires a long knowledge of Computers and software I didn't get from a degree but from practical experience.

I worked long and hard for years looking for the break that would get me in the door with my current employer. And I currently have a carreer with them. Or had, rather. I've worked for EDS for nearly 4 years. I will lose my job just short of that anniversary or just after it depending on how the breakdown happens.

I have a handicap that keeps me from driving a car. Not an official handicap, because it's so rare a problem that 1/2 of 1% of Americans have the condition so it doesn't rate being called what it is. I'm a blip on the screen. But, it means I have to live close to my employer and sometimes rely on others to help me get things done. I've lost everything and put my life back together 3 times in 15 years sir. And having just accomplished it again after 4 years with my employer, your policy has killed any protection I might have otherwise enjoyed from having my job destroyed by foriegn competition. And it puts me right back on the brink again. Sir, if I don't stand a chance of winning, it isn't competition - it's fish in a barrel. Where is my equal protection under the law?

The "competition" didn't get hired because of race or creed; but, because of national origin. They got hired because their cost of living is low enough that they can be paid sub-poverty wages to do my job. They are taking my job because they aren't constrained by the laws we have in this country to protect us and preserve our liberties. Lower cost of living, and no laws to constrain them. See, we used to have what was called ANTI-DUMPING laws on the books before Nafta to prevent the subversion of our economy by those who would attempt to compete on an unfair basis and put American firms out of business. We aren't a global economy, the globe is not the United States of America. They don't respect our rights, our Constitution, our laws or ourselves. The average citizen of the world might; but, we aren't dealing with them, we're dealing with the leaders who have their boots on the neck of the citizen of the world.

It seems today that I have to be a Mexican to get a fair shake in America. There are some 8 million of them here illegally as a tax on our system and working here taking jobs that Americans can do; but, which apparently, nobody wants to offer a fair wage for as long as they can get slave labor off the books. That isn't enough though. We need to employ More workers from Mexico, India, China.. As long as we're doing it, sire, why not be obvious and lets put Sally Struthers on the TV to advertise IT Jobs for the people under repressive regimes in africa who can live on 52 cents a day, "the price of a cup of coffee." I don't care what color their skin is, No citizen of the United states could live on that and shouldn't be asked to compete with it. It's too blatently obvious that it's unfair. And that seems to be why it's "good for us all".

Your policy sir. It's you on the tube telling me it's good for me to lose my job to a Mexican worker outside of our system and in a manner with which I cannot compete. There isn't a job comparable to it here that I can take to make up the difference cause those are being outsourced too. Outsourced. How about endran. Because sir, that is what is happening - it's an end run around our system - around our rights, our laws, our constitutional provisions and protections. Your policy has relieved me of my job without due process. It tied my hands before I had a chance to respond. And so many businesses are being forced to do the same thing, that I don't stand a chance any more than those earning 3 times what I do in the same field who have lost their jobs already and have had to take 11k a year Retail jobs just to eat while their houses go up for sale.

I don't have a degree. I don't get retraining. I just get to lose my job at the whim of your policies and will likely lose more than that in the end. You see, I bought a new home too - a year ago. This job made it possible for me to do that. And as with my Job, I had to get a huge break to be able to pull it off. I've been behind you and a cheerleader of yours since I first heard you speak. I understand that the tanking economy isn't your fault. I understand it isn't your fault we were attacked. I understand and agree with pretty much everything you've done to date, sir. This however is in my mind beyond sickening. It is a betrayal of myself, my coworkers and every other hard working IT worker, Auto worker, etc that has lost their job due to this. It is a betrayal by their government and their employer. And it's a distrust you've earned by subverting them and me. For me, it's not just my Government, it's my own party.

Now I've heard all the arguments for outsourcing and all the copout phrases about what we do about companies that have outsourced to the US. Tell me, sir, how many of them outsourced to do an endrun around their system of government, their constitution, their laws and their workers. How many of them outsourced to us to produce goods for their home market. That isn't an argument that flies with me in the face of doing an endrun around us. They've built plants in our land and are working within our market, within it's rules, within our laws, within the constraints of our constitution and are paying a competative wage. Our companies are doing the opposite. And any way you cut it, it is economic and constitutional tyranny. I'm not a single issue voter sir, until that single issue is my life and livelihood.. until members of my own party call me a robber and a thief for expecting to keep my job when I've worked my behind off to do so.

I did it right. I've busted my backside under an ever increasing workload, kept my promise to my employer and my client. Never missed a metric, never dropped the ball for either of them and have always exceeded expectation as a member of one of the best teams on this planet in my humble opinion. My job is gone not because we didn't produce and not because either couldn't afford it; but, because Mexicans work cheaper and don't have our protections, laws, rights or constitution. I have a strong work ethic and a loyalty to my company that even now makes me shudder to say a bad word about them. I have no illusions; but, I was raised that if you do your best it pays off. I know now that if you do your best, you get kicked in the teeth just as hard, and if you get ahead a little bit, the government will be there to kick you back down. I appreciate how hard your job is. Mine is pretty dang hard too. But how about you and everyone in government work for $600 a month from now on like the Mexican workers replacing us. How about you all work for the income you're forcing me into. If it's good for us, it should be good for you too. You, and all the ivory tower types in our party that hiss at me for being upset over losing my job and wanting to defend myself. How would that be, sir? I'd just as soon see little Tommy Daschle and Ted Kennedy go fly a kite as hear them spout one more offensive evil lie about you. But I'd just as soon, too, see you join them holding the string if you're gonna ruin me and tell me it's good for me. How about if we just outsource your jobs too - oh, wait, that would be unconstitutional too, wouldn't it.

[discostu]

yeah you did cite what I said, and it clearly showed you'd taken my position to a silly extreme. I never said companies should be allowed to murder people, that's stupid.

There's nothing mutually exclussive about the statement that the only duty of corporations is profit. For one thing there's only one clause in that statement and mutual exclussion assumes multiple clauses. Now YOUR idea that they also have a duty to some ethical code you seem to make up on the spot can be mutually exclussive, profit and ethics don't always mix and investors want their money back. Knowing that the company they sank millions into went bankrupt doing the right thing is cold comfort.

No the whole point of saying that companies sole duty is profit is pointing out a painfully obvious truth that anyone that's ever taken a business class shouldn't need to be told. My position is to point out that if a company feels it needs to outsource to remain profitable then people are going to be losing their jobs one way or the other, either to local competition (not all outsourcing is overseas you see), overseas competition, or the won't be replaced at all. Business is about balance sheets and most of the time ethics don't show up on the P&L statement (most of the time, sometimes they do, this is a good thing because they're more often P than L).

You know what happens when you stop the great god profit? Recession. Bad for everybody. Stop the great god profit hard enough and recessions grows into it's nastier brother depression. Really bad for everybody.

[Havoc]

Let's hire pigmies for 52 cents a day to compete against guys making 80k a year why don't we - you go rationalize that the the American people and see if you make it out with your skin. Not a one of you has the brass to defend it in a crowd - not that I blame ya, I wouldn't be looking to get myself lynched either.

[discostu]

479 - But when you're competing with the US market, you have an ethical responsibility not to undercut the us market with foreign labor in an effort to scuttle the market.

There you are, undercutting the competition is unethical. I'm just taking it to the next level, you're upset about foreign labor undercutting US labor, but lots of people are upset about your old boss WalMart undercutting Mom&Pop. If undercutting is unethical then it's unethical all the time. If it's not unethical then it's ethical all the time.

Sorry but you started blathering about what was OK yesterday vs today and it didn't make sense, had a few nasty sentence fragments that made things even more confusing. Stating that your last paragraph made zero sense was simply Disco Stu speak for "you should proof read".

[discostu]

We're defending our position in a crowd right now. I've defended this position in many circumstances and have no fear of being lynched. I know most people actually know JS and when reality is explained to them they get... then there's the pigheaded whiners that think it's the Presidents fault they got fired, like he was on the board or something, they'll never be convinced of anything.

[Havoc]

There you are, undercutting the competition is unethical.

Nope. Read it again. If you can get your talking points out of your hand and your brain turned on, you might learn something.

[Havoc]

Good, how bout I ask the local UAW to get it's members together so you can explain how pigmy labor prices is fair competition. What say, you man enough to do it? Cause I'd just about garauntee you'd need police protection to leave - in a rather big hurry.

[discostu]

I've read it plenty here, let's cut it to the crux of the biscuit:
"you have an ethical responsibility not to undercut"

That's YOUR statement. You say undercutting is unethical. Sure you only want it to be unethical in a specific circumstance where it hurts you and you have no problem with it happening when you benefit, but that's just because you're a hypocrite.

Like I said, if undercutting is unethical once then it needs to be unethical always. Otherwise you're just making up rules to protect your own butt, which is highly unethical... always.

[discostu]

Luckily the pygmyes aren't working for 52 cents a day, so I don't have to explain that to them. That's a silly situation YOU made up to create a STRAWMAN, so you go explain it to them. I will explain to them how many companies think American labor is more than worth the additional price, as can be seen by looking at all the factories in America being built and expanded.

[XBob]

506 - "it's obvious that the type of killing you were talking about was the real, illegal, and immoral kind. "

LOL - you free traitors have spent this whole thread arguing that there are no morals, or ethis, or laws for corporations, as long as they make a profit. Profit trumps all.

ROTFL

Havoc - I'd like a share in your sarcastic 'murder for hire' corporation. and I am sure discostu would support my right to that, my property, and our right to earn some profit.

[discostu]

LOL, anybody that uses the term "free traitor" shows their just a kneejerk protectionist that takes no time to actually consider what's being said. And then you continue to demonstrate that you're not paying attention by saying I said things I didn't.

Nope I've already said that murder for hire is bad for business. Ethical or not it's unprofitable, John Gotti knew it and now so do you.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think we need to stop arguing with this bozo. He'll pop a blood vessel in his head,then we'll be on the hook for his medicare bill.

He worked for 4 years at WalMart at $7.50 an hour when he admits he could have made more at McDonalds.

He spent 4 years as a high powered techie at EDS and is about to lose his $30,000 a year job. He is obviously way too bright for us to win this argument.

We should cut our losses.

[discostu]

It's almost time to go home. I'll be spending the night in front of the NHL playoffs (which features... GASP... imported guest workers!!) and not be contemplating this at all. Fun while it lasted, hope somebody in the audience read and understood.

See everybody in the threads.

[Havoc]

I've read it plenty here, let's cut it to the crux of the biscuit: "you have an ethical responsibility not to undercut"

Now you're editing me to make me say something I didn't. What's the matter, can't deal with the full quote - you haven't yet. All you've proven to this moment is that you can Quote someone then lift part of the quote. Let's see how that works shall we:

"this guy was running down the streat yelling and screaming that 'I want to kill the president of the company'"

What you're doing is editing me - so you can say that I said: "'I want to kill the president"

See how obvious, easy and utterly unethical that is. Course you can't busy yourself with the ethics of it, you've got too much on your hands tryin to desperately grasp at straws for something you think you can argue to make your position look better. It ain't there - even with you editing me. I'll give you a favorite edit that Walter Martin used to use to display the use of collapsing contexts. "judas went out and hanged himself. Go and do ye likewise" And then you leap of the cliff with the falacy that if something is wrong in one instance it is therefore always wrong. A notion any 10th grade debator with any ethics at all could shoot down handily.

[discostu]

Yawn. Can't deal with what you said huh. Too bad so sad. You said it, you said companies selling in America havfe an ethical duty to not undercut the US labor market, that is a silly thing to say. It's even sillier for a former WalMarter to say since you made your living in the undercut industry. That's what you said, and you know that's what you said, that's why you fled from the question so many times.

[Havoc]

yeah you did cite what I said, and it clearly showed you'd taken my position to a silly extreme. I never said companies should be allowed to murder people, that's stupid.

No, it isn't. And it's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. You started with the mutual exclusive that business owes to nothing but profit. Nothing. Nothing is mutually exclusive - it excludes all but the primary concern: profit. It is therefore an entirely reasonable conclusion that excluding all other concerns means ALL other concerns. Your words. I didn't choose them, you did. And your buddies on here have been more honest about it to the extent of saying that hampering business' ability to make profit is an evil and should not be done. I've given you every opportunity to correct yourself; but, you won't disclaim the notion on your own that putting restrictions on business' abiltity to make profit is within our right. I have yet to see you admit that. And that is the issue on which your whole argument rises or falls before the ethical considerations are actually weighed. It isn't necessary for you to admit it, there is already public record showing it not only our right; but, a right previously excersized and enforced. That means your pretty well buggered to begin with.

[XBob]

you know, toddsNoPatriot brought up an interesting point:

511 - "I guess if an evil drug company made a cure for XBOB's diabetes or a cure for Havoc's disability they would only buy it if it was made in America.
Maybe not even then because the drug company didn't do it to be nice but did it for filthy profit. "

You know, I got diabetes in my 20's (most people get it in the 50's-60's), before he was born, from Agent Orange, fighting for my country so that fools like him would have a place to be born and grow up in, safely (fool that I was - wasting my time and life to support idots trying to destroy everything I was fighting for).

But, that point aside, I was saving up my money to go to Israel, to get an operation they invented there, pancreatic cell transplants. They were doing good work there, and having a pretty good modicum of success. Unfortunatly, apparently the transplants died after 6 months to 2 years, leaving the patient back where he was.

I always wondered, did that really happen, or did the drug companies foil it. You see, diabetes is an almost perfect disease for the drug companies, as it kills very slowly, and they can sell all sorts of expensive medicines for years and years and years. All those profits for all those years.

This disease has been killing me slowly and I have been taking expensive medicines for 30 years now, and overcoming my problems, but now the disease is winning faster and faster every month and year.

I wish the drug companies would use their profits to develop a cure for diabetes, but it is too profitable not to. Do you know, that even after 100 years, these drug companies haven't figured out the whole insulin cycle, or how insulin works? A hundred years of making money off diabetics slowly dieing.

Things like cancer, generally kill much quicker, so they have to figure out how to make their money, fast, before they die. So they charge really big money for the cancer drugs. It cost $250,000 for my wife to die from cancer in a matter of months.

[Havoc]

That isn't what I said. And I'm sorry you have to so boldly and blatenly lie about it. Words mean things. Just because you don't know how to use the language, don't excuse your ignorance by lying on me. Want to mention that you're Catholic again so the Catholics can get ticked off at ya. Or are you just planning to do a ring around the rosery and some penance to expiate your venial issues from this thread. That's assuming you aren't pulling our leg on that too.

[XBob]

514-discostu - "Grow up."

LOL - Yes, these children will someday find out the consequences of their actions, and unfortunatly, they will be very dire, because of what is happening.

Southack points this out in his post on China:

"Imports are being driven by soaring fixed-asset investment -- which was up 53 percent in the first two months of the year

weaker export growth and a slowdown in foreign investment, one of the main drivers of export growth

Beijing has come under pressure from its trade partners over its surpluses, especially from the United States, which ran a 124 billion dollar trade deficit with China in 2003, rising from 102 billion dollars in 2002.

Washington claims China keeps its currency artificially low to boost the export competitiveness of its companies and has been calling for a yuan revaluation.
473 posted on 04/12/2004 12:47:51 PM CDT by Southack

They are importing our and other high tech equipment to compete against us, with our technology using their cheap labor. Then they will copy our technology, and we won't have either the technology or the labor.

When our wages get to a sub-chinese level, then maybe the free-traitors will understand.

[XBob]

514 - "You really don't get it do you - do you have any moral or ethical standard beyond praying to a dollar bill? "

Let me answer for discostu, as he will not answer this question - No.

[Havoc]

I'm so sorry for your loss XB. But, yeah, I think about things like that myself. When they say some of the things they say here and you know the thinking goes beyond just them by quite a bit, it really has to make you wonder.