LATimes: Hillary Clinton Woos the Outsourcers That Workers Fear

[flpoljunkie]

Clinton woos the outsourcers that workers fear

The senator's efforts to bring an Indian firm to Buffalo, which yielded 'about 10' jobs, illustrates the bind she faces.

By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer

July 30, 2007

BUFFALO, N.Y. — To many labor unions and high-tech workers, the Indian giant Tata Consultancy Services is a serious threat — a company that has helped move U.S. jobs to India while sending thousands of foreign workers on temporary visas to the United States.

So when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) came to this struggling city to announce some good news, her choice of partners was something of a surprise.

Joining Tata Consultancy's chief executive at a downtown hotel, Clinton announced that the company would open a software development office in Buffalo and form a research partnership with a local university. Tata told a newspaper that it might hire as many as 200 people.

The 2003 announcement had clear benefits for the senator and the company: Tata received good press, and Clinton burnished her credentials as a champion for New York's depressed upstate region.

But less noticed was how the event signaled that Clinton, who portrays herself as a fighter for American workers, had aligned herself with Indian American business leaders and Indian companies feared by the labor movement.

Now, as Clinton runs for president, that signal is echoing loudly.

Clinton is successfully wooing wealthy Indian Americans, many of them business leaders with close ties to their native country and an interest in protecting outsourcing laws and expanding access to worker visas. Her campaign has held three fundraisers in the Indian American community recently, one of which raised close to $3 million, its sponsor told an Indian news organization.

But in Buffalo, the fruits of the Tata deal have been hard to find. The company, which called the arrangement Clinton's "brainchild," says "about 10" employees work here. Tata says most of the new employees were hired from around Buffalo. It declines to say whether any of the new jobs are held by foreigners, who make up 90% of Tata's 10,000-employee workforce in the United States.

more...http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-buffalo30jul30,0,1108198.story?coll=la-tot-topstories&track=ntottext

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. The right calls this "onshoring".

Trouble is, the number of jobs that come here never come close to the number of jobs that go away. Then, there is the matter of work product: I have friends in the IT industry who have many, many stories about the quality of that. Or lack thereof. Some of them would be hilarious if they weren't so closely tied to out-of-work Americans.

But, you can make your own stories. Just call customer support at Dell, Gateway, AT&T or a number of other companies. Literally hours of fun for the whole family. If you find utter cluelessness fun.

Final point: It has been estimated that a full 60% of the job opportunities listed in the paper or on the internet are shams. Boilerplate. Placed there so companies can state that they have searched for US workers, could not find anyone qualified and then hire an H1-B.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Interesting. These "onshorers" are paid much less than their American counterparts, of course.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Hillary is a corporate tool and therefore loves outsourcing american jobs.

[Jensen]

3. I so agree with you!

Maybe is time to dig out that commercial that someone made of Hillary 1984 style.I think it is appropriate after this article.
I for one want a President that will look after the working people.

[flpoljunkie]

5. Here's the Hillary 1984 youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

[Jensen]

6. Thanks flpoljunkie! I needed that.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Obama is crushing her on Wall Street and matching her in corporate support

If she is a corporate tool then...

[TeamJordan23]

17. And Edwards works for a Hedge Fund to learn about poverty. Oh, the irony. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Contributions from hedge funds to the "top-tier" candidates

Romney (R) $797,325
Clinton (D) $703,600
Obama (D) $652,105
Giuliani (R) $644,750
McCain (R) $255,950
Edwards (D) $218,290

[TeamJordan23]

22. Can you show me any evidence that Obama will support Wall Street interests once elected? nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Sure (Wall Street $$$$ and securities/investment $$$)

I have to go soon but here are two quick inconvenient truths.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3387446

Money from the securities and investment industry

Clinton $3,330,325
Obama $3,156,174
Giuliani $3,093,701
Romney $2,948,782
Dodd $2,200,916
McCain $1,388,780
Edwards $668,590
Richardson $351,000

[TeamJordan23]

24. Thanks for dodging my question. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. Here. Obama is corporate America's "stealth candidate"

Obama has no real record so looking at it will not do any good. Clearly, Wall Street and others in corporate America like what they see in him. Obviously they are not blindly investing so heavily in him. So what is going on here? I think these people recognize that Obama is cut from the same political cloth as HRC. It is no accident the same people who finance HRC, who I am sure you would agree is a favorite of corporate America, are heavily financing Obama. In many cases I think fat cats are simply hedging their bets and contributing to both candidates (but notice the Edwards numbers? They clearly are not going to give to any viable Democrat. The excuse some will give is that JE has "no shot." The facts show that he has more or less as good a shot of becoming prez as BO. He definitely has a better chance than McCain--and compare the McCain numbers to Edwards'). However, that does not explain it all. What special advantage does Obama offer? This brings me back to my first sentence. Obama is a blank slate. He has no real record (notice the utter silence on his record in Washington? All we hear of is a few popular progressive things he did as a state legislator). Remember the Roberts confirmation process? Roberts was great for the right-wing because he had no real record to attack and was a blank slate. However, the right-wing zealously supported him. Why? They knew exactly what their "stealth justice" would do on the Supreme Court. The same thing appears to be the case with Wall Street and co. with respect to Obama. He also offers two compelling advantages over HRC, though. #1, HRC is reviled by progressives. Obama is not. Every step HRC takes will be closely scrutinized by progressives. With Obama our guard will be down. Moreover, Obama is charismatic and a great speaker. HRC is competent but no one has ever accused her of being of a great speaker or Ms. Charisma. The bottom line is Obama would be a more effective salesman for the policies these people want than HRC, for the reasons I just stated. (see the furor over HRC's position on outsourcing a few weeks ago at DU. Notice how Obama gets a free pass for having the same position on the issue as HRC while HRC is angrily denounced?)

[Jax]

18. Exactly. n/t

[Larkspur]

4. Where are the Clinton supporters now?

Hard to refute facts about the "Queen".

[Ethelk2044]

7. She is pushing to increase the H1B Visas for workers coming in the US

[Alexander]

9. Looking for RW articles and talking points that support Hillary...

Because nothing else will.

[TeamJordan23]

8. I think ALL the candidates need to be asked about outsourcing in next debate. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. I don't think Obama does. He has the same position as Hillary on this

He has the same position as Clinton does on this issue (as he always does):

==Ruffey asked, “How can you ensure a fair trade policy to protect American jobs?”

Obama replied, “Let’s all acknowledge that to some degree globalization is here.… The world is smaller than it used to be.”

He added, “When we negotiate trade deals, we’ve got to make sure there are strong labor and environmental provisions in those trade deals. They’ve got to be enforceable. You’ve got to be able to go to the WTO (World Trade Organization) and say labor provisions are not being enforced.”==

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18643647

=="We also shouldn't kid ourselves into believing that voting against trade agreements will stop globalization--especially ones like CAFTA, where the countries involved have combined economies one-sixth the size of Illinois'.

Globalization is not someone's political agenda. It is a technological revolution that is fundamentally changing the world's economy, producing winners and losers along the way. The question is not whether we can stop it, but how we respond to it. It's not whether we should protect our workers from competition, but what we can do to fully enable them to compete against workers all over the world.==

[TeamJordan23]

16. Obama is for fair trade. I'm not too sure about HRC. Afterall, NAFTA was passed under Clinton Admin.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Obama is for what Hillary is for. There is no difference between them on this issue

Hillary is not Bill.

[TeamJordan23]

21. Why doesn't she speak up against NAFTA now, than? nm

[rinsd]

25. She has.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584649,00.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=atUKcP4eSEvY&refer=politics

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/06/19/4273694-cp.html

Here's a basic summary of her trade positions.

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

Wait a minute...doesn't Obama have Rubin on his advisory staff? Guess who was the biggest advocate for NAFTA in the Clinton admin?

[PurityOfEssence]

10. Sounds sorta like she thinks she's clinched the nomination...

If this is supposed to sell as "job creation", it's more than a bit on the clumsy side.

[LongTomH]

11. She also went to India to woo outsourcers!

Hillary Clinton woos India

This was printed before she announced her bid for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

Isn't it strange you didn't see anything about this in the American press?:sarcasm:

[The River]

15. I Haven't Trusted Her

since she failed on the health care issue
during her husbands first term.

Hillary supporters had better understand that
there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands
of progressive Dems who will abstain in '08
rather than vote for her just because she is
the "lesser of two evils".

No more DLC-triangulating-corporate owned Dems, thank you very much!