Is there any US labor law which needs to be heeded by call centers staffed exclusively abroad?
<p>It has now become a staple of everyday life in America that many of the call center which we reach when we call large corporations are staffed by individuals abroad.  What is the legal basis for having workers outside of the jurisdiction of the US working (effectively) on the US territory in this manner?  These are people answering calls in a business setting.  So there is no question of whether they are working or rather just talking.  This is not a question of free speech.  It's a question of work authorization.  </p>

<p>Let me clarify why I think this is or isn't an issue.  If I go to hear a paid performance by a folk singer in the US, but he is not authorized to work in the US, he can't accept a payment for singing.  If I call him on the phone and ask him to sing, and he lives in the US, but he is not authorized to work in the US, he can't legally sing for money during that call.  But somehow if he is in a different country, then I can call him and he may be legally allowed to sing to me for money without being afoul of the US labor law.  This doesn't seem legal.  And yet this is what the call centers are doing.</p>

<p>I am not asking for <em>some</em> reasons why this is happening.  This is a question about the US law.  What is the reason why providing services to the people situated in the US is not considered working in the US from the perspective of the US law?</p>

<p><strong>EDIT</strong>: a number of answers seem to center around the idea that a person who is not present in the US cannot be considered to be working in the US, by law, simply because they are not physically present in the US.  </p>

<p>It is simply not the case that the US law cannot make such a consideration.  </p>

<p>There is a <strong>more general principle</strong> at play here.  An action performed outside of the US does not automatically become a non-US action.  For example, US citizens owe US Federal income taxes on all income earned abroad.   </p>

<p>The confusion maybe caused by a slight semantic distinction.  It is not automatically the case that work done outside of the US is not work in the US.  The fact remains that by servicing calls from numbers in the US, some work within the US gets done.  </p>

<p>Whether or not the US labor law considers this to be work in the US is a <strong>matter of law</strong>.  <strong>It's not a matter of fact</strong>. If it were a matter of fact, then no law could change it.  But it is certainly possible for a law to exist which would make such work to be considered work in the US.  So a law could (at least hypothetically) change it.  </p>

<p>Please, limit your answers to the law.</p>

<h2>Everything is allowed unless the law says it isn’t</h2>

<p>Common law systems like the USA are ‘exceptions based’ - the law permits everything except what it prohibits. So, your question is backwards - rather than looking for laws that allow it, you need to look for laws that prohibit, restrict or regulate it.</p>

<p>There are laws that regulate this but none that prohibit it.</p>

<p>The legal basis is simple. What is not forbidden is allowed.</p>

<p>Companies may have employees abroad. Thise are subject to foreign labor law. When those employees produce goods tjat are imported, additional rules apply to the imported goods (varies per product). When the employees provide services, additional service-specific rules could apply. The keyword is <em>could</em>. In the absence of specific rules for product advice and guidance, outsourced helpdesks only fall under Indian labor law. US minimum wage for instancd is irrelevant.</p>

<p>Offices of a Multi-national company are subject too the laws of the nation an office is currently branched in and are usually incorperated under the second nations' laws and not the first.  For example, if I start the company <em>Acme Co</em> in the United States, but I put my product complaint hot line in India, I'd set up a company <em>Acme India</em> in India for the purpose of my Indian business ventures.   Thus the company <em>Acme India</em> is an Indian company and subject to Indian but is owned by the same people who own <em>Acme co</em>, which is subject to U.S. Law and the India branch is not publicly available for stock options but the U.S. company is publicly traded and that income helps us expand.  That means so long as I follow India's employment laws, I can hire Indian workers and not American workers.</p>

<p>There are reasons I would want to do this.  In the case of call centers, it's a very low skill labor job that needs only a single (large) centralized location.   India is a buyer's market for labor and thus I can get butts in the seats for cheap (I can't sell hunting gear to coyotes if I can't make some return on investment, and coyotes love to buy lots of items for cheap...  I need to lower my overhead somehow).   The other reason India is specifically chosen is not only is labor cheap, but it's also the largest English Speaking language in the world (over 1 billion served... It's one of two official languages of the nation).</p>

<p>So they aren't working in the U.S. territory at all... they are working in India Territory... the can take service calls from anywhere in the world.  So what if the bulk of the calls are from overseas customers?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The person who speaks to me on the phone, while I am in the US, is effectively conducting operations on the US soil.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>One could see where this reasoning might come from. When you call a business on a US phone number you may expect that the person answering your call is on the US soil. At least this expectation was very reasonable before the VoIP era.</p>

<p>But the existence of that expectation/anticipation does not make it ought to be met by the business. The contract/terms of service do not provide that calls will be answered by persons with nice American pronunciation sitting at the offices on Wall Street. The business is free to contract whatever people around the world can answer the call and address the customers' queries.</p>

<p>The fact that you <em>expect</em> that the person answering your call would/should be on the US soil does not make them so. They are factually not, and neither they are directly employed by the US business. Therefore there is no need for them to be allowed to work in the US.</p>

united-states employment labor-law phonecall