Looks to me that they just made the contractors into employees then increased the number of employees. In India.


>I agree with you. It would take a politician, lawyer, judge, or a CEO to make such a statement.
>
>I would imagine that since the “company” owns a major interest it is not considered “outsourcing”.
>
>We have insurance and other businesses that are home based on Caribbean islands, etc. for tax purposes. There are lots of laws that relate to business that we are not aware of.
>
>Would you be surprised if such a company also gets a tax break for this activity from the U.S. and Indian governments?
>
>
>
>>I came across this earlier. I have edited it for branding purposes.
>>
>>

>>The Company is announcing today that it will expand its presence in India by opening an office in Mumbai in order to bring work currently outsourced back into the company
>>and hire employees of The Company to fill these positions.  We plan to open the new office by mid-2006 with approximately 200 employees who will do work that we currently
>>outsource to vendors in Mexico and India.  The work currently outsourced includes claims data entry jobs, IT coding/application development jobs and IT quality assurance
>>jobs. Our existing business in India is a joint venture in which we own a majority interest in Another Company, which sells widgets and related widget services.
>>

>>
>>How is this still not considered "outsourcing?" The jobs are still going to residents of India, as much as I can tell.