Qantas-Accenture deal "may" send 1000 back-office jobs to India

[Melburnian1]

This is a complete rewriting of history to make an ideological point.
Outsourcing to offshore call centres has been happening for decades.
As has been noted, QF signed a deal of this nature back in 2006.
The surge in working from home didn't happen until COVID.
In 2020. 14 years later.
You can't reap a crop 14 years before you sow it.

Further, the concept of working from home as a "right" didn't circulate widely until after the COVID crisis, when some employers tried to force people back into the office. Largely to prop up property investors who were watching their CBD real estate portfolios devaluate.

There are many reasons to oppose offshore outsourcing.
Knowledge of local laws, customs and culture are among them.
Language proficiency, pronunciation, accent and intelligibility are among them.
Using profits earned in Australia to employ Australians is among them.
Stimulating the Australian economy and putting money in the pockets of your own potential customers is among them.
Preventing employers from circumventing Australian regulations on fair pay and working conditions is among them.
Preventing exploitation and modern slavery is definitely among them.
But pretending roles which can easily be done from home require a permanent office presence isn't among them.

On a lighter note (and also because the two replies were auto-merged):

“Spirit of Australia India”

You misunderstood what I was saying, as you conflated two time periods.

I am well aware offshoring of call centres has been occurring for in excess of a decade.

My comments about working from home weren't a reference to what Qantas did or may have done in 2006, but a reference to post-COVID which is when, as you correctly state, some assumed 'right' to work from home has been pushed by various employees.

Provided overseas contractors/staff are trained and supervised appropriately and can understand Australians' local lingo and customs, offshoring can be a successful strategy. While beyond the scope of an aviation-focused forum, some nationalities are clearly superior at achieving these preconditions than others.

Overseas-domiciled non-Australians who land a contract or other employment from an Australian employer won't believe they are being 'exploited'. On the contrary, most will be pleased to have steady remuneration coming in the door. Many receive more than they would in other jobs. This is magnified if they're in a culture where young people financially support older relatives if the nation(s) concerned lack a Scandanavian, UK or Australian-style cradle to grave welfare system.

Australia is a trading economy. Qantas earns a fair proportion of its gross and net profits from carrying foreign passengers and freight from overseas origins, so it ought be allowed to outsource. Given what happened under Mr Joyce's reign and what Mr Justice Lee found, QF must be acutely aware of a social contract but it's already at a marked cost disadvantage to many rivals in Asia, Oceania, South America and Africa so outsourcing offshore presumably helps it remain a viable ASX-listed entity.

Would you prefer to see local companies go down the gurgler if they're hobbled by excess regulation such as some hypocritical ban on outsourcing offshore?

 

[SeatBackForward]

Provided overseas contractors/staff are trained and supervised appropriately

And that there is the biggest false assumption made by any outsourcing advocate.

Would you prefer to see local companies go down the gurgler if they're hobbled by excess regulation such as some hypocritical ban on outsourcing offshore?

ah yes the "nanny state" cry complaining about regulation. Because we can trust profit motivated individuals and corporations to do the right thing for the society they'll happily exploit!

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Overseas-domiciled non-Australians who land a contract or other employment from an Australian employer won't believe they are being 'exploited'.

First, what advantage is there in a contract with an Australian employer if they are not paying Australian wages?
Clearly they are not. They are saving money by paying lower wages. That is the real driver of offshore outsourcing.
However, they may indeed be paying a small amount in excess of usual local wages.
This wage inequality - to which you implicitly refer - is part of the context which makes exploitation possible.

Second, exploitation is a question of fact, not a feeling.
Using a foreigner to do an Australian job for less than an Australian wage is exploitation.
It is exploiting the wage inequality between the two countries to generate corporate profit.
Whatever feelings the foreign employee may have about the arrangement are irrelevant.

Australia is a trading economy. Qantas earns a fair proportion of its gross and net profits from carrying foreign passengers and freight from overseas origins, so it ought be allowed to outsource.

This might be a reasonable argument if the same countries which generated this offshore revenue were providing the offshore workforce.
But the same inequalities which facilitate labour exploitation make this impossible.
Wages are relatively high in the rich countries which generate the revenue.
That's why QF doesn't have a call centre in Finland or France or the UK or even in Singapore.

Further, consumers have a degree of choice which workers do not have.
Consumers can shop around for a better deal, or even decline to buy at all.
Whereas workers can't decline to work without severe consequences such as poverty, malnutrition and homelessness.
So a company selling products in a foreign market is in a very different position to a company offshoring jobs.
And this sort of comparison is meaningless.

Would you prefer to see local companies go down the gurgler if they're hobbled by excess regulation such as some hypocritical ban on outsourcing offshore?

Short answer: Yes.
Slightly longer answer: I would rather see 100 Australian companies fail rather than engage in modern slavery or similar exploitation.

Finally, I do not accept that modern slavery is in keeping with the spirit of Australia.

 

[Melburnian1]

ah yes the "nanny state" cry complaining about regulation. Because we can trust profit motivated individuals and corporations to do the right thing for the society they'll happily exploit!

Democracies and capitalism are imperfect, but compared to alternatives, superior. Ask people in Cuba what system they'd prefer (assuming knowledge of alternatives).

QF is a heavily regulated company: anything from its aircraft slots to the requirement under ASX listing rules to publicly advise of noteworthy changes to trading conditions.

Anyway, returning to my original and updated posts, "no decision" has yet been made on this outsourcing, so it remains a work in progress.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Democracies and capitalism are imperfect, but compared to alternatives, superior. Ask people in Cuba what system they'd prefer (assuming knowledge of alternatives).

QF is a heavily regulated company: anything from its aircraft slots to the requirement under ASX listing rules to publicly advise of noteworthy changes to trading conditions.

Anyway, returning to my original and updated posts, "no decision" has yet been made on this outsourcing, so it remains a work in progress.

Is there a version of Godwin's law but for communism rather than Hitler?
Just three posts and we already got to "But Cuba !"
I don't think you have to be a radical Marxist to oppose offshore call centres.

And frankly I wouldn't fly in an unregulated aviation sector!
The 737-MAX disaster shows what happens when even a small amount of aviation regulation is left in the hands of private companies.
They murder people for profit.
And even the capitalist utopia of the USA (not Cuba) has moved to re-impose "excess regulation" after Boeing did that.

 

[Melburnian1]

The choice of consultancy as well. They have a few significant failures or cost blowouts in Australia - Aged Care Agency, Home Affairs, Bureau of Meteorology.

The BoM has just ordered an independent review into its operations given it's been stung by public criticism of its botched $96 million website 'upgrade'.

'The Age' article doesn't mention Accenture. Did it have a role in that episode?

 

[Warragul]

The BoM has just ordered an independent review into its operations given it's been stung by public criticism of its botched $96 million website 'upgrade'.

'The Age' article doesn't mention Accenture. Did it have a role in that episode?

Yes.
BOM website creator's new $16m contract has climate scientists worried

 

[BrianQQ]

You misunderstood what I was saying, as you conflated two time periods.

I am well aware offshoring of call centres has been occurring for in excess of a decade.

My comments about working from home weren't a reference to what Qantas did or may have done in 2006, but a reference to post-COVID which is when, as you correctly state, some assumed 'right' to work from home has been pushed by various employees.

Provided overseas contractors/staff are trained and supervised appropriately and can understand Australians' local lingo and customs, offshoring can be a successful strategy. While beyond the scope of an aviation-focused forum, some nationalities are clearly superior at achieving these preconditions than others.

Overseas-domiciled non-Australians who land a contract or other employment from an Australian employer won't believe they are being 'exploited'. On the contrary, most will be pleased to have steady remuneration coming in the door. Many receive more than they would in other jobs. This is magnified if they're in a culture where young people financially support older relatives if the nation(s) concerned lack a Scandanavian, UK or Australian-style cradle to grave welfare system.

Australia is a trading economy. Qantas earns a fair proportion of its gross and net profits from carrying foreign passengers and freight from overseas origins, so it ought be allowed to outsource. Given what happened under Mr Joyce's reign and what Mr Justice Lee found, QF must be acutely aware of a social contract but it's already at a marked cost disadvantage to many rivals in Asia, Oceania, South America and Africa so outsourcing offshore presumably helps it remain a viable ASX-listed entity.

Would you prefer to see local companies go down the gurgler if they're hobbled by excess regulation such as some hypocritical ban on outsourcing offshore?

?????

Lord, this reeks of retirement age energy, it is not even funny.

The company that has marketed themselves as the Australian airline, the Spirit of Australia; you're happy for most of its workforce to now move to India?

Don't even get me started with your "bE cArEfUl oF WhAt wFh PeoPlE wIsh FoR". I should be expected to bend over backwards to a company then so that I can keep my job?

Holy. What a hot take.

 

[Melburnian1]

The company that has marketed themselves as the Australian airline, the Spirit of Australia; you're happy for most of its workforce to now move to India?

It isn't 'most of its workforce'.

It's up to 1000 roles - none decided yet - out of IIRC a total workforce today of 27,000.

Small compared to how many Woolworths and Coles each employ, but remains significant.

I was among those very critical as to how Mr Joyce treated the baggage handlers but this - back-office roles - is a different kettle of fish.

 

[BrianQQ]

It isn't 'most of its workforce'.

It's up to 1000 roles - none decided yet - out of IIRC a total workforce today of 27,000.

Small compared to how many Woolworths and Coles each employ, but remains significant.

I was among those very critical as to how Mr Joyce treated the baggage handlers but this - back-office roles - is a different kettle of fish.

Yes because I so totally would want my HR officer to not be in proximity to where I am, I’m sure they can assist me in India for stuff that I need in Australia!

I would so want my marketers to also work in India, I’m sure they understand the cultural complexities and marketing strategies of Australia!

Are you hearing yourself? They’re not that important according to you because they’re “back-office”. Are you going to be happy when we have another wave of redundancies coming, where great Australian talent is lost because we have just decided to outsource for cheap labour?

Do you not understand that this ends up being horrid for the consumer as well as company morale goes down the toilet?

 

[esseeeayeenn]

It isn't 'most of its workforce'.

It's up to 1000 roles - none decided yet - out of IIRC a total workforce today of 27,000.

Small compared to how many Woolworths and Coles each employ, but remains significant.

I was among those very critical as to how Mr Joyce treated the baggage handlers but this - back-office roles - is a different kettle of fish.

What distinction are you drawing between the baggage handlers and "back office roles"?

 

[Melburnian1]

Are you hearing yourself? They’re not that important according to you because they’re “back-office”. Are you going to be happy when we have another wave of redundancies coming, where great Australian talent is lost because we have just decided to outsource for cheap labour?

QF may well retain some roles in each function in Australia. Doubtful that (say) in-person interviewing for roles could occur from India.

Why don't we leave it up to the company to decide?

It knows if it gets things wrong, there'll be a repeat of immediate, trenchant backlash from travellers and even (never wanting to be out of the act) politicians.

QF has the very recent memory of a substantial fine imposed in the Federal Court for a huge mistake it made.

Thousands of companies worldwide have outsourced back-office roles to numerous other nations.

Many of us have experienced redundancies in our private or public sector careers, and this can be hard for older workers, but many retrenched find other positions or retrain/ undertake a new degree and switch careers.

Are you suggesting there isn't 'talent' in countries like Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, Malta, Mexico, Brazil, Bulgaria or Romania?

Australia is a small population nation that doesn't have a monopoly on 'greatness.'

 

[Melburnian1]

What distinction are you drawing between the baggage handlers and "back office roles"?

Baggage handling obviously can't be outsourced to India because it's physical labour.

Back-office roles can be undertaken in some cases using AI and in others by contractors/employees located pretty much anywhere on the globe.

 

[BrianQQ]

Back-office roles can be undertaken in some cases using AI

Let's make Qantas AI slop graphics!

Also this is ACCENTURE we are talking about. We absolutely have no hope for anything.

Are you suggesting there isn't 'talent' in countries like Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, Malta, Mexico, Brazil, Bulgaria or Romania?

Australia is a small population nation that doesn't have a monopoly on 'greatness.'

Edit: When did I ever say there was no talent in those countries?

I am saying for a company that has marketed themselves to be for the Australian people, it is borderline morally and ethically wrong to move roles to another country to essentially line their wallets up as job conditions overseas as you might know typically seem to be worse off than what an Australian worker might experience with otherwise.

Are you suggesting that Australians don't have talent?

 

[Melburnian1]

I am saying for a company that has marketed themselves to be for the Australian people, it is borderline morally and ethically wrong to move roles to another country to essentially line their wallets up as job conditions overseas as you might know typically seem to be worse off than what an Australian worker might experience with otherwise.

I agree QF often plays on its 'Australian' history and image. Yet it's in excess of 45 per cent foreign owned (the Qantas Sale Act restricts it to under 50 per cent foreign ownership).

Call centre roles overseas typically pay well in local currency compared to some alternatives.

I'm critical of QFi or QFd when required, but to be fair, QF employs a heck of a lot more locally based staff compared to how many overseas-based staff or contractors it has, even if 1000 roles become the latter.

Let's wait and see what Vanessa Hudson and her underlings do. Mainstream media will be watching and reporting.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Are you suggesting there isn't 'talent' in countries like Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, Malta, Mexico, Brazil, Bulgaria or Romania?

No I am suggesting that if any such talent is used by an Australian company then the talented people should be remunerated properly according to Australian standards.

Are you suggesting that a talented person in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, Malta, Brazil, Bulgaria or Romania is worth less than a talented Australian?

Of course you're not, because that would be racist, wouldn't it?

Call centre roles overseas typically pay well in local currency compared to some alternatives.

So as long as they pay more than a sweat shop its okay?

By the way I think I will leave this issue here as we have had a full and frank exchange of views and I am conscious of the need to remain both relevant and courteous.

 

[Melburnian1]

Yes we'll leave it there, and see what QF eventually does (or doesn't do).

 

[Daver6]

I am saying for a company that has marketed themselves to be for the Australian people, it is borderline morally and ethically wrong to move roles to another country to essentially line their wallets up as job conditions overseas as you might know typically seem to be worse off than what an Australian worker might experience with otherwise.

While the hypocrisy of it annoys me, QF have been doing that forever and a day. Overseas call centres, NZ (and other country) based cabin crew. Heavy maintenance done overseas etc etc. This isn't new behaviour from QF.

And just to be clear, the wallets being lined here is quite possibly yours if you're part of a super fund. We always talk about companies, but it's the shareholders who benefit ultimately.

Not passing judgement on the behaviour of companies but it's important to recognise the facts.

 

[dajop]

Lots of assumptions being made. It could well be that 1000 jobs aren’t “shifted” to India but 1000 jobs are lost to AI agents built and supervised by a couple hundred staff in India. Who knows.

It’s naive to think these sorts of proposals are about just about employing someone in India to do a similar (or the exact same) job someone in Australia is doing today.

 

[kamchatsky]

Whilst people are upset about back-office jobs goes offshore, QF is not the first Australian and not the last Australian company to do so.

AI (and offshoring) has been replacing a lot of jobs in general in the IT industry for the last few years. The IT job market is certainly down in the last few years as I have noticed. Not sure about other industry sectors.

Ironically the advancement of network technology, AI and Work From Home initiatives/rights has accelerated this trend.

There is a saying in the social media that AI stands for Always Indians, rather than Artificial Intelligence. We know that offshoring can be done in many countries, rather than just India, even though WITCH companies are very dominant, but in this case, Accenture.

There is no point getting upset with QF offshoring jobs. Just about every large private organisations in Australia do so to save a few dollars.