Hibernian to shift admin to India. I won't insure with them in future.

Kernel wrote: »

It's just another example of blatant corporate profiteering. Why should they charge higher prices if they are already making a profit? They're simply employing this tactic to make even more profits for the shareholders.

i always thought the whole point of running a company was to maximise profits?

phantom_lord wrote: »

i always thought the whole point of running a company was to maximise profits?

Corporations exist to maximise profits, yes. But it's an unethical way of running a business - something the world could do without. Think about it. Watch the documentary called 'The Corporation' or some of Michael Moore's earlier stuff.

Kernel wrote: »

Corporations exist to maximise profits, yes. But it's an unethical way of running a business - something the world could do without. Think about it. Watch the documentary called 'The Corporation' or some of Michael Moore's earlier stuff.

yeah, cause michael moore is really a great source of non biased cutting edge investigative journalism...

How is this unethical? They're finding a cheaper more efficient source of labour? They're using Indians, not child slave labour.

phantom_lord wrote: »

yeah, cause michael moore is really a great source of non biased cutting edge investigative journalism...

How is this unethical? They're finding a cheaper more efficient source of labour? They're using Indians, not child slave labour.

No, no, you have it wrong. The notion of existing simply to maximise profits is unethical. I've spoken about this over the last few years on boards, and again I give the analogy of the pharmaceutical company:

I'm CEO of pharmaceutical company. I make lots of money treating HIV. Scientist comes to me and says "I have a good idea of how to make a hiv vaccination or cure, need x amount of money to do it". I say "ehh.. you're alright scientist, can only sell a cure once, shareholders and all that you know."

Only for public reaction against sweatshops, corporations would still be using them to maximise profits. Where do you draw the line eh?

Kernel wrote: »

No, no, you have it wrong. The notion of existing simply to maximise profits is unethical.

wtf are you on about? The single and only reason for the existence of a company is to maximise profits, the company report at the end of the year shows a nice balance sheet of profit and loss, not photo album of all the people they helped, time to take down that Che Guevara poster of yours and enter the real world

Now that just pi$$es me off. I'm a Vivas customer, and as such have just been transferred over to Hibernian. Nobody said anything about having to ring India (ie ask them to repeat everything about 10 times and carefully structure your sentences to ensure they don't include any slang/localisations/place names etc). Oh well, gonna have to go with BUPA/Quinn when my policy renews.

listermint wrote: »

Unfortunately shareholders come first, thats life with these companies.

phantom_lord wrote: »

yeah, how dare those companies look after their owners.

phantom_lord wrote: »

wtf are you on about? The single and only reason for the existence of a company is to maximise profits, the company report at the end of the year shows a nice balance sheet of profit and loss, not photo album of all the people they helped, time to take down that Che Guevara poster of yours and enter the real world

phantom_lord wrote: »

i'm not trolling, I just htink this attitude of companies looking after their shareholders as being a terrible thing is ridiculous.

I don't see how your question is related to the topic at hand?

As for the whole shareholder thing, the fact is (and one can clearly see from the catastrophic turmoil in the global markets over the past year) that a move like this is very short-sighted and is not good for the long-term shareholder. Yes, by moving to India, they have the potential to reduce costs over the next few years. But, there is a strong chance that customer satisfaction will deteriorate quiet quickly, which will eventually hurt income. Then there is the whole cost of relocating back to Ireland a few years later in a bid to keep the company afloat.

It's annoying when there is a breakdown in communications with regard you TV/mobile etc. It's very serious (and possible legal ramifications), when you are unable to communicate with someone regarding insurance/financial decisions.

This is not about outsourcing, or India itself. I personally, wouldn't pay any heed if they had said they are moving to England, Northern Ireland or any other English-speaking foreign country (where the accent is somewhat comprehensible). Outsourcing works when it is done well. Most of the time though, some dumbass manager ploughs optimistically ahead with outsourcing, thinking only of next year's bonus/promotion based on the money he/she is going to save this/next year.

phantom_lord wrote: »

wtf are you on about? The single and only reason for the existence of a company is to maximise profits, the company report at the end of the year shows a nice balance sheet of profit and loss, not photo album of all the people they helped, time to take down that Che Guevara poster of yours and enter the real world

That's simply not true. Watch the documentary I mentioned, before continuing to be ill-informed. There are companies out there who have adopted a different model to the corporate one. Companies which value good quality products and ethical business plans. I do live in the real world, and I recognise the importance of sustainability and accountability in the wider context.

bitemybanger wrote: »

Could'nt care if they were on the moon, if it means cheaper insurance for me:cool:

If you get alot of companies moving to India, then there's less jobs, those job cuts may have a knock on affect on those who supply them (both internal to the company and other companies). So you end up with alot less jobs (less people paying tax) and more on the dole (more using the tax), country gets poorer and it all results in cheaper insurance on the car you can't afford to buy.

If big companies start doing this in numbers this country may go down hill fast

The only reason myself and other family members were ever with Hibernian was because if we had a problem, we could physicially go into their Offices in Galway and talk to someone face-to-face. Now that that's going, we'll never be renewing any insurance with them.

They're going to lose a lot of customers here methinks

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Trying to chat to a Hibernian representative in future will be like talking to someone in a corner shop in Birmingham.

Some call centres in India are actually quite good, bmi British Midland have an excellent one. No problem understanding them or them understanding me.

On the otherhand I've had terrible experiences with Northern Irish and Scotish call centres.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Is there anyone out there employed by this shower? would like to hear your input.

In there as a contractor, so I know i'll be gone in around 2 months, doesn't bother me though, I knew I was gone anyway, things have been going that way for the past few months.
As for the general staff, I didn't see any annoyed or very concerned faces when they came back from the meeting but I may be missing it or maybe it's just early days. I heard a rumour of this about a week and a half ago but this was only made known at half 4 (about 25 mins before news story).
I just hope that it doesn't become a trend for the big companies in ireland