TCU, Amtrak agree on call centers

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

TCU, Amtrak agree on call centers The Transportation Communications International Union (TCU) and Amtrak have reached an agreement to improve the efficiency of the passenger carrier's call centers while maintaining its in-house call center operations, according to this report published by Amtrak This Week.

Rather than going forward with outsourcing, Amtrak and the union worked cooperatively to reach a solution that would meet the cost control needs of the company, while maintaining the high level of customer service delivered by its own agents.

The agreement reduces the starting wage rate of new agents hired beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to align it with the rest of the domestic call center industry. All existing agents continue at current wage rates, and parttime employees may continue their employment at Amtrak in their current status.

Amtrak has agreed not to outsource the call center operations for five years, unless at least 6 months' notice is provided before or after the end of the five-year period, if it chooses to outsource.

The savings sustain Amtrak's efforts to address call center expenses. By shifting more reservation and ticketing transactions to interactive channels such as Amtrak.com, Quik-Trak machines and voiceresponse technology, Amtrak has reduced reservation and ticket distribution costs 20 percent over the last five years.

(The preceding report was published by Amtrak This Week on Monday, Dec. 18, 2006.)

December 20, 2006

 

[Guest]

In other words we will continue be able to talk to Americans on the phone when we get tired of Julie?

 

[EmpireBuilderFan1976]

Amtrak could use this as a selling point.

 

[amtrakmichigan]

Well that's good to see. At least we wont be talking to people in India for a while. One of my best friends lost his job to India. He was in a call center that handled all of General Motors retired employees questions about there pensions and benefits. His job was eliminated and sent to India. I guess these people make about $3 to $4,000 a year salary.

 

[GG-1]

I guess these people make about $3 to $4,000 a year salary.

Aloha

Some of these people I have had contact with are overpaid, So given a choice, I support companies that don't "outsource"

 

[rmgreenesq]

Amtrak could use this as a selling point.

I'm not sure how Amtrak could use this as a selling point. Gateway Computers is using its "North American" (read Canadian or Appalachian) tech support as a selling point over its rival Dell.

Since Amtrak does not have a direct competitor, much less one that has outsourced its call center to India, I'm not sure how useful this is.

Rick

 

[AmtrakWPK]

If tax dollars are used to pay the call center personnel, keep the employees here in the U.S., and do NOT outsource them. Each dollar paid to a U.S. employee has a trickle-down effect, because those folks then use that money to pay for goods and services purchased here in the U.S. And then THOSE folks use those same dollars to pay other U.S.-based folks selling goods and services, etc. So each dollar paid to a U.S.-based employee is effectively multiplied and helps the U.S. economy and the U.S. citizens that paid the original taxes. It helps all of us. Pay $1 to an India-based employee and it's gone, forever, from the U.S. economy AND it makes our already execrable national balance-of-trade situation that much worse with nothing gained. There really ought to be penalty for outsourcing. Nobody seems to be looking beyond each individual company's bottom line as opposed to looking at the cumulative harm to the economy of the country as a whole. The day of reckoning for our spending money abroad at rates hugely out-of-balance with what we sell (and borrowing countless trillions that we don't have, to spend on wars in foreign lands) is going to come someday, and when we have to pay that piper it is going to be devastating.

 

[EmpireBuilderFan1976]

Amtrak could use this as a selling point.

I'm not sure how Amtrak could use this as a selling point. Gateway Computers is using its "North American" (read Canadian or Appalachian) tech support as a selling point over its rival Dell.

Since Amtrak does not have a direct competitor, much less one that has outsourced its call center to India, I'm not sure how useful this is.

Rick

Though Amtrak does not have a direct competitor as far as rail travel, Amtrak is in competition with Greyhound and Air travel. And since a lot of Airlines have shipped their call center jobs overseas, one could say that by taking Amtrak over taking a plane is helping to keep American jobs in America. I think the idea of Amtrak not outsourcing overseas would strike a nerve with some and help get it more support.

 

[Dinker]

If tax dollars are used to pay the call center personnel, keep the employees here in the U.S., and do NOT outsource them. Each dollar paid to a U.S. employee has a trickle-down effect, because those folks then use that money to pay for goods and services purchased here in the U.S.

AmtrakWPK, I think the orthodox economic thought would have it that you need to outsource low-value added activities so that workers in your country/state/region/whatever can be freed up to create and, potentially, export high-value added services. This is why the US doesn't make textiles any more, but it does make airplanes and sell financial services.

On this line of thought, why not ask "if tax dollars are being spent on Amtrak, why not spend them as efficiently as possible?"

 

[Bigval109]

Well that's good to see. At least we wont be talking to people in India for a while. One of my best friends lost his job to India. He was in a call center that handled all of General Motors retired employees questions about there pensions and benefits. His job was eliminated and sent to India. I guess these people make about $3 to $4,000 a year salary.

I just prefer to talk to someone who least understands me and I am able to understand them. That's good customer service. Too often the overseas call center replies are to scripted and often eliminate thought and answers that are relivent to your questions.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

the orthodox economic thought would have it that you need to outsource low-value added activities so that workers in your country/state/region/whatever can be freed up to create and, potentially, export high-value added services.

And those silly people that lost their jobs when they were outsourced just thought they were unemployed. They didn't realize that they had been "freed up to create and, potentially, export high-value added services." Their landlords, phone company, power company, credit card company, auto loan, grocery store, etc., probably also didn't consider that those folks had been "freed up to create and, potentially, export high-value added services" either. They just thought that those folks were suddenly unable to pay their bills. To paraphrase, "Let them eat high-value added services".

Your argument also does not address the fact that outsourcing worsens the balance of trade AND pays foreign labor with U.S. tax dollars which, if it they were instead paid to U.S.-based employees, would have a trickle-down effect in the U.S. economy, effectively multiplying each dollar paid several times, and at each of those trickle-down transactions it is also taxed, helping to fund multiple levels of government as well. Pay it to an Indian (or whatever) worker, and that does NOT happen.

 

[Dinker]

And those silly people that lost their jobs when they were outsourced just thought they were unemployed. They didn't realize that they had been "freed up to create and, potentially, export high-value added services." Their landlords, phone company, power company, credit card company, auto loan, grocery store, etc., probably also didn't consider that those folks had been "freed up to create and, potentially, export high-value added services" either. They just thought that those folks were suddenly unable to pay their bills. To paraphrase, "Let them eat high-value added services".

AmtrakWPK, I never said that I favor outsourcing of US workers, so though I realize this is a touchy issue, please calm down. Your first paragraph doesn't address my post at all: you speak of the human cost of layoffs, which neither my post nor your original post discussed. Both of these were about the economic logic of outsourcing, where you claimed that it is better for the US economy to keep low-value added jobs in the US, because of a trickle-down effect that keeps money within the US. On a purely economic level (which is the level our first two posts were on, as well as the second paragraph of your second post), this is false and is roughly equal to 17th-century mercantilist thought, which for good reason is not around any more. The reason it is false is you forget that the higher-value added jobs (which DO show up eventually, if a country has educated people and a whole host of conditions, which in the US do obtain) also have a trickle-down effect and, since they are high-paying, a much larger one. The economy of New York City is an excellent example of this : NY hardly manufactures anything any more, instead an extremely large percentage of the economy consists of people selling financial services and people whose jobs rely on the trickle-down effect from them. The standard of living of New Yorkers (including both the poor and the middle class) may leave room for improvement, but it is far better than when manufacturing made up a large percentage of NY's economy.

Now that was the issue in our first two posts. To address the issue you bring up in your second post (which is more of an overall evaluation of whether or not outsourcing is good or not), I will say this. the fact is that I do favor some outsourcing and I think one be foolish not to. Just like being opposed to mechanization of labor, if the US didn't outsource some labor-intensive manufacturing and other low-value added tasks, then we might as well just throw in the towel and become a third-world country (or an eternally-stagnant Italy or something of that sort) However, layoffs are extremely painful, especially when done quickly. For this reason, my solidarity with other Americans has me opposed to much of the way much outsourcing has been done. On a slightly different note, but more relevant to the immediate issue at hand, I'm not convinced that Indians in call centers are able to offer services at the level Amtrak needs. I find amazon.com's Indian customer support to be frankly atrocious and this is dealing with a product that does not require much local or cultural knowledge (they aren't help you select the book, just to buy it after all) nor much flexibility or creativity and it is carried out mostly by e-mail. Amtrak needs people who not only know America, know American towns and know what American expectations are or might reasonably be when travelling by a means of transport familiar to many of them, they also have to speak on the phone, deal with complex, new problems (much more complex than "my book didn't arrive yet") and actually sell things to people, rather than just provide post-sales support. And I think only Americans are capable of all of the above.

Finally, I would note that I have always been especially impressed by the people at the other end of the line on 1-800-USA-RAIL. They are more helpful (and have shorter wait time) than most any other call center I have called in any industry, not just travel. Compare them to the (American) bozos at cheaptickets.com and the difference is amazing.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

It just struck me as an incredibly callous thing to say. I'm happy to hear that you do not generally support such outsourcing. I certainly don't. Among other things, I work as a professional musician in churches, and I see the poor and the homeless, the downtrodden, disillusioned, in despair, the parents at their wits' end, having had all pride and self-worth beaten out of them, coming in for handouts, for clothing, food, and any money we might be able to give them. I know people who have been "freed up to create and, potentially, export high-value added services." They were intensely dissatisfied with having that honor bestowed upon them. And I don't believe it would be possible for that sentence to issue forth from the mouth of any person that it had happened to, either. Just this week we had the news story of the brokerage CEO who just got a $50 MILLION PLUS bonus. Two days before Christmas is a really good time to look at some of our priorities, and frankly I don't think many of them bear close examination.

 

[Dinker]

It just struck me as an incredibly callous thing to say.

Yes, I agree. Economics are callous, which is why they should have never have the last word.

EDIT: But one almost remember that outsourcing also helps the poor and the downtrodden in India. But I still think my solidarity with Americans trumps this (to an extent).

 

[George Harris]

But one almost remember that outsourcing also helps the poor and the downtrodden in India. But I still think my solidarity with Americans trumps this (to an extent).

Would that this were so. Unfortunately for the most part it helps the already rich business owners, labor brokers, crooked politicians, other miscellaneous crooks and fatcats who should be hauled out and shot. The people that really need the income are paying "commissions" to all these characters and are lucky to not end up worse off than they were before. I could go on for pages. We are helping neither the poor people in our own country or these other places by sending all these jobs overseas.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Amen!

 

[Dinker]

Would that this were so. Unfortunately for the most part it helps the already rich business owners, labor brokers, crooked politicians, other miscellaneous crooks and fatcats who should be hauled out and shot. The people that really need the income are paying "commissions" to all these characters and are lucky to not end up worse off than they were before. I could go on for pages. We are helping neither the poor people in our own country or these other places by sending all these jobs overseas.

Well, this is a forum on trains and not on the ethics of the global economy so I hesitate before I respond. But doesn't this seem a little facile? Isn't it a bit too easy to think of things in this way? It turns out that outsourcing is always wrong, that in protecting American jobs, we are just fighting the good fight against those evil corporate leaders here and those corrupt crooks and fatcats abroad. We surely don't need to consider the fantastically high-standard of living that even the poor in the US enjoy compared to the majority of people in India. And we surely aren't self-interested in trying to save American jobs - if outsourcing these would help poor Indians, then we wouldn't be against, would we? It's too easy to start thinking in these terms and start preaching 'amen' back and forth at one another. Surely, there is a level of moral ambiguity and complexity here that's being ignored.

Let's think about this a little more seriously. I don't know how many of you have been to Bangalore, but going there is not even necessary to think about this logically. The people who stand the most to profit from, well, just about most things in life are the people in power. In India, as you have mentioned, these are quite often rather corrupt local officials and other crooked politicians. In the US, it's quite often the more or less the same. I don't think I can speak very highly of the ethics or moral character of the majority of our political or business leaders (sure, there are exceptions, but there are in India too).

Now the idea of a trickle-down effect is not foreign to this discussion. Why don't you think it applies in India as well. Do you think those crooked politicians and businessmen in India just light their money on fire? No, they build houses, spend it in restaurants and maybe even start up companies with it. Who works on those construction sites, restaurants or companies? So, sure, the already rich are profiting the most from the new money being sent to India, but it would be fatuous to think no one else does. And if workers in call centers aren't better off working in a call center, why did they take the job in the first place? Please don't try claiming they were tricked into taking the jobs, these are actually enormously competitive positions with far more applicants than vacancies. Bangalore has the highest per capita income of any Indian city. Some of this may be due to a high concentration of the rich, but in a city of that size (third or fourth in India), not all of it could be.

George Harris, you live in South Korea. Surely, as everywhere, it's the rich and powerful who have profited the most from South Korea rise in the global economy. But do you really think the average South Korean isn't better off than he was before many manufacturing and tech jobs that were done or would have been done in the West (and Japan) began to be sent there? Has it only been the corrupt and powerful who have profited?

All I'm saying is, let's be both honest with ourselves and fair to the very complex nature of globalization, the worldwide distribution of economic resources and the other issues at hand. We can be opposed to much of the way outsourcing is being carried out, yet still admit that it is in large part a matter of protecting the people whom we feel stronger ethical commitments to than it is a black vs. white, good vs. evil battle of Indian and American workers vs. the corrupt pols and cash-drenched capitalists.

 

[gyuri_ft]

I strongly oppose any job with real added value going out ot America (or being a dual citizen out of Europe) if that matters. A customer support job has no doubt a real added value - is it for Amtrak, Dell or Gateway because it helps to sustain a service which brings a real product to the customer.

The idea behind people being "freed up to create and, potentially, export high-value added services" is great as long as it is ensured to be happen. In many cases - exactly in the insurance, law, finince sector the added value of the service is of question.

An old joke from than-Communist block comes in my mind.

Two export-import bureaucrats walk the street and see dog's dropping on the street. One said:

"If I pay you a million USD would you eat it?"

"Sure, why not!"

So he did.

They continued to walk and see the same thing.

"Now I have a million USD in excess. For that one I would like to see you eat the same thing I just did!"

"Sure, I can do it"

OK, they continue to walk. Than the first realized: "Wait, didn't we just eat dog's sh**t for free?" The second: "Yes, we did. But we also created extra two million USD turnover we can report an get a raise!"

So the idea is OK, just make sure, there is a real value behind these services! Otherwise the country is being cheated out of the added value. At this point I am pessimistic.

 

[George Harris]

Dinker, I am not going to try to address everything you said.

First, I live and work in Taiwan, not South Korea.

It appears in part, at least, that you have tried to recast the discussion. I am not trying to make this a good vs evil or us vs them discussion. I have been around this world too long to say single country or group as the pure as the driven snow white knight. However: at this time the US is far ahead of most of the world in insuring equitable treatment of its workers, and is also much more likely to ferret out the conrruption in government and business than anywhere else.

Way too much of what we are doing in the "outsourcing," nothing is made in the USA, way we have gotten ourselves into is based on poorly though out concepts carried to a worse conclusion. We have take the world's greatest economy and gutted it, and NO ONE has truly benefitted. I have no problem with India and China climbing the economic scale as high as they are able. However, the US did not climb to its economic heigfhts by impoverishing anybody else, and to say their climb must occur by impoverishing the US is not just wrong, it is stupid. Equally or more so it is stupid to say that all "low value added" jobs should be outsourced. Not everyone is capble of handling a high tech or high "value added" job in any society, so to take those jobs out of our society is to doom a certain element of it.

We have developed a set of environmental and labor protection laws that have done a lot of good, but they have had the unintended consequence of driving a lot of jobs to other places. Even if the wages were the same, it would still be cheaper to produce goods and services in China, India, or Mexico. We have groups that are worried about fur, etc., and even a few that complain about the worst excesses in worker treatment, but where are the groups saying, if a manufacturer or anyone in his supply chain is non-compliant with reasonable enviromental protection and working conditions that are acceptable under US law, or we will not import your goods or services?

And, yes you are right, I do feel it is more the responsibility of the US government to protect the US citizen than it is to protect the citizen of India.