Issue link: https://cp.revolio.com/i/584904
28 | THE DATA CENTER JOURNAL www.datacenterjournal.com i n some cases, that question may be difficult to answer. But here are three questions that should be addressed before criticizing a person or com- pany who outsources. 1. WhaT Do you Mean By The TerM ouTsourcing? e word outsourcing is oen used in the same manner as terms like racist— that is, they are thrown into the conversa- tion to prejudice the listener by shutting down thought. But if one is to honestly consider this matter, a clear definition is necessary. Outsourcing generally means hiring someone else or some other orga- nization to provide a product or service. Most companies, for instance, don't manu- facture their own pencils, furniture, serv- ers and so on. Generally, no one argues that they should. Typically, the negative connotation of the term outsourcing comes from what one might call offshoring: contracting with foreign companies to perform some task. In some cases, however, simply turning to another organization—even a domestic one—to perform some task previously handled internally is also labeled out- sourcing. e level of vitriol may not be quite as high if the outsourcing is done domestically instead of across national borders, but it can still ruffle feathers. Although not necessarily in the purview of outsourcing, hiring foreign employees is nevertheless oen grouped in the same category. e H-1B visa program, for example, is a topic of fervent debate, particularly in election years. 2. WhaT Do you Mean By our JoBs? Opponents of outsourcing (particu- larly in the sense of offshoring) oen make claims about how companies "exporting our jobs overseas," or some similar phrase. But just who is the we that lays claim to our jobs? When an individual or group of individuals start a business, they may choose to hire others to help, thereby creating jobs. ese jobs are oen not con- tractual, in the sense that either party may walk away from the arrangement at any time. As such, no worker can lay unquali- fied claim to an amorphous thing called a job any more than a company can lay un- qualified claim to an employee (as though he or she were a slave). Moreover, apart from extremely dubious and unjustifiable caveats to the contrary, most people would generally recognize that companies have discretion as to whom they choose to hire. So, when management decides that hiring someone overseas is in the best interest of the company, why the grip- ing? In some of the more egregious cases, companies will lay off domestic employees and replace them with foreign ones. But would opponents of outsourcing say that employees have no right to quit without permission from the boss? en why does the company need permission of the em- ployee to make certain business decisions, like the decision to outsource? Here we see partiality in the application of principles of labor relations. In addition, why do the imaginary lines drawn on the map by politicians (who use violence to determine those lines—unlike business, which uses persua- sion and mutual benefit to sustain itself ) dictate whom a company may or may not hire? Setting aside juvenile nationalism, one of the chief responses might involve taxes and public services. Taxpayers, because they funded some of the nation's infrastructure, should have first crack at jobs offered by companies that use that infrastructure, so an argument might go. But that's no different from the organized- crime boss demanding that a store owner who is paying protection money should hire certain people because the crime boss provides a service. Taxpayers have no choice about paying taxes, and companies have no choice about using many public services. So why is the answer to further restrict freedom rather than to expand it? 3. Why shouLD LegisLaTures, anD noT consuMers, DeciDe? ere's nothing fundamentally wrong with manufacturers who ply "Made in the U.S.A." labels to their wares, or with consumers who like to "buy American." Likewise, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with those who elect to buy foreign goods. In the same way that no one has the right to interfere with the non-violent agreements of companies with employ- ees, no one has the right to interfere with consumers' non-violent choices regarding their purchases. But consumers have the power to determine whether companies should do business domestically or overseas simply through their purchases. If "made in the U.S.A." is more important than other fac- tors—which might include price, quality and so on—then they are welcome to buy accordingly. If a consensus forms, companies will respond to that demand. Yet a portion of consumers should not be able to dictate to others (usually through laws) on the basis of their scruples in this matter. If enough consumers support some companies that do business overseas, and no coercion is involved, what is the justifi- cation for forcefully imposing on them? So it's consumers who hold the pow- er in this matter, and they can peacefully dictate to companies how to do business through their purchasing choices. ere is no need to outlaw or restrict outsourcing when it's what consumers effectively want. It's only paternalistic busybodies who think they have the right to infringe on peaceful relationships (or peaceful refusal of relationships) simply because they don't like them. concLusions ese questions can, of course, apply to any industry, but they oen arise in the context of technology. Most consumers will toss principles out the window when it comes to purchasing decisions if the different options also differ in price: they will generally go for the cheapest one. Businesses are no different, but they will respond to consumer demand. When deal- ing with the issue of outsourcing, it's cru- cial to be clear about the meaning of terms and to be consistent in one's demands. is issue leaves plenty of room for rea- sonable people to disagree, particularly if it involves immigration, but it's one that is increasingly pressing as the economy faces uncertain times. n