July 22, 2002
The Anti-Globalization Movement Seeks Another Victory...

Once it becomes known that New York tickets are being digitized in Ghana, the firm promises to end the practice--fearful of some political backlash. And 40 other workers in Ghana may, as a result, lose the opportunity to be hired for what they see as good jobs at good wages.


In New York Tickets, Ghana Sees Orderly City

...Charles Sturcken, chief of staff for the city's Department of Environmental Protection, which signed a two-year, $910,000 contract with Data Management, said he had no idea that the work was being done in Ghana. Although many United States corporations and some other cities rely on similar back offices to input data in distant countries, several current and former city officials said they were unaware that any city contract had ever been handled abroad.

It may not last much longer. Once a reporter started asking about the Ghana contract, Data Management said it planned to start handling New York City's business domestically and have the Accra office work on other accounts. The company worries that it will be perceived in New York as taking jobs from American workers, said William Swezey, a manager at Data Management.

From New York's perspective, it hardly matters whether the work is done in Africa or Delaware: the contract is simply a way to process the half-million environmental tickets the city hands out every year. And either way, the Ghanaians are not likely to lose their jobs. The company is planning to expand its operation there, said Mark Davies, an American who leases the Accra office space to Data Management.

It is good work, by Ghanaian standards. The typists earn 500,000 cedis a month (almost $70 -- three times the Ghanaian minimum wage and more than twice the average per capita income) to type the offender's name, address, fine and offense location into a searchable database that is sent back to New York. It can then be stored electronically and used to generate payment notices, Mr. Sturcken said...



July 22, 2002

In New York Tickets, Ghana Sees Orderly City

By ROBERT F. WORTH

If you are caught playing your radio too loudly in Times Square, selling ice cream while parked in a Harlem crosswalk or dumping your kitchen trash in Prospect Park, your ticket does not just go to City Hall to be processed.

It goes to Ghana.

Just days after the tickets are written out on New York City streets, they are scanned and sent as digital photographs to computers in a small office in downtown Accra, Ghana's hot and crowded capital.

There, workers try to make out the unfamiliar street names (Dyckman, Flatbush, Hudson) while transcribing the handwritten scrawl of New York police officers into searchable databases.

And through the alchemy of globalization, the tickets that bring only aggravation on this side of the Atlantic become snapshots that fire imaginations more than 5,000 miles away.

The Ghanaians can see that the city is orderly, at least in its grid. "It's easy to look at New York and see where you are going," said Christine Mensah, 35, a manager. "It's not like Ghana. With a map you can go anywhere."

And they imagine that the city is sparkling clean. Why else would people be given tickets for not cleaning up after their dogs? "I know that New York is beautiful: the streets, the flowers, and the people too," said Susuana Okine, 26, whose only ties to the city are the maps she consults daily at work. "I can also testify that it must smell better than Accra."

Ms. Okine and her 40-odd co-workers spend their days typing out the contents of the city's environmental violation tickets for their employer, Data Management Internationale, a Delaware-based firm that has been digitizing information for New York City since March. Before that, the work was done in India and Mexico for a Michigan-based company called Lason.

Charles Sturcken, chief of staff for the city's Department of Environmental Protection, which signed a two-year, $910,000 contract with Data Management, said he had no idea that the work was being done in Ghana. Although many United States corporations and some other cities rely on similar back offices to input data in distant countries, several current and former city officials said they were unaware that any city contract had ever been handled abroad.

It may not last much longer. Once a reporter started asking about the Ghana contract, Data Management said it planned to start handling New York City's business domestically and have the Accra office work on other accounts. The company worries that it will be perceived in New York as taking jobs from American workers, said William Swezey, a manager at Data Management.

From New York's perspective, it hardly matters whether the work is done in Africa or Delaware: the contract is simply a way to process the half-million environmental tickets the city hands out every year. And either way, the Ghanaians are not likely to lose their jobs. The company is planning to expand its operation there, said Mark Davies, an American who leases the Accra office space to Data Management.

It is good work, by Ghanaian standards. The typists earn 500,000 cedis a month (almost $70 — three times the Ghanaian minimum wage and more than twice the average per capita income) to type the offender's name, address, fine and offense location into a searchable database that is sent back to New York. It can then be stored electronically and used to generate payment notices, Mr. Sturcken said.

The greatest challenge, several employees said, is accurately deciphering the hasty scrawl of the ticket writers, who are employees of various city agencies as well as police officers. The company's contract requires it to return the transcribed information with an error rate of no more than 1 percent and within 48 hours of pickup.

Several employees said they were happy with the job, and especially the office's air-conditioning. "It's very hard, but to do well, you have to work very hard," said Ms. Okine, who was hired in March. Asked what she would say if she ever met a New York City police officer, Ms. Okine said without hesitating, "I would tell him to improve on his handwriting."

Although Ghana was a British colony and English is the official language, the workers initially found New York's addresses difficult to figure out, since terms like "avenue" were completely unfamiliar to many of them. Accra's streets are a baffling maze of roundabouts, circles, dirt paths and unmarked alleys, where goats wander freely. Many streets do not have names and most people don't know the names of the ones that do.

The employees work in revolving eight-hour shifts that run 24 hours a day. They are immaculately dressed and sit silently at computer terminals, typing as fast as they can in a plain office. The workers get one 30-minute and two 10-minute breaks per shift to use the bathroom, eat and call friends. Their computers have no e-mail because it could be a distraction. Soon, workers will be paid by the keystroke, with deductions for errors, a company official said.

The office is in a two-story Internet center called BusyInternet that was founded by Mr. Davies, a former dot-com executive who fell in love with Africa on a backpacking trip several years ago. "Busy," as the locals call it, is the largest Internet center in West Africa.

Visitors at the Internet center downstairs jokingly call Data Management an "electronic sweatshop." But the jobs are so popular that dozens of people apply for each opening, even when the company does not advertise.

And to many people in this city of open sewers and vast unemployment, the data entry operation represents a beacon of hope. It is one of West Africa's first ventures in information technology outsourcing, which has become a business worth more than $7.5 billion a year in India. As in some other third world countries, the Internet has been embraced ardently in Ghana. Five years ago, there were no Internet cafes in Ghana; now there are at least 250 in Accra, Mr. Davies said.

"You can go down an alley that's not paved, and where women are selling rice on the corner, and there's an Internet cafe," said Anthony Swezey, the brother of William Swezey and manager of the Accra office. He said the company chose Ghana because it is safe and the government is democratic and has been stable for 20 years. And, of course, because labor in Ghana is far cheaper than in the United States.

Data Management workers said they were surprised — but grateful — for New Yorkers' apparent willingness to break the law.

"They know the rules and they still are always violating them," Ms. Mensah said. "Maybe they don't understand simple instructions. But they have to keep doing it, because it's how we make our money."

Ms. Mensah and others also expressed a passionate curiosity about the places and names they see so many times on tickets every day. They seemed particularly intrigued by Queens, because of its royal name and large size.

Some even said they wanted to move to New York.

"I am very used to the rules and regulations of New York now," said Nora Kraku, 28, during a break. "So I think I can live there."

Posted by DeLong at July 22, 2002 07:28 PM | Trackback

Email this entry
Email a link to this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

Don't forget the romantic element of the story:

~~
...they imagine that the city is sparkling clean. Why else would people be given tickets for not cleaning up after their dogs?

"I know that New York is beautiful: the streets, the flowers, and the people too," said Susuana Okine, 26 ..."I can also testify that it must smell better than Accra."


Posted by: Jim Glass on July 22, 2002 08:27 PM

And why do you find the "romantic element" of the story so hard to believe? The fact of the matter is that New York is not drowning in dog (or human) waste matter, and that the litter on the streets and the graffitti are fairly minor compared to what they could be.
I've not been to Accra or Lagos or Kinshasa or even Nairobi or Harare, but I can imagine them all being horribly unpleasant compared even to Harlem, let alone to Manhattan.
The very fact that so many people have interpreted this aspect of the story as a joke, not as reality, just confirms for me, sadly, how most Americans simply do not appreciate firstly how unhappy, poor and desperate the bulk of the world is; and secondly that they do not appreciate just how fragile and miraculous their prosperity and civilization is.

Posted by: Maynard Handley on July 22, 2002 09:52 PM

Who said it is hard to believe?

I was going to add a line saying that while we may have not quite attained paradise, those of us who live here (NYC in particular, the first-world in general) often greatly under-appreciate what we've got.

But it seemed redundant and rather pedantic after Ms. Okine's words, so I cut it.

Posted by: Jim Glass on July 23, 2002 09:17 AM

Not wanting to be a dick about this, but I don't actually see anyone from the "Anti-globalization movement" actually quoted in the article above, and those statements of that movement which I have seen do not typically couch themselves in the language of "taking jobs from American workers", which is the only reason actually cited by this company. I don't think that the anti-sweatshop movement has ever launched a protest against good office jobs in the Third World. You sort of lose your ability to protest when Andrew Sullivan does the same sort of thing if you engage in this sort of guilt-by-assertion, Brad.

Posted by: dsquared on July 23, 2002 09:27 AM

there is loveliness through sub-saharan africa but there is fierce poverty and an aids epidemic that is broad-spread and sad beyond measure - africans need us to care and assist - we contribute far too little to african development through direct assistance and through trade

randall

Posted by: randall on July 23, 2002 09:40 AM

Brad-- your post title is a total libel on the global justice movement, since you have no evidence that global justice activists were involved in this decision or would have advocated the result.

As I note more fully on a post at my site but the demand of activists is for basic labor rights to organize. If workers are so happy, why would giving them a union voice be so harmful?

Posted by: Nathan Newman on July 23, 2002 10:02 AM

'It may not last much longer. Once a reporter started asking about the Ghana contract, Data Management said it planned to start handling New York City's business domestically and have the Accra office work on other accounts. The company worries that it will be perceived in New York as taking jobs from American workers, said William Swezey, a manager at Data Management.'

Local labor unions are probably to blame in this case, especially whatever government workers would probably be doing this job instead.

Posted by: Jason McCullough on July 23, 2002 10:34 AM

Local labor leaders are not the same as the "antiglobalization movement" Brad refers to. Such union leaders are looking to the interests of their members-- maybe not the most idealist position but also quite separate from the idealistic beliefs of the Seattle/DC/Barelona et al street activists.

Most people in the US do not know that labor leaders from South Africa to Malaysia marched with the global justice activists in Seattle. Yes, there are some folks acting from perceived self-interest in the movement (which is always true on all sides of all political battles) but to note that does not answer the question of why union rights for workers in developing nations is an attack on their jobs.

Posted by: Nathan Newman on July 23, 2002 10:53 AM

Local labor leaders are not the same as the "antiglobalization movement" Brad refers to. Such union leaders are looking to the interests of their members-- maybe not the most idealist position but also quite separate from the idealistic beliefs of the Seattle/DC/Barelona et al street activists.

Most people in the US do not know that labor leaders from South Africa to Malaysia marched with the global justice activists in Seattle. Yes, there are some folks acting from perceived self-interest in the movement (which is always true on all sides of all political battles) but to note that does not answer the question of why union rights for workers in developing nations is an attack on their jobs.

Posted by: Nathan Newman on July 23, 2002 10:53 AM

My image of the essential core of the "anti-globalization movement" was fixed during the NAFTA debate, when the core of the argument was precisely that trade was bad because it meant that corporations were going to export *all* our jobs to Mexico, and for *any* job to be performed in Mexico is a bad thing. My image of it is as some unholy trinity composed of Thea Lee, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot.

My commentors are protesting that there is and I am blackening the name of a more sophisticated anti-... well, call it "smart globalization" movement which likes to see manufacturing and information-processing jobs move from the U.S. to places like Ghana. I hope they're right. I haven't seen much of a media footprint so far, however...


Brad DeLong

Posted by: Brad DeLong on July 23, 2002 11:26 AM

'but to note that does not answer the question of why union rights for workers in developing nations is an attack on their jobs.'

What? How does this relate?

Posted by: Jason McCullough on July 23, 2002 11:41 AM

>>I haven't seen much of a media footprint so far, however...<<

Not in the New York Times, nor even in the Economist?!?! I am shocked!

Posted by: dsquared on July 23, 2002 11:50 AM

I don't think Nader, who support Jamie Love running around the world fighting for fairer access to life-saving drugs, is as uncaring of developing countries needs as you make out-- and you know I can be a harsh critic of Nader.

And whatever your experience of Thea Lee in the past, I've talked with her and she and the AFL-CIO have a very broad view of what good globalization would like it-- with yes some bows to protectionism at points but with probably better consistency in support of third world interests than the capitalist free traders.

And the point to be made is that the global justice movement is more than the continuation of the anti-NAFTA coalition. Seattle was an evolution into a real cross-national global movement for social justice. That is why you had activists from around the world marching with the AFL-CIO there.

You are beng closeminded in not recognizing the extraordinary change that the substance of the movement went through between 1994 and 1999 and has continued to go through in subsequent years.

Posted by: Nathan Newman on July 23, 2002 01:00 PM

The mere fact that Brad admits that his thinking about the media created myth of the anti-globalization movement was locked-in via the debate over NAFTA simply demonstrates the old dog-new tricks adage. During the NAFTA debates some US trade unionists were trying to stop US based MNC's from killing their own employees, both in the US and abroad all in the great quest for the grail of lower unit labor costs. The same people who, a decade later also bring us Enron, World Com and our drug addled president. Move the jobs wherever you want, just pay workers a living wage and let them unionize without fear of getting murdered. But wait that would take the shine off the grail wouldn't it? The UN published a report about two years ago saying 500 million new jobs need to be created in the current decade just to sustain current global employment levels and keep poverty from getting worse. But economists and the echo chamber of the media would rather fret over the stock market.

Posted by: Ian Murray on July 23, 2002 01:32 PM

'The UN published a report about two years ago saying 500 million new jobs need to be created in the current decade just to sustain current global employment levels and keep poverty from getting worse.'

Right, because unless "jobs are created" in some sort of unspecified manner those people will be unemployed. I'm sorry, but unemployment in a country is controlled by either Greenspan or his counterpart; the nonsensical debates both in 1992 and now about "job creation/destruction" miss the point entirely.

'During the NAFTA debates some US trade unionists were trying to stop US based MNC's from killing their own employees, both in the US and abroad all in the great quest for the grail of lower unit labor costs.'

I'd say that both in the NAFTA debates and now groups with trade protection-supported jobs (American steelworkers, sheltered urban domestic industries in Botswana) are screaming bloody murder at the thought of being forced to compete on a level playing field. They should be allowed to continue taxing the rest of the country (the American middle class for steelworkers, the rural poor for Botswana) to support their jobs!

That they've managed to tricky the mushy-headed left into coming along for the ride is rather depressing.

Posted by: Jason McCullough on July 23, 2002 02:00 PM

Who supports taxing the rest of the country to support steel? The Bush administration?

Other than the unions, what parts of the globalization movement has publicly come out for steel tariffs? (I don't think you'll find many)

The unfortunate fact is that Jason and Brad are making all sorts of assumptions about a movement that they have not a lot of knowledge. If Brad had made a headline- "Unions Seek a Victory", he'd at least have a case, but to tag a broader movement with the position of a single member is ridiculous, especially when even the unions promote alternatives to protectionism. Their stated position is that they are willing to support trade as long as labor rights are fully protected.

Posted by: Nathan Newman on July 23, 2002 04:47 PM

A "level playing field" is a fatuous piece of economic rhetoric unsuited for a non-linear world where the whole point of gaining and sustaining market power is predicated on the protection afforded by States. Let's talk about the protectionism afforded to Microsoft, IBM, Boeing and countless other MNC's and how they've used the States system as the most sophisticated protection racket in world history.

Posted by: Ian Murray on July 23, 2002 05:13 PM

This story has nothing to do with the anti-globalisation (more properly, alterglobalisation)
movement.

As the first story says, Data Management stopped using Ghana labour out of fear of being accused of stealing American jobs. In a climate where every other company is revealed to be busy screwing their workers over while management makes millions, no wonder they're weary, even if their operation in Ghana is above board.

Few people would care about the latter, a lot more would be pretty angry at an American company taking taxpayers money to "steal American jobs".

Brad failed to show just how and where the movement was involved in this story to justify his title. That he thinks the alterglobalisation movement is an "unholy trinity composed of Thea Lee, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot" speaks volumes.

Posted by: Martin Wisse on July 24, 2002 03:51 AM

So where is the core of the anti-globalization movement, if it's not Thea Lee, Ralph Nader, and Ross Perot? Global Exchange? United Steelworkers?

Brad DeLong

Posted by: Brad DeLong on July 24, 2002 01:47 PM

What is the core of the global justice movement? (Note that the "anti-globalization" label comes from the media- activists use a variety of other terms).

One of its strengths-- and occasional weaknesses -- is the lack of a simple center or core. In the US, Global Exchange is one pole which has strong ties to student movements like United Students Against Sweatshops. Direct Action groups like the Ruckus Society and the Direct Action Movement anchor the non-window breaking anarchist wing. Food First and activists like Walden Bello anchor the third worldist wing of the movement. Nader anchors the DC-oriented non-profit side of the movement. And yes Thea Lee and John Sweeney anchor the union side of the movement. Plus other poles throughout.

It's a weird interesting network that extends globally through Porto Allegro where tens of thousands of global activists gathered this year to discuss global solidarity. So your characterization of a US protectionist movement is incredibly narrow in ignoring the Porto Allegro international center of the movement.

Posted by: Nathan Newman on July 24, 2002 05:05 PM

Global Exchange seems to think "free trade" makes Americans poorer:

http://www.globalexchange.org/ftaa/topten.html

'Working families suffer: In the US, almost 400,000 jobs have been lost since NAFTA, with workers' new jobs paying, on average, only 77 percent of the wages of their earlier employment; in Mexico since NAFTA, one million more Mexicans earn less than the minimum wage, and 8 million families have slipped from the middle class into poverty.'

'Corporations move high-paying jobs to countries with lower wages and bust unionization drives with threats to transfer production abroad.'

'This "race-to-the-bottom" will accelerate under FTAA as corporations pit exploited workers in Mexico against even more desperate workers in countries such as Haiti and Guatemala.'

Admittedly, its normally #2 on the complaint list from the non-union parts of the movement after #1, "exploitation and taking money from 3rd world workers," but its there.

Posted by: Jason McCullough on July 24, 2002 10:07 PM

The core of the movement? There is no core of the movement, there are no Glorious Leaders. Nader and co are red herrings.

What you have problems with is the rightwing, protectionistic movement, who do not care about fighting corperate globalisation other then "keeping American jobs for Americans".

The key to the alterglobalisation movement is that it, as Nathan also pointed out, consists of dozens of different groups all with their own agenda. There are fullblown socialists like me, anarchists, environmentalists, union people, mainstream charity organisations like Oxfam, human rights groups, etc.

What they all have in common is that they're are set against the globalisation as directed by the G8, WTO, Worldbank, IMF, GATT, GATS etc.

What they differ upon is what sort of globalisation they want instead.

Posted by: Martin Wisse on July 25, 2002 12:40 AM

Yes- folks in the global justice movement are skeptical that trade agreements deliver improvements in the lives of average workers on both sides of borders. That doesn't mean that they think all trade is bad, but that the current structure of freedom for capital combined with corporate pressure for union-busting (under threat of capital flight) is not the ideal of trade pictured in macroeconomics books.

Posted by: Nathan Newman on July 25, 2002 10:39 AM

lets step it up, a relolution is thirsty from the biosphere to even the area of the sun, ask for rain it will fall ask for a vioce the people will call, ask for harmony, notes of human life will be played toghther. You know the way out....

Posted by: on January 7, 2003 08:30 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?