The jobs Britain stole from the Asian subcontinent
200 years ago are now being returned
By George Monbiot
Tuesday October 21, 2003
The Guardian
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. Last week the Guardian
revealed that the National Rail Enquiries service is likely to move to
Bangalore, in south-west India. Two days later, the HSBC bank 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 outcompete 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 1980s and 1990s. The
government handed out grants for cybersweatshops in places whose industrial
workforce had been crushed by the closure of mines, shipyards 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 is not
hard to see why most of them have chosen India. The wages of workers in the
service and technology industries there are roughly one tenth of those of
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. One technical support company in Bangalore recently advertised 800
jobs. It received 87,000 applications. British call centres moving to India can
choose the most charming, 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, biotechnicians, 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 - which is always short of foreign
exchange - will be earning some $17bn a year from outsourced jobs by 2008.
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 call-centre
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 do not cancel out the harm. They exist, and have to 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.
****
Home | Outsourcing
- IT focus | Outsourcing
- HR focus
Updated on
October 30, 2003
© Copyright 2003 Allan Low. All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this Web Site, in whole or in part, in any form or medium
without express written permission from the author is prohibited.