First there was the speech at the State of the Union address in classic Obamaese, interpreted by many as a signal towards cutting back on outsourcing and close on heels was the writ petition in the High Court of Madras (India) – challenging, amongst other issues, the work done by LPOs.
Both events unfolded thousands of miles apart, with one in a country outsourcing and the other in a country to which it is outsourced. However, two things are remarkably common in both these instances-
i) both received good publicity mileage, which clearly seems to be the only plausible objective, and
ii) both failed, in equal measure, to address the issue square on and to base their criticism of outsourcing on any economic rationale
Critiques of outsourcing have probable existed for longer than the concept itself, for a simple reason that any disruptive technology, which has the potential to change the regular course of things, will always face opposition. People like inertia and change is always resisted. It takes fair understanding and a long term vision to see the benefits of any change – and takes character to, when time comes and results show benefits, to swallow the empty pride and accept the change.
As Mr. Obama has seen for himself while garnering support for the health care reform, not all are amenable to the idea of positive change. The economic rationale behind legal outsourcing is too strong to be ignored and perhaps any subsequent debate or challenge should be more fact based to gain some legitimacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment