Gap Analysis Global CommunicationsGap Analysis Global CommunicationsGap Analysis: Global CommunicationsGlobal Communications is a company that prides itself on being a people friendly company. Recent developments in the telecommunications industry have caused stock prices to plummet more than 50% over the past three years. To rebound, Global Communications has quickly put into place a strategy that involves jumping into the global market and outsourcing jobs to help reduce costs. The main problem with this aggressive approach is the lack of communication between the Global Communications Senior Leadership Team and the Technologies Workers Union. The friction this has caused, along with the impending layoffs, has the Union accusing Global Communications of contract manipulation and threatening possible legal action.
- Global Communications’ current product has been known to get the public talking. In early 2011 Global Communications began marketing their first satellite to rural and/or Indian markets. Global Communications, along with their partner telecom and IT companies, started to get popular in local and international markets as a means to compete with their competitors. The company went under in 2010 but has grown in importance thanks to Global Communications’ new leadership team.
- The company’s mobile phones are a major component of the product, where the company has worked with partners such as Airtel® and Sainsbury’s which has had several success stories in the country over the last 30 years, both as part-owners of Airtel’s mobile network and through their mobile phone business.
- For the past five years Airtel has been under pressure to get their mobile phone market up and running in order to get a better deal on their customers, and thus their stock price. By the end of the early 2011, Airtel had to cancel plans to launch a satellite service in India as part of their deal to launch a second satellite in mid-2012, and they were eventually pulled out of the deal after only nine years. With these delays made it difficult for Airtel to continue with its business model. Instead, the company was pulled from its first satellite launch plan of the early 2010. Airtel ended up offering their current and updated service in Indian and North American markets at around Rs. 25.20 per minute.
- Global Communications didn’t have much success in connecting Indian customers to their online services, as they had to deal with the local mobile networks like India Mobile and Bharti Airtel. They also lacked a network of its own for remote access to the Internet. To compensate for this, the company went bankrupt in February of 2011. In order to increase their revenue growth, Global Communications has taken on the responsibility of running their own broadband service through Indian companies. The company decided to give away 3,200 of its employees in a bid to cover the cost of running a service in India for a few years.
Global Communications: The Rise of a new company
In August 2012, Global Communications announced that it formed as a new company. In order to stay in the business, Global Communications needed to become more flexible and get more funding that it had been seeking at times. Global Communications’s plans came to fruition shortly after its initial filing in 2007. During the first year of its existence, the company got a grant from the Indian government. It hired 3,000 employees, and soon had over 50% of the company’s total revenue.
In the last two years, as the company expanded into a wider spectrum of services, its growth was slowing. The company has grown at a rapid clip, with more than 80% of its gross revenue coming from local sales and almost 100% from mobile. These growth has led to growth in other areas such as online services, cloud services, and payments for employees to a point that Global Communications’ revenues are currently over 30 times larger than their earnings.
How Global Communications has changed since its inception
In May 2012, the company began offering two new companies: The Global Communications Digital Group and the Global Communications Corporation Limited, but
Situation AnalysisIssue and Opportunity IdentificationGlobal Communications has recently negotiated a contract with the Technologies Workers Union that decreased the members’ education and benefits by over 20%. The Union representative only agreed with this decrease because she felt that it would allow the company to prepare for some long-term growth, which in turn would benefit the Union and its members. Now Global Communications has failed to include the Union in important communications regarding layoffs and the outsourcing of jobs.
Stakeholder Perspectives/Ethical DilemmasThe interests of the stakeholders are similar in that most everyone is interested in the success of the company. The consumers are the only ones who do not have a direct stake in the company’s success, or failure. As the company grows, shareholders see bigger returns on their investments, employees see larger salaries and more opportunities, and the Union recruits more members as the company expands its’ workforce. If, however, to be successful, the company outsources jobs, then the company no longer has the employees’, and Union’s, interests in mind. As jobs move to India and Ireland, employees lose their jobs, and the Union loses credibility with its’ members. Consumers are also affected by this type of move as they are now required to interact with representatives from other countries, which may not be the best of experiences in some cases.
The company has the right to move jobs where ever they choose to ensure that they are providing consumers with the best products and services at the most competitive prices and be profitable at the same time. In this process, they are infringing upon the rights of the employees, Union, and, ironically, the consumers. Employees have the right to the pay and benefits set forth in their Union contract. When jobs are outsourced, the Union loses its’ right to provide the business with skilled laborers and the right to provide skilled laborers with jobs. The consumers have the right to do business with whom ever they choose and when companies outsource jobs, consumers begin to exercise that right, assuming, of course, that competitors are available in their market.
When it comes down to the values of the stakeholders, this is where the ethical dilemmas surface. The company, Union, and employees all have a social responsibility; the difference is in who that social responsibility is to. The company has a responsibility to its’ employees to pay them the wages they deserve for the work they perform. They are responsible to their consumers to provide them with the quality products and services they have committed to at affordable prices. There is a responsibility to the Union, and employees, to follow the contract. Finally, the company has a social responsibility to the shareholders to do everything in their power to increase revenue and decrease expenses. At the same time, the company is expected to be honest and show some integrity. When the company says they will do something, it is expected that they will and if for some reason they do not, consumers lose faith and begin to mistrust the company.
Another value that is shared by the company, Union, and employees is accountability. The company is accountable to their shareholders, the Board, and to consumers. The Union is accountable to its’ members, and the members/employees are accountable to the company and the Union. Unfortunately, ethics do not always play a role when it comes to the financial dealings of a company. Shareholders expect a company to perform at a certain level and they do not always care how the company reaches that level. The most ethical route to take may be to keep jobs in the United States, which would make the Union and employees happy, but the best situation from a financial aspect is to move the jobs to another country where wages are lower. It also becomes difficult when jobs need to be moved to allow consumers access to a higher
The Bottom Line: To help the average person get a decent job, the companies should do everything they could to improve their pay and provide services, not just make less than they should.
What Are the “Affordability Standards” that Should Be Constrained:
Employments in each of the 28 states
California, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Texas
A number of companies that don’t provide a job training program could be penalized for failing to meet the standards as outlined in this paragraph.
(Source: http://law.cng.org/2011/03/20/disability/consolidation-of-employees-report/.)
The companies, especially the ones that provide the training, should:
Increase the minimum wage.
Provide training to ensure employment is at or below the minimum wage.
The companies should:
Increase the minimum annual salary of the company manager or, if an executive director could not provide training, the person who currently holds the position
Promote the company’s membership and to encourage participation in its local and state chapters of the organization.
The companies should not:
Assist in influencing corporate decisions
Discriminate on behalf of employees by making unreasonable demands on their individual rights
Employ with, or accept without the company’s consent, contracts in which the company may share the employer organization’s interest in complying with employee’s specific needs or standards.
Employees who fail to meet the standard could be put on a $100,000 contract with a different company in which the company agrees to provide benefits if all of the company’s employees choose to opt out of the company’s agreement.
Employees who receive benefits by default in their company’s contract would be penalized with 30 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000, whichever is lower.
The Companies should:
Enact new rules and specifications that create new and improved standards and procedures and should establish a formal agreement for collective bargaining within seven days after enactment
Enact an amendment to the contract of the company’s employees, in which case the company is liable for the penalty
Enact an amendment to the company’s agreement for compensating employees who don’t meet the minimum hourly standard
Create an internal review system for companies to review and identify and address employee disputes with the help of a representative within the company at any time as a form of disciplinary action (for example any action that involves a breach of an employer-employee contract).
The companies should:
Provide training and training facilities that allow employees to build and maintain meaningful work relationships while at the company level.
Employees should be compensated after they successfully join the company.
The companies should:
Enact employee compensation laws which allow employees to take reasonable actions to improve their employment.
Enact other employee safety and health benefits including those related to workplace safety and safety in the job that will benefit both employees and employers.
Employees working in an unsafe workplaces should be compensated, but should not be forced to do so.
The companies
The Bottom Line: To help the average person get a decent job, the companies should do everything they could to improve their pay and provide services, not just make less than they should.
What Are the “Affordability Standards” that Should Be Constrained:
Employments in each of the 28 states
California, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, Texas
A number of companies that don’t provide a job training program could be penalized for failing to meet the standards as outlined in this paragraph.
(Source: http://law.cng.org/2011/03/20/disability/consolidation-of-employees-report/.)
The companies, especially the ones that provide the training, should:
Increase the minimum wage.
Provide training to ensure employment is at or below the minimum wage.
The companies should:
Increase the minimum annual salary of the company manager or, if an executive director could not provide training, the person who currently holds the position
Promote the company’s membership and to encourage participation in its local and state chapters of the organization.
The companies should not:
Assist in influencing corporate decisions
Discriminate on behalf of employees by making unreasonable demands on their individual rights
Employ with, or accept without the company’s consent, contracts in which the company may share the employer organization’s interest in complying with employee’s specific needs or standards.
Employees who fail to meet the standard could be put on a $100,000 contract with a different company in which the company agrees to provide benefits if all of the company’s employees choose to opt out of the company’s agreement.
Employees who receive benefits by default in their company’s contract would be penalized with 30 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000, whichever is lower.
The Companies should:
Enact new rules and specifications that create new and improved standards and procedures and should establish a formal agreement for collective bargaining within seven days after enactment
Enact an amendment to the contract of the company’s employees, in which case the company is liable for the penalty
Enact an amendment to the company’s agreement for compensating employees who don’t meet the minimum hourly standard
Create an internal review system for companies to review and identify and address employee disputes with the help of a representative within the company at any time as a form of disciplinary action (for example any action that involves a breach of an employer-employee contract).
The companies should:
Provide training and training facilities that allow employees to build and maintain meaningful work relationships while at the company level.
Employees should be compensated after they successfully join the company.
The companies should:
Enact employee compensation laws which allow employees to take reasonable actions to improve their employment.
Enact other employee safety and health benefits including those related to workplace safety and safety in the job that will benefit both employees and employers.
Employees working in an unsafe workplaces should be compensated, but should not be forced to do so.
The companies