Why is this allowed?

[wonderboy]

A large UK consultancy sets up an office in India (when I say India, please read any another country with a wildly different economy), hires natives there, pays them peanuts and places them in the UK with UK companies via intra-company transfer.

How is this in the best interests of the UK given that:

1. the rate UK companies are paying the consultancy are greater than or equal to the price of a British contract developer?

2. the UK jobs market is currently in poor health

3. non-British workers will frequently send remittances home, moving wealth out of the country

If I am correct in my hunch that this is not in the UK's best interests, why does the government allow it?

[scooby]

A large UK consultancy sets up an office in India, hires natives in India, pays them peanuts and places them in the UK with UK companies via intra-company transfer.

How is this in the best interests of the UK given that:

1. the rate UK companies are paying the consultancy are greater than or equal to the price of a British contract developer?

2. the UK jobs market is currently in poor health

3. non-British workers will frequently send remittances home, moving wealth out of the country

If I am correct in my hunch that this is not in the UK's best interests, why does the government allow it?

Are they not playing within the rules that are set? Therefore what has the UKs best interests got to do with it??

[MarillionFan]

Are they not playing within the rules that are set? Therefore what has the UKs best interests got to do with it??

We recoup it by not paying foreign aid.

[Scoobos]

Because it raises the GDP of the country, by reducing (in the VERY short term, read THIS FINANCIAL YEAR) costs and increasing share value and thus the FTSE - which is , apparantly all that matters.

"The economies growing, because the FTSE is growing" ............. BS

[wonderboy]

Are they not playing within the rules that are set? Therefore what has the UKs best interests got to do with it??

OK, fair enough. Sounds like you're even more cynical than I am.

Am I labouring under a misapprehension that the UK government acts (on balance) in the best interests of the nation?

[DimPrawn]

Am I labouring under a misapprehension that the UK government acts (on balance) in the best interests of the nation?

Where do they find these people?

[Scoobos]

I think that they believe they are, but are misguided in thinking that its all about GDP and "growth"...

Companies growing at the expense of UK employment is just silly.

Not so silly when you're in GVT running a party that gets funded by the upper 10% earners of the country though.

[wonderboy]

I think that they believe they are, but are misguided in thinking that its all about GDP and "growth"...

Companies growing at the expense of UK employment is just silly.

Not so silly when you're in GVT running a party that gets funded by the upper 10% earners of the country though.

But, any benefit assumes that the intra-company transfer workers cost less than British contractors, which I don't believe is the case. Admittedly I have no hard figures, but I do (think I) know that consultancy workers typically cost more than a freelance developer.

I cannot see any benefit at all in the arrangement.

[amcdonald]

It would be better if they made it easier for them to get permanent employment over here, rather than be the modern equivilent of indebted slaves

The people who lose out are us and the ICTs, they're just as much the victims here.

[Cenobite]

Admittedly I have no hard figures, but I do (think I) know that consultancy workers typically cost more than a freelance developer.

I've seen evidence of this. A previous client got some offshorers in and they cost more per head than us UK contractors and we were meant to train them up. Not only did they have no technical skills but they weren't even cheap either. I couldn't believe it.