| AT&T Regrets No Longer Outsourcing |
|
|
|
| by Tom McGregor | Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 05:23 PM |
|
BBC News quotes Stephenson as saying, “we’re having trouble finding the numbers that we need with the skills that are required.” Consequently, only 1,400 of the 5,000 jobs have been moved back to the U.S. AT&T, Stephenson made these comments in a speech to a business group in Stephenson was also quoted as saying, “if I had a business that half the product we turned out was defective or you couldn’t put it into the marketplace, I would shut that business down.” To read the entire article from BBC News, link here:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (21)
...
written by Holy Roller , March 28, 2008 In other words "we only want to pay $11 an hour" and nobody will work in customer service for that little amount of money. People with a good skill set on computers and being personal come at a price when you have bills to pay. The only people willing to work for so little do not have the skills, and AT&T doesn't want to spend the time training them. But I would rather speak to a rude less skilled American on the phone than the brightest Indian that I can't even begin to understand due to their accent and the bad phone connection.
...
written by Tim Hoy , March 28, 2008 If they accept American Dollars for my bill,I should be able to reach an American Representative when I call.Period. End of story
...
written by M. Gomez , March 28, 2008 When ya don't spend the money to educate folks 'cause ya want to "keep taxes low", ya get what ya paid for.... just like a cheep computer or tv. Perry and other Texas pols still don't get it.... and our state wide stats in education, etc show it and show it and show it
...
written by American Jobs for American Companies , March 28, 2008 Good... Maybe I will return to AT&T then. I specifically left because I could understand nothing the customer service staff were saying. Yes I understand they spoke English, but I could not understand but a fraction of what they were saying. So after repeatedly asking them to repeat what they were saying, they would get indignant and reply with "I am speaking English". Funny, I could hardly tell... I could almost deal with the fact they were difficult to understand, but I just have a serious problem with an American country outsourcing that many jobs to another country just because the talents is cheaper. This is nothing but good news for the American public.
...
written by JoJo , March 28, 2008 What - people had to move on and find work in other sectors after they laid them off? And kids quit going into technical fields after seeing the bleek job propects? I'm appauled.
...
written by equalitynotrevenge , March 28, 2008 This is what happens in a highly regulated market that we have and are moving more towards increasing. companies leave. From an economic standpoint, its normal and many companies from overseas are building shop here especially with weak dollar. Solution: Politicans stop jumping on populist bandwagon and regulating us to death.
...
written by CV , March 28, 2008 Hey M Gomez: The issue is not enough money in education; if you break it down on a per pupil basis and compare this to the rest of the world we spend more than almost any nation. The problem is 3-fold: pathetic parenting, a large percentage of US education dollars going to school "administrators" that do nothing, and a high percentage of teachers that are mediocre or worse. Throwing more money in this burning fire won't do squat.
...
written by Jonathan Green , March 28, 2008 The Problem that AT$T is facing stems directly from the company refusing to give exoffender who are skilled and qualified a second chance. AT&T has a no hire policy that prevents ex offenders who have gotten back on track from being hired into the company. Ex Offenders with past convictions from past 7 years, holding college degrees, developed skills from previeous employers cannot work for AT&T, until this policy is relaxed they will continue to face the kinds of problems as being printed.
...
written by Jonathan Green , March 28, 2008 Ex-Offenders who have come home from the Criminal Justice System, put their lives back together through recovery based programs, sponsorship, and fellowship in their local Churches are finding The Texas Job Market is not catering to their needs. Employers in Texas screen applicants through Employment Agencies preventing ex-offenders from job placement. Employment agencies will ask the dreaded question on a application, " have you been convicted of a felony in the last 7, or 10 years. An ex-offender who's has been out a significant amount of time answers honestly no! However, during the screening process, the agency will pull up a felony 10, 15, and sometimes further back, and deny the ex-offender job placement. The question, is this fair? Employers in essence are using a double standard in job placement of ex-offenders. The double standard is that although the ex-offender has established a work history, built him or herself skills, employers advised employment agencies not to hire ex-offenders no matter how far back the conviction post. However, on the application, the question is "in the last 7 or 10 years". The question once again, is this fair? Companies such as Comcast, Country Wide, AT&T, Exxon, Nissan, Brinks, Dallas Morning News,Spherion, Mobil, Adecco, Ageis, TEK Systems, Imprimis, Office TEM, and Robert Half Technology, are a few of these companies that discriminate with a double standard against ex-offenders. The application process sets an offender up for failure. In addition, the offender has the necessary skill set to do the job; education, and on the job training from previous employment, yet companies will not hire them based upon old convictions that the ex-offender has did time for. Also, employers will not even verify references, or give the ex-offender the opportunity to sell himself once its discovered he or she has a past conviction. Once again the question asked, is this fair? There are countless of ex-offenders who have been successful in changing their lives and their behavior through drug rehabilitation, education, and on the job training. However, prospective employers such as Comcast, AT&T, Exxon, Mobil, Nissan, Brinks, Dallas Morning News, Spherion, Snelling, Ageis, Adecco, Volt, Country Wide, Imprimis, and Robert Half Technology, will refuse the ex-offender job placement. Mind you, these companies profess to operate under EEOC guidelines. Is this Fair? What changes must take place? AT&T should weigh the skill set, the references, and the length of time an ex offender has been out of prison being accountable and living responsibly and consider these ex offenders for employment.
...
written by Old Red , March 28, 2008 It is bad enough when someone has a felony conviction on their record, but now employers are discriminating against people who had their cases dismissed on deferred adjudication and arrests that never resulted in charges being filed. If George Bush were entering the job market right now with those 3 arrests and that drunk driving conviction on his record how many job offers would he get?
...
written by equalitynotrevenge , March 28, 2008 J green I am not against what you are saying in sentiment. But you have to/or should look at the otherside of the coin Do you know the lawsuit those companies would be hit with if an ex-offender say got into a physical altercatoin with someone and that person had been incarcerated for some type of assault? Fair? Was it "fair" when the victime of the offender was victimized? Does a person sometimes deserve another chance? Yes. But thats easy for me to say as I am not the one doing the hiring. Maybe ex-offenders can get together and form a company. Think about it and good luck and I do mean that
...
written by Jonathan Green , March 28, 2008 To answer your question equalitynotrevenge, your perception of what if, is the same type attitude that hurts ex offenders from being given a second chance. I stated, offenders who have been out for a significant amount of time, established families, skills, an education, fellowshipping, yet denied a second chance based upon a piece of paper that can be pulled on a computer showing a burglary charge, a joy riding charge, a theft, 10-15-20 years ago, these type of individuals are not assualtive, these are recovering addicts that have learned to be accountable, responsible, citizens. Being in the Dallas Coalition of Prison Ministries, I see men currently incarcerated who have changed, who have remorse for their actions, why should we continue to punish them for a charge committed while addicted to a mood altering substance. Its not about pity, its about fairness, AT&T should consider changing their policies and give these ex offenders a chance based upon their skill set.
...
written by Jonathan Green , March 28, 2008 I have wondered why Tom Pauken runs from issues like this?
...
written by Tom McGregor , March 28, 2008 It was Tom McGregor not Tom Pauken who posted this article. By the way Jonathan, I was just about to write a comment saying that I agree with you on the issue of hiring "reformed criminals."
...
written by J. Smithe , March 28, 2008 How in the world did we go from the fact that AT&T is NO LONGER using INDIANS IN THE COUNTRY OF INDIA to perform it's customer service, to a discussion of companies no longer hiring ex cons here in the states? I don't mind bringing up issues that are related, but let's keep this topic on the same course shall we? The above article about AT&T is about the fact that AT&T tried to same money and cut costs by taking their customer service department outside of the United States and placed it in a thrid world country (India) where they only had to pay their employees pennies on the dollar compared to American workers. The point the article is again trying to make is the fact that AT&T's attempt to find enough EDUCATED workers in INDIA has failed, and as a result they are moving this department back to the UNITED STATES. So, the next time you have a problem with your bill, instead of getting a well intentioned INDIAN national on the line earning .36 cents an hour, you will soon be getting an AMERICAN worker earning 11 dollars an hour. Come on people - Keep up! American Jobs for American Companies, Equalitynotrevenge, and Tim Hoy seem to understand, the rest of you are totally off the mark here. Are you actually reading the article? J. Green and Oldred are keeping their blogs true to form, their not talking about the issue of the article, but are steering it towards their own personal biases and agendas that have nothing to do with this particular blog. Come on people, there is such thing as a blog etiquette. Talk about the issue at hand...
...
written by equalitynotrevenge , March 28, 2008 JGreen You didnt address the "fair" issue You didnt address the fear of lawsuits that I posed to you If you going to run from those tough questions how can we together solve the issue?
...
written by Jonathan Green , March 28, 2008 How can there be an issue of a lawsuit? How can you determine who has a conviction and who does not? Convicted felons employed in companies do not wear on their fore heads their past. The only way this is exposed is when a serious matter happens that brings this into play. HR matters are confidential, and remain such. Honestly, how many times are you picking up a news paper and reading about a company being sued due to some action of an ex offender? Come on Now, fairness? Your arguement holds no merits. Qualified people who are skilled yet denied the right to demostrate their skill set. Ex offenders are no more a threat than employees working who get termed and go off during something silly. If I recall, the postal workers that went off had no felony convictions. Show me a recent case where an ex offender working was responsible for an action that led to a lawsuit.
...
written by equalitynotrevenge , March 28, 2008 1)When an incident does occur at that point in a court of law the ex offender's status would be known. 2) you asked "How many times have you picked up paper read where ex-offender...sued .... Thats because as we agree companies dont/ wont hire them Your correct a person WITHOUT a criminal record can go postal. But employees play the odds for some of the reasons I stated. you state: Ex-offenders are no more a threat..... The recedivism rate is known and your above stated point CANNOT be quantified. My statement ( re: fairness to the victim) that you claims has no merit shows a callousness that MAY lead people to not want to hire the ex. offender if they believe that the victim was "treated fairly" by the criminal
...
written by equalitynotrevenge , March 28, 2008 Curious, should an ex offender convicted of child molesting be allowed to work in a daycare center? A place where there are no children but there might be a company picnic, christmas party where children will attend? If yes, does a parent/empolyee at that point have the right to know that an ex-offender child molester might/will attend the party? thanks
...
written by equalitynotrevenge , March 29, 2008 JGreen You stated : why should we continue to punish thse who committed crimes while their "mood was altered" So a cop killer who was "mood altered" should be let go according to you So then as soon as someone is caught the they should just claim to be under the influence as that should sway the justice system? You put "joy riding " in with theft /burgurly and who knows what else you would equate with "joy riding" Once again, YOU ARE CORRECT THAT EX-OFFENDERS NEED TO BE GIVEN A SECOND chance. But since there is a level of "disengeniousness" how can the AT&T's of the world hire these people in good fatih? How about the ex-offender has to come clean in front of everyone ( and only that time of hiring) of their crimes. At one level thats a good idea, at another even I dont like that idea. But you tell me/us Write comment
|
|
AT&T has revealed that it is struggling to find enough skilled staff to fill 5,000 service jobs it is returning to the 
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
