Should TARPfare Bums Be Allowed To Outsource?

[OhioChick]

Mar 24, 2009 03:10 PM


A Pennsylvania lawmaker is blasting JP Morgan Chase for accepting $25 Billion in TARP funds while planning to outsource thousands of U.S. tech jobs to India. And you thought AIG bonuses were a hot-button issue.

My colleague Bob Evans and others have written about JP Morgan's plans to increase its use of India-based contractors by as much as 25%, partly to speed the integration of IT assets previously owned by Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns.

Democratic Congressman Robert Brady, from Philly, calls the bank's plan to ship out jobs while drinking lustily from the public trough "outrageous."

"We would like to remind you that the taxpayers of the United States of America contributed $25 billion to your company to help stabilize our economy not send jobs overseas," Brady recently wrote to JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon.

"There seems to be a disconnect between some major financial institutions and the suffering of the everyday people who are losing their jobs," said Brady.

Brady's populist appeal makes sense, at first. Why should American taxpayers' dollars be used to hire workers in India?

On the other hand, JP Morgan and its buddies on the corporate welfare line need to operate as efficiently, and cheaply, as possible if they're to get out of the crater-sized pit they've dug for themselves. TARP in a sense makes us all shareholders in the companies that received funds, and the inexpensive labor offered by India could lead us to a higher return on our investment.

Before Congress acts rashly, and, say, hauls CIOs like JP Morgan's Guy Chiarello (himself no stranger to handouts) before a subcommittee and outlaws outsourcing by TARP recipients, it needs to weigh the real pros and cons of the issue. Government by sound bite is getting really old, really fast.

What do you think? Should TARP recipients be allowed to outsource?


http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/03/should_tarpfare.html

"Outrageous" is right....and hell no....receipients of TARP funds should NOT be allowed to outsource.
A good solution to saving money (instead of going overseas) would be for these damn CEO's and suits to stop with the fucking bonuses and parties.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. 'the inexpensive labor offered by India could lead us to a higher return on our investment.'

Who's "us" Kimosabe? I can't think of anything that would create a higher return on our investment than putting unemployed people to work here. Lots of IT folks out of jobs these days...

[terisan]

2. Serious Question: Why did you give them the money & take on their debt?

[OhioChick]

5. If they want to outsource, they should cough up the taxpayer cash given to them. n/t

[msongs]

3. it might be ok if these companies outsource their top 25% of management first nt

[aquart]

4. NO. Next question.

[ChromeFoundry]

6. Absolutely Not.

Now that the taxpayers have a vested interest...shouldn't we be firing these bozos?

[OhioChick]

8. We could outsource their jobs (CEO's)....

But then again....there's that pesky Satyam scandal.

[ChromeFoundry]

9. There are enough good business minds

right here in our own backyards... we shouldn't need to outsource anything. We should just kick these bastards to the curb and move on.

[ihavenobias]

10. Now *that's* an idea I can get behind. n/t

[SharonAnn]

18. Absolutely not. Under NO condition should they be allowed to do this.

They should be hiring U.S. workers, supporting U.S. families, who pay U.S. taxes.

[soothsayer]

7. NO. period.

[Fresh_Start]

11. I don't think that any part of any US government contract

should be outsourced.

I'd hope that state and local government contracts would also require local employment as a term of the agreement

So of course I don't think our Tarp money should be used to pay outsourced workers

[sam sarrha]

12. HELL NO.. except to outsource the CEO's maybe, send em to china, one way ticket

[mbperrin]

13. Actually, Dell and JC Penney have both lost my business due to their

overseas "help."

Don't see how that improves the bottom line.

[acmavm]

14. Good luck on that one. The administration is already cutting the American

worker's throats.

<snip>The Obama administration has yet to outline its plans for the H-1B program, but the White House has given some signals that it might support an increase in the annual visa cap — primarily via the appointment of officials who have advocated cap increases in the past, such as Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona and now secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

And in meeting with Summers, the delegation from India found itself with the White House organization that may be most likely to support an H-1B increase. One of the NEC's deputy directors is Diana Farrell, an Obama appointee who has been a strong supporter of offshore outsourcing. Prior to taking her job at the NEC, Farrell was a director at management consulting firm McKinsey & Co., which has argued in reports — some authored by Farrell — that offshore outsourcing creates savings that are reinvested by companies.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x435656

[OhioChick]

17. That just chaps my ass. n/t

[D-Lee]

15. The Bush TARP contracts gave automatic waivers on outsourcing restrictions

Another thing for which to thank the outgoing administration ...

Hope the new contracts aren't doing the same thing.

[chill_wind]

16. No. And the bastids ought pay their $220 million owed U.S. taxes, too.

That's what is owed by 13 of the top 23 recipients. Sorry to keep harping on that, but it that's another fact about their debacle that makes me livid.

K & R

[chill_wind]

19. .

[Laelth]

20. No. They better keep our money here if they can. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[OhioChick]

21. They "can" keep our money here. The question is: Will they? n/t

[yurbud]

22. k & r

[angstlessk]

23. the REAL return on our investment would be to keep good paying jobs here

for taxpayers our return would be people who pay taxes into the US government and spend their income HERE...that is a REAL return on investment not some paultry investment income..we have seen how investment income has worked out so far? (see 401K)