Talk:Body shopping

Rewriting

This article uses stereotype definitions (Indians and its IT workers) and needs re-writing.

Article is thoroughly biased and needs to be marked for deletion. No valid references provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.75.116 (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, you've provided no citations demonstrating bias. Not all stereotypes are untrue. In this case, most body shops in he English-speaking world are Indian companies employing almost all Indian nationals on the H-1b program. The lack of citations is a valid criticism, but the way to deal with that is to add them, not delete the article. That's how wikipedia works. Jeesh. I also note that you have not signed your comment here, which is a violation the Wikipedia terms of Service. Jeff.younger (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article heavily targets India and Indian companies for taking advantage of various situations over the last decade to body shop resources to make quick money. While the point that is missed out here is that Indian IT companies provided the companies in US and the world over the best of the IT services across various domains and technologies aiding these companies to be more competitive which obviously will result in higher figures in their bottom lines. Also, growth of these thousands of companies by lay off of a few local IT professionals (if at all the claim so made is true), would have created much more higher number of jobs in the same time frame across the organizations to meet the growing needs of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenoyshrikants (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Body shopping in IT originated during 1996-1999 where there was huge demand for people with Mainframe, COBOL and related technology skills to prevent systems being affected by the Y2K bug." is definitely factually incorrect. The term "Bodyshopping" was applied to computer programmers available on a fixed-term assignment basis at least as early as 1977 (and probably years earlier than that). Dataskil Ltd. and Data Logic were particularly noted as 1970s computer consultancies that "bodyshopped" their COBOL and FORTRAN programmers nationally (as contrasted with internationally). So yes, the term is historically tied to the IT (formerly DP or "computing") industry, but it has not been limited to international trade nor to India in particular. Even as some of the more egregious may indeed have involved expatriates from Asia - but this is true of employment and of contracting in other fields (non-IT) too. Correction and rewrite in a more neutral tone is needed. Obviously opinions will differ as to the politics of bodyshopping, the article needs to state both sides neutrally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.253.47 (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was working in IBM ~2000 and there was much discussion about the cultural need to move away from bodyshopping (ie selling 400 hours of consultancy or 3 devs for 3 months) and on to selling actual results / value add. The wider context showed this was something that the speakers believed IBM had been doing for many years.

The current article may be 'The rise of India' or 'Bodyshopping in the 2000s' but yes, the term and practice is very long standing.

To me 'bodyshopping' as JUST you're are buying or selling 'person-time' units rather then X or Y service or result. 46.208.44.9 (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Layout

Layout and organisation is poor, and information is poorly balanced

Re: Neutrality

Quite a bit of time has elapsed since the request for a neutrality check was made, and there doesn't seem to have been any real movement on the issue in either direction. In light of this, I've removed the template regarding neutrality in exchange for citing a news report backed up with a government report citing that a substantial percentage of immigrant labor is in fact computer related and primarily from India (although not necessarily with any overlap), at least for the period cited (2011 and 2012 in the report, though only 2012 in the text cited). I hope this helps. 24.6.187.181 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)