On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:14:18 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:08:05 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:01:06 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.

So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
For example?

It's a judgment call that they can make but then have to accept the
consequences - i.e. customers may not like it and will shop elsewhere.


It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most.
Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't
they?


It's not a great scenario whichever way one looks at it. However, it
seems to be to be in a situation of remaining in business and
employing *some* people for *some* hours is better than going bust and
employing nobody.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl