Can you say 'offshore' anymore?

Euphemism is alive and well again when it comes to axing jobs in America.

For much of the past two years, the business world has been happy to trumpet the benefits of sending technology work and other tasks offshore to lower-cost labor markets such as India and Russia. But as labor advocates and politicians have fumed over the "offshoring" trend, businesses are changing their terms, if not their tune.

It's not too different from the way corporations in an earlier era employed softer words for "layoffs," like "downsizing" and "rightsizing." "Offshoring" is giving way to phrases such as "co-sourcing" and "global sourcing," said John McCarthy, analyst with Forrester Research.

"It's all part of everyone going into the offshore witness protection program," McCarthy quipped. "They're changing the title, but the activity is the same."

Earlier this year, McCarthy reiterated his view that more than 3 million U.S. services jobs will go offshore between 2000 and 2015. And he bumped up his estimate of near-term lost jobs by some 240,000, meaning he expects a total of 830,000 positions to have moved offshore by 2005.

Defenders of offshoring say it ultimately benefits the U.S. economy and U.S. workers, and that protectionist measures would result in lower economic growth and higher unemployment.

Critics respond that offshoring costs U.S. workers jobs and threatens the country's long-term technology leadership.

The exact scope of offshoring has been hard to assess. A recent report by Congress' research arm concluded that government data offer limited insight into the extent of offshoring and its effects.

Meanwhile, companies involved with sending work offshore have come up with alternative labels for what they do--labels that avoid touching the latest political third rail. For example, India-based Infosys Technologies touts its "Global Delivery Model." When serving a U.S. client, some Infosys employees work at the company's site. But the majority of Infosys' employees are in India.

IBM, which has been expanding its operations in India, has moved away from the related term "outsourcing." Outsourcing refers to a business farming tasks out to companies like IBM--which may complete the work abroad. Big Blue avoided using the word "outsourcing" in announcing deals with two energy companies and with two German banks that all involve IBM taking over certain operations.

Big Blue described some of the deals as "business process transformation services" agreements and said the phrase refers to an emerging market category.

Corporate language transformations related to offshoring rile populist commentator Jim Hightower. "Excellent news, Americans! U.S. corporations say that they are no longer 'offshoring' our middle-class jobs," Hightower wrote in an essay published Friday. "Does this mean that greedheaded CEOs are no longer shipping our manufacturing, professional, and high-tech jobs to India, Pakistan, Russia and other low-wage centers? Of course not. It simply means they no longer say the word 'offshoring.'"

Doesn't matter what you call it.

Doesn't matter WHAT you call it, it's still American workers being screwed out of jobs.
It reminds me of an old saying I heard from one of my shop teachers back in high school...

"You can't polish a turd"

[Tex Murphy PI]

true, but...

you can rebrand it differently and make it sound "sexy"!

[felgercarbnaysay]

Amen Brother!

I wish someone would start "Global Sourcing" CEO, VP and Director jobs in Corporate America. Funny how the most overpaid positions (and the ones held by those most incompetent individuals) are not subject to this new "business model"

Screw em!

[volterwd]

I guess...

you wouldnt have a problem stealing jobs from other countries... let me guess people in india and china dont deserve jobs? The funny thing is its americans own fault... the whole capitolist agenda is screweing you over... because in fact its wealthy americans moving the jobs overseas to make more money HA HA HA

Re: Outsourcing

I agree with you. No matter what you call it, it is the same old thing. All of this crap is just another way to put a spin on things so that corporations don't look like the greedy, opportunistic vultures they really are.

By the way, I like the analogy---"No matter what you call it, a turd is still a turd".

Offshore? Outsourcing?

Question!?!.... Do CEO's, Presidents, or board members "outsource" their jobs? And would someone tell me how laying me off and "offshoring" my job to India, Mexico, Russia or MARS helps the economy? (especially MY economy! :|

Offshore Outsourcing

Right on, Paul!

I feel the same way...Well said!

Concepts remain the same, its just play of words

Outsourcing is not a new concept, but has witnessed dynamics in terms of rapidly changing delivery models and the complexities associated with it. With the increase in need to adopt technology without much increase in bottom lines, transfer of non core activities to specilized players have almost become a compulsion and is no more a question of choice. But there is a need of greater involvemnt between vendor and the customer to manage smooth transition during the transfer of workflows and later during the execution of the jobs.

Re: Concepts

SHEESH!

Talk about corporate double-talk! Luckily, I am educated enough to understand what you are trying to say. I respect your right to say it, but I still don't agree with it. Outsourcing of jobs still stinks as far as I am concerned.

[ian807]

It's a SECURITY RISK

Yes, we lose our jobs too. Worse, we're giving away the technology store to people who don't particularly like us (Pakistan, Malaysia - both largely Muslim countries).

We won in Iraq on technology. Is ANYONE naive enough to believe that the technology we're giving away will not be used against us?

Or does it just not matter if you're rich enough, since there's always another country to move to?

[ian807]

Baloney

Know *that* American expression?

Listen, I really don't *care* about macroeconomic justifications couched in obfuscated English, if the net result is, "I'm screwed."

As far as I'm concerned, you're the enemy. Plain and simple. Put that in your sophomoric macroeconomic pipe and smoke it.