British Council faces legal action for offshoring The British Council is facing legal action by unions, who are angry at its failure to consult with staff before announcing an offshoring project. The Public and Commercial Services Union is threatening to start a protective award case - a form of employment tribunal - to stop jobs moving to India on the basis that staff and …
are a much bigger drain on the budget of the British Council. The Kinnocks, unfortunately, long ago forgot about the working man and all they do now is sponge as much money from the working man's tax as they can make. Between them I believe they have 6 pensions or more.
wonder if the offshored staff will have access to exciting things like contact point, the medical record thing, ecrb data and the dna database in the long run? (I'd say medical within a year, contact point within 2, and ecrb/dna within 5) Not to forget all that NI and banking data they'll offshore (as they're looking at finance departments first if I recall)
This kind of irrational short-term thinking is bloody typical of these protectionist unions. The British Council's offices are located in India! They're willing to penalise the taxpayer who will end up subsidising the higher wage demands of UK workers and their transport out to India, in addition to all local orientation/accommodation costs that this will surely incur, simply to protect a paltry 100 UK jobs for a short period of time. Even if it were 10,000 jobs, the business benefits of employing a cheaper workforce in terms of easing the tax burden on the UK would outweigh the temporary preservation of UK jobs.
We're never going to get to a truly globalised world if the unions keep getting in the way of free markets like this. All to satisfy their members who are too stupid to realise that they're giving a disproportionate voice to idiots like this, in return for benefits that are nominal at best.
No I don't work for either the British Council or have a grudge against the PCS. Just an angry capitalist.
I can understand how the value of the pound dropping could exacerbate financial woes in general, but how would outsourcing be of benefit in such circumstances.
Excuse my GCSE level understanding of economics, but surely lowering of the GBP makes good and/or services MORE expensive when purchased from other countries?
Surely a dramatic crash in Sterling requires us to start exporting, not importing to improve our economic standing?
The Chairman of The British Council is none other than Neil Kinnock. Shame all unemployed IT workers can’t turn up to The House Of Lords at 9am and sign the attendance register and go home for the day and get paid £300 like Mr. Kinnock and his wife do. JCB also moved jobs to India with none other than David Cameron opening the Indian factory for his rich friends (the Bamford family) even though he’s no constituents in India and he’s supposed to represent UK workers. The patron of the British Council is The Queen with the Prince of Wales also a patron. Nobody in India is paying UK tax to contribute to the Civil List.
Isn't that the trade organisation that promotes British services and goods to the rest of the world? So we shouldn't use British services, we should use Polish or Indian ones because that's what the British council does?
I'm guessing that the head of the British council wants fired, or is trying this as leverage to get a bigger budget.
As for this: "This kind of irrational short-term thinking is bloody typical of these protectionist unions".... right, as if the BRITISH council should somehow market a GLOBALISED world.
@pedrodude - I think if you reread the article, you'll find the unions want to keep the jobs in the UK, not move British workers to India. It says so in plain English - that evil non-global language that the British Council propagandises incessantly.
I agree though that it is petty and outmoded of the unions to believe that an organisation like the British Council needs to maintain ties to Britain. Clearly it would be more cost effective to privatise it and run it from China (though it would mean a name change to Great Leap Forward Bicycle Manufactery and Imperialist Running Dogs Council).
Hah they receive £188 million in aid from the government for their work promoting Britain the world.
Great promotion guys, BUY INDIAN services because the British Council, a GOVERNMENT funded PROMOTIONAL AGENCY says so.
Why not instead, give the £188 million to British companies who can then do their own promotion? If the British Council won't buy British then why should any one else ?
@pedrodude
"the business benefits of employing a cheaper workforce in terms of easing the tax burden on the UK would outweigh the temporary preservation of UK jobs."
Got the sums to hand? Have you factored in the cost of sending money and jobs being sent overseas? Lost revenues abound when you outsource.
"We're never going to get to a truly globalised world if the unions keep getting in the way of free markets like this."
Ah, you 're naive enough to think the markets are free. Most markerts are poisoned by corporate power (something the Grandaddy of Capitalism spotted all too readily), and the two most important markets (labout and housing) aren't ever going to be free in societies like ours.
Freedom to not enter the workforce? Yeah, right.
@Geoff Mackenzie
"Protectionist unions? Never!"
Rather that than corporate and political types protecting their own. Can one of you rightards please explain why you value CEOs and their wallets above everyone and everything else? You aren't ever going to be one you know.
It is probably a charity in the sense that it doesn't make money. In fact I'm impressed that it can earn half its budget by selling English certificates, perhaps it could be streamlined into a proper business with the offshoring.
However, there are lots of other institutions that could be classified as charities if they just had to make a loss. The Houses of Parliament could pay wages by selling tours to tourists, political parties make thumping losses in fines and expenses, even GB itself deserves to be considered.
Perhaps a fairer definition of a charity is a body that avoids paying taxes.
in any attempt to promote Britain if we are relying on the 'top line skills' of the typical Indian call center.
Thinking of Virgin Media's Indian call centers which are hopeless in my experience and most banks are not far behind.
Call the British Council, experience the shit service most Brits get.
A proper charity should not be funded by the state, that is just another quango NGO, it is also damned hypocrisy, and ironic, that the organisation, which supposedly promotes this country abroad, outsources any core work to other countries. I also think it is a damned cheek that politicians (e.g. the corrupt Kinnocks), gets any significant money from UK state sponsored Charities, given this makes a fraud of charities, and rips off the tax payer.
I will not support the petition for the following reasons:
1. It is pointless to petition a unelected, Scottish, PM who never called a general election to justify his undemocratic position, reneged on the promise (contract) to call a referendum on the EU 'constitution', and is too much of a hypocrite to support an English Parliament, to balance out the injustice of the Scottish 'parliament'.
2. I strongly object to the effective outsourcing by any UK based organisation, given it wastes money, deprives UK residents of jobs, and effectively steals money from the UK, including taxes, so compounding the insult; this especially applies to organisations funded by UK state money, so I cannot agree to the naive wording of the petition!
3. The petition response is pathetic so far, probably because the wording effectively contradicts itself, and ignores the fact that every non-UK based worker used (EU or not) costs this country money!
Globablism is just disguised global corporatism (Fascism), it has nothing to do with honest Capitalist trade between countries, it is all about corporations (artificial Socialist constructs) bribing or threatening governments, so that these undead entities can fraudulently avoid paying the full costs of business in those countries.
Way to go guys - promote 'Team GB' by offshoring everything. Right up there with such publicity stunts as Hitler's European Tours 1939-1944 and STS-51L, the last Challenger mission.
Regardless of the excuses, if they do not have an exclusively British-based operation, they should not be allowed to call themselves the "British" Council.
Tw@s.
"The British Council said it was not immune to budget pressure, which was exacerbated by last year's fall in the value of sterling. The group receives £209m from the government and generates £436m from English teaching, exams and related businesses."
So their teaching revenue from their non-UK locations has "suffered" so much from the falling value of sterling that they are forced to offshore jobs to a more expensive foreign location. It's tough being a charity, most organisations would balance the budget by calling it profit.
@AC: "exclusively British-based operation" - isn't their purpose to promote British culture and the English language worldwide, so staying exclusively at home would be a tad pointless?
To clarify, I meant their support operations should be based there - obviously there will need to be some local support but things like their main IT centre, their main administration centre and such like should all be in the location whose virtues they are supposedly extolling.
But then, with the ex-Labour "management" involved, what else should we expect?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
