Reply to: Hands up who though Cameron would cut ICTs?

[ArgieBee]

The trade commitments are for intra corporate transfers for senior managers who report to the board and specialists with uncommon knowledge essential to the establishment.

[HairyArsedBloke]

ICTs are not covered in the interim cap but the home office survey has a question asking if they should be:
UK Border Agency | Limits on non-EU economic migration (June to September 2010)

It can't hurt to fill it in and the government might be compelled to do something if there is an overwhelming call for ICTs to be capped.

Not on your nelly!

From the consultation document:

Secondly, the UK has obligations under international agreements concerned with trade
which place an obligation upon it to admit intra–company transferees. The UK is party to the World
Trade Organisation’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which requires it to provide
access to managers and specialist staff who are nationals of a another party to the agreement,
who are employed by a business established in the territory of that party, and who are posted to
the UK branch of that business. Bilateral trade agreements concluded between the European
Union and a number of other countries contain similar commitments.
While these agreements do not prevent the UK applying Tier 2 criteria to such movements they do
not provide for the imposition of a numerical limit upon them and the UK would be in breach of its
obligations if it imposed such limits.

The weight to be attached to the latter consideration needs to take account of the
UK’s national interest as an exporter of services and inward investors overseas. The UK has a
strong interest in ensuring that other countries provide equivalent access to the personnel of UK
businesses who are posted to branches of those businesses overseas. The UK’s ability to negotiate
agreements guaranteeing such access would be undermined if it restricted such access domestically.

They will hide behind that and leave UK workers to suffer with any form of help.

[Sysman]

It's the Quid Pro Quo that is the problem.

For all the opening up of their markets, the Indians will demand that there will be no constraints on ours.

From the Telegraph article

India's infrastructure is famously creaky, but the main barrier is bureaucratic. Numerous sectors in India are still restricted to foreign operators, particularly the banking, insurance, retail and legal services industries.

"There are huge frustrations for UK companies", says Gomes, "particularly since the UK has no restrictions in return. This features in any ministerial meeting," he says.

[Sysman]

This is another thing that has puzzled me. The risk assessment as part of the due diligence prior to outsourcing such vital functions to that part of the world surely must have flagged the instability internally and in the region as a major issue. However, risk / reward judgements have been a bit off in the business world of late (some say for a long time).

There does seem to be a "House prices never fall" mentality at work here.

[ArgieBee]

ICT question in the Immigration Cap Consultation Survey

ICTs are not covered in the interim cap but the home office survey has a question asking if they should be:
UK Border Agency | Limits on non-EU economic migration (June to September 2010)

It can't hurt to fill it in and the government might be compelled to do something if there is an overwhelming call for ICTs to be capped.

[Gonzo]

However, risk / reward judgements have been a bit off in the business world of late (some say for a long time).

In recent years businesses have shown that they are as prone to mania has people are.

It's not quite the revolution but my lot today were stressing how their business continuity planning meant that the general strike in parts of India today, including where they have an operations centre, would have a minimal effect.

[HairyArsedBloke]

Frankly I'm not bothered about India.

There's going to be a revolution there pretty soon and the whole country will turn to rattulip.

Any company or organisation that outsources its IT to that region deserves all it gets.

This is another thing that has puzzled me. The risk assessment as part of the due diligence prior to outsourcing such vital functions to that part of the world surely must have flagged the instability internally and in the region as a major issue. However, risk / reward judgements have been a bit off in the business world of late (some say for a long time).

[SupremeSpod]

Frankly I'm not bothered about India.

There's going to be a revolution there pretty soon and the whole country will turn to rattulip.

Any company or organisation that outsources its IT to that region deserves all it gets.

[lukemg]

I don't see the work coming back - ever. There will be a few high profile insourcing stories for small sections of work that have gone badly wrong but the rest will stay off-shore and more will follow it - including the architects, PM's, Service Manager stuff.
The reason is cost and because IT is considered a non-core activity for most businesses.
Currently it is in a transition phase and there are many problems but they will get better and better at doing the work and eventually everything that can go, will.
Anyone considering IT as a career from a standing start now is in for considerable disapointment. The pool of work will continue to shrink and will be fought over by an increasingly desperate number of experienced IT staff, contract and Perm. Rates will plunge accordingly and new entrants to the market will find it very difficult to gain a foothold.
Start saving and scrambling for a Plan B - you will need both.

[HairyArsedBloke]

It's the Quid Pro Quo that is the problem.

For all the opening up of their markets, the Indians will demand that there will be no constraints on ours.

Those signing these deals will only see their own future prospects, such as Hewitt with BT Tech Mahindra, Kelly with HSBC, or even Steven 'I'm a cab for hire' Byers (but that didn't work out so well). None of them, of any party, see any further than the next election or their prospects when out of power.

[CheeseSlice]

That article says nothing regarding migrant workers. The only worker they mention is the one in the picture who is in india.

It does mention that resctictions on UK companies is to be lifted. What we wanted, right?

It is mostly us selling them arms from what I can see.

Thats also the way I read this article. Its got nothing to do with the coalition government siding with ICT users and abusers, its all about getting UK exports to India in place and understanding their market properly. All good if you ask me.

Although I can't help thinking that what they really want is to deregulate their banking system, and to hand out credit cards to whoever earns a wage in India, thus creating a spending-spree boom followed by an Indian financial crisis leaving them in decades of debt

[Flashman]

Come to think of it, Cameron is a bit like a small yappie dog, only marginally less annoying in a different way than Brown.

Why the hell do British politicians of every stripe feel they must grovel and fawn to all and sundry, and jump at the sight of their own shadows?

In return for all those 'opportunities' what will negotiate David Cameron with? Your job and mine.

Neville Chamberlain to David Cameron. 70 years of inbred Public schoolboys running the place.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[shaunbhoy]

Ah yes...Margaret Hilda Thatcher...did more damage to British Industry than the Luftwaffe...but less than the bleeding Unions!!

FTFY

[crimdon]

We're a bit like a small yappie dog on the world stage. It started with Thatcher and the miners. We even import our electricity and gas ffs

Ah yes...Margaret Hilda Thatcher...did more damage to British Industry than the Luftwaffe...

[d000hg]

Why do you imagine nations would stop at the 'lower end' developing rather than offer turn key solutions including architects and management?

Because those things require domain knowledge and education which aren't isn't based on universities teaching programming rather than software development/engineering. Down the line, as developing companies develop, this might change, but it's not the case right now. And once they're developed, they can't charge $5/hr and become bona fide competitors rather than outsourced resources.

In practice off shoring doesn't work, as someone who has utilized these resources in projects, one too many times I have found out way too late how much of a mess they have made of development or testing, only to have to fix the damage and pray that I can keep the project within time and budget.

In practice the 2 key problems are not that "offshoring doesn't work" but:
1)Companies delegate too much responsibility about selecting the resources to another company, trying to treat them as black-boxes rather than interacting closely as you would a local team
2)The overall standard of developers is low, which makes it harder to get the good ones. Coupled with 1) that makes it very hard to get a company to give you a competent team.

If companies took it seriously it can work (I do it on a small scale) but they are still trying to dump whole projects on untested teams, who only commnicate via a offshore PM.