United States of America: Bill to tax and discourage the use of foreign call-centers
Description
Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat of New York) had announced on June 2, 2010 that he was introducing a bill in the U.S. Senate that would require the disclosure to customers when service calls are transferred abroad, and would impose a per-call excise tax on companies that transfer domestic customer service calls to foreign call centers. Congress did not act on the matter before adjourning on September 29, 2010. It could nonetheless be brought up again in the 112th Congress (2011-2012).
The legislation is described in a press release on Senator Schumer’s website. It states in part that,
[i]f a caller dials an 800 number and is then transferred to a call center in India, the call center would be required under the Schumer legislation to inform the caller of the country where the call was rerouted to. The disclosure requirement also forces companies to annually certify to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that they are complying with this requirement. Companies that fail to certify they are fully disclosing call transfers would be subject to civil penalties that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would prescribe.
Additionally, Schumer’s bill would impose a $0.25 excise tax on any customer service call that originates domestically and is then transferred to an agent in a foreign location. The fee would be assessed on the company that transferred the call and no US company would be assessed a fee for a domestic call center. US companies would be required to disclose quarterly, and in their annual reports, how many customer service calls they received, and how many are sent overseas.
The press release notes that “[t]most popular countries for outsourcing of American call centers are India, Indonesia, Ireland, Canada, the Philippines, and South Africa – all countries with an ample supply of English-speaking workers that are willing to work for low wages.” It alleges that “workers in these countries are paid at substantial lower hourly rates that their US counterparts and willing to work longer hours for less pay which makes them enticing to US companies looking to cut costs.”
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | No |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | No |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | No |
| Was such evidence identified? | No |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | No |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | No |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | No |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | No |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | No |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
See the hyperlined materials in the description.
Government Response:
- 458 reads
