House Subcommittee Not Sold on Call Center Bill
A bill aimed at curbing call center outsourcing got mixed reviews in a Thursday House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection hearing. The call center bill (HR-1776), sponsored by Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., would require call centers to give their physical locations at the start of a call.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Chairman Bobby Rush, D-Ill., lauded the bill’s aim, but said he'd prefer a “more forceful approach” requiring foreign centers to transfer calls to domestic centers at customers’ request. Enforcing disclosure doesn’t seem “practical,” said Ranking Member Ed Whitfield, R-Ky. Complaints could flood the federal agency administering the rule, which then would have to investigate them, he said. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D- NY, disagreed, saying the legislation would do no more harm than “chicken soup.” And it might shame companies into bringing call center jobs back to the U.S., he said.
The Federal Trade Commission would rather another agency implement disclosure, said Lois Greisman, FTC associate director for the Marketing Practices division. Another agency better versed in labor and international matters probably would be better suited than the FTC, she said. And FTC jurisdictional limits keep it from regulating banks, airlines and insurance institutions, she said. The FTC also wonders if the rule would require disclosures of call centers at home and abroad, and if the call center definition includes online service assistance or other online transactions, she said. The rule could overburden the agency enforcing it, she said.
The Communications Workers of America support the call center disclosure rule, said Jeffrey Rechenbach, CWA secretary treasurer. Requiring companies to give call center locations will encourage them to base centers in the U.S., he said. But the bill could be improved by requiring foreign call centers to transfer calls to domestic sites at consumers’ request, he said.
American Teleservices Association, representing call centers, opposes the bill, said ATA CEO Tim Searcy. However, he said his group would support a rule requiring call centers to give their locations “upon request,” he said. Imposing the rule would lengthen calls, boosting call center costs, to no benefit for consumers, he said. State and federal regulation already cost call centers $200,000 a year apiece, he said. That’s one reason companies move them offshore, he said. To encourage domestic operations, government should reduce the industry’s regulatory costs, he said. Another negative would be the “robotic interaction” that would come to be standard at the start of calls, he said.
Call center outsourcing isn’t the problem the bill paints it to be, said David Butler, director of the Call Center Research Laboratory at the University of Southern Mississippi. The U.S. call center industry has seen a net rise in jobs in recent years, he said. The industry has lost some jobs due to increasing Internet use, Butler said.
Much debate in the hearing centered on comparisons to disclosure requirements imposed on clothiers. Rechenbach likened call center disclosure to a tag naming the country where a garment is made. That should apply to service industries, he said. Weiner agreed, saying a disclosure would be no worse than a “Made in USA” tag. Searcy disputed that logic, noting that no one forces shoppers to look at the tag before buying the garment.