Harris Miller
Harris Miller
Date: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:33 PM
JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER
www.ZaZona.com
This interview by Harris Miller of the ITAA has a few gems.
There was a story about Siemens hiring an Indian firm and the Americans
claiming they were being replaced by people who were being paid
substantially less. I think we have headed off the L1 restrictions by
in part focusing on the fact that probably there were some abuses.
Q: There has been a lot of noise over H1B visas but there is a fear
that restrictions contemplated on L1 visas may turn out to be more
serious.
HM: There was a story about Siemens hiring an Indian firm and the
Americans claiming they were being replaced by people who were
being paid substantially less. I think we have headed off the
L1 restrictions by in part focusing on the fact that probably
there were some abuses.
Me: The "story" was publicized when Mike Emmons
(http://www.outsourcecongress.org/) came public about Siemens
misdeeds. Siemens admits they are using L-1 visas to replace
Americans, and Harris Miller doesn't deny it. He said that the
way to reduce attention to the story is just to admit there are
"some abuses". The implication is that everyone will forget
about it as long as Siemens admits their misdeeds and
nobody apologizes for it.
Q It is being said that if India doesn't watch out it is going to be
in the same boat as the Japanese were in the late 1980s when there
was trade hostility in the US towards them.
A That's a real danger right now. I am hoping that it doesn't come to
that point. There is, however, one big difference. The US car
industry was fighting against the Japanese car industry. The Indian
IT industry and the US IT industry are on the same side.
Me: Miller's comment should dispell any doubts that American companies
are working together with the Indians to destroy US wages and
working conditions.
Now for another kind of Harris Miller story:
While I was in Arlington in October I decided to give Harris Miller's
ITAA office a visit. He is only a 5 minute walk from the NumbersUSA
office. I got there kind of late, and I didn't think Miller would see
me anyway, but I left my ShameH1B business card with one of his office
workers. The card says "Find Out How Guest-Worker Visas and Offshoring
is Destroying the American Middle-Class". On the back of the card I
wrote: "Harry, Sorry I missed You!"
So far Miller has not signed up to get the newsletter.
http://www.business-standard.com/today/story.asp?Menu=37&story=28508
Q&A: Harris N Miller
Outsourcing to India is a controversial issue
Published : November 28, 2003
Harris N Miller is president of the Information Technology Association
of America (ITAA), which represents over 500 leading IT-related
companies in the US.
As Nasscoms counterpart, ITAA is engaged in a continuous dialogue to
evolve a strategy which creates a win-win situation for IT companies of
both the countries.
Miller is also president of the World Information Technology and
Services Alliance, an association of associations representing 46
IT associations in the world.
He spoke to Subir Roy in Bangalore recently.
Excerpts:
What is your main agenda vis-`-vis India?
It is how to take the public debate on offshoring away from a win-lose
situation that the opponents are painting it as, to a global sourcing
win-win model. We have to stop thinking in terms of Indian companies
versus US or European companies.
Its a global business model, whether you are IBM or Wipro or
Fujitsu. Related to that is an issue which I also want to promote, that
India see itself not as a follower in global trade but a leader. I know
it is a very sensitive political issue. I know the US is not blameless,
we do some really stupid things [laughs] in global trade, including the
steel tariffs last year, which I strongly disagree with.
What is your agenda in explaining to the US public that offshoring is
good for you?
First, I dont argue it is good for people. I argue it is the nature
of global competition.
By good for people I mean good for the consumer, it reduces costs.
Thats a horrid argument to make. If I were to adopt it I would lose
the debate. Thats part of the trouble with the McKinsey study, good
as it may be. Saving costs is something companies understand. Thats
not what the average voter or politician understands.
What they understand is, here is a country of over a billion people
with a rapidly growing middle class of consumers who should like to
drink Coca-Cola, buy Dell computers. This country is a huge potential
market.
When you mention China, a lot of people think, great marketplace, we
are going to sell stuff to China. When you mention India, people say,
it exports a lot of software to the US and is taking our jobs away. The
reality is that both are potentially great marketplaces.
Outsourcing manufacturing to China seems to have gone ahead smoothly,
but outsourcing services and software to India seems to have got into a
bit of a jam.
More than a bit of a jam. It is an incredibly controversial issue.
Why this dichotomy and whats the way out?
The biggest difference is that for many Americans, China is seen as a
huge partner in trade. Yes, we are buying a lot of Chinese products,
but the belief is that China is also a 1.3 billion strong customer.
The reason for that perception in part is that, in order for Congress
to pass the legislation for the US to support admitting China into the
World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Chinese and the US governments, the
respective industries, spent a lot of time selling that idea. It is an
issue of marketing India as a customer.
Who is bragging about the fact that you have over a billion people,
this burgeoning middle class, so many people here who like to buy
American products? When the elites, the elected officials and media
think about India, they dont think about India as a leader in WTO
but as an obstructionist.
You are saying that India should change its approach to trade for its
own good.
If you want to fight last years war, like the generals fighting the
last battle, go ahead. But if anyone is going to change the face of
global trade in the 21st century it is going to be India and Brazil. If
they redefine the debate, they would bring the rest of the developing
countries with them.
This is not to ignore sensitive issues like agriculture. Seventy per
cent of Indians are still on agriculture. I understand that, I am not
naove. But lets figure out ways of talking about this in new
terms.
So, on the backlash, who has to do what?
Nasscom has to continue to fight the battle within India and its
leadership is doing it. They have put this industry on the map. Their
political agenda now has to focus on issues like trade, intellectual
property protection and cyber protection so that India does not appear
in the eyes of the US as an opponent of trade. Obviously, Nasscom needs
the support of the Indian political leadership.
What is your role in the US?
The role of IT in the US is to stop bad things from happening. We want
to stop governments from imposing restrictions on work going offshore,
stop there being additional restrictions on immigration. If the
opponents define the debate as a win-lose situation, that if the Indian
industry grows, the US industry falls, then we, the US and the Indian
industry, are all in trouble. If we define the debate in the US and in
India as a win-win and be mutually together then the opponents are
going to fall by the wayside.
It has been said that it is necessary to seek a far higher level of
political support on the issue in the US than available so far.
Even the strongest supporter of globalisation in the US Congress is not
a strong supporter when unemployment is 7 or 8 per cent in his
Congressional district. The ITAA and its member companies who support
globalisation dont support offshoring. We dont support losing
jobs to India. My membership [of ITAA] is US-based.
We support fair global competition, we oppose restrictions on it and we
have to convince our elected officials day in and day out. My lobbying
message is: thats a better model than the restrictionist and
protectionist one. And we can give them things to do, like promoting
education and training in the US. Weve been falling behind in the US
on this.
It is being said that if India doesnt watch out it is going to be in
the same boat as the Japanese were in the late 1980s when there was
trade hostility in the US towards them.
Thats a real danger right now. I am hoping that it doesnt come to
that point. There is, however, one big difference. The US car industry
was fighting against the Japanese car industry. The Indian IT industry
and the US IT industry are on the same side.
Ninety-nine per cent of my members are based in the US - IBM, EDS,
Accenture, AT&T. They see themselves as global companies and they want
free global competition. They want open markets because they believe
they can win, even if they have to change their business models. And
they are changing their business models.
Not like the Detroit car industry in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s which,
when competition came, said we dont want to compete. So we have the
same general agenda as Nasscom does for its members. Its a tough
balancing act for Nasscom. It has to be very vigilant in protecting its
members on this issue but it cannot take the lead in the US. There it
has to be ITAA, US companies.
There has been a lot of noise over H1B visas but there is a fear that
restrictions contemplated on L1 visas may turn out to be more serious.
The L1 issue kind of exploded on the scene just a few months ago. There
are two types of L1s. That for managers is not very controversial but
the L1s for specialised knowledge is. The H1B visa has a minimum wage
requirement, you have to pay the same as you pay US workers, but for
the specialised knowledge L1 there is no minimum wage requirement.
There was a story about Siemens hiring an Indian firm and the Americans
claiming they were being replaced by people who were being paid
substantially less. I think we have headed off the L1 restrictions by
in part focusing on the fact that probably there were some abuses.
The ITAA focused on the administration of the programme. They were
probably being too liberal in their interpretation of specialised
knowledge. If the government says that anyone who is a computer
programmer has specialised knowledge then there is going to be abuse.
The ITAA submitted a white paper to the US government suggesting that
they need to tighten up the definition and administration of the
programme. Second, we suggested to our member companies that, though
they are not legally required to do so, if they are bringing in L1s in
large numbers, they should pay them the prevailing wage.
I think some of the Indian companies who were using the L1 programme
very aggressively have got a little more conservative now and pulled
back a little bit.
Support this Newsletter and ZaZona.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Subscribe or Unsubscribe send an email to
Back to archives