Two decades ago, a handful of well-established Indian information technology companies began to change the global job landscape by persuading top executives in the Western world that their engineers and developers could deliver the same or better performance than local candidates—at a fraction of the cost. This marked the beginning of a significant shift in the IT industry, driven by economic efficiency and globalization.
These Indian firms strategically utilized labor laws, immigration policies, and business regulations in some of the world’s most developed nations to offer low-cost labor. They managed to “export” their workforce to countries like the United States through limited and highly regulated employment visas. This model, though economically attractive, sparked ethical concerns. The restricted nature of these visas has led to the workforce being labeled globally as “the new ‘Slavery of our time.’”
A labor study conducted in March 2023 underscores the dominance of Indian IT giants—Infosys, Wipro, HCL, TCS, and Tech Mahindra—who together control over 96 percent of the global technology services market. These companies offer outsourcing and consulting services to major global corporations such as Cisco, T-Mobile, Pepsi, Disney, Johnson & Johnson, Facebook, Google, BD, Estée Lauder, Boeing, Bank of America, and many more.
But how did these Indian companies gain access to such a powerful position in global corporate structures, especially in the United States?
Their success strategy lies in assembling elite sales teams composed of some of the country’s highest-performing sales professionals. These individuals are exceptionally connected and networked. Their primary mission is to target the wealthiest and most influential corporate executives in America—what the article describes as “the wealthiest and most powerful one percent of the one percent executives of America.” These are the heavyweights, the “real whales,” who hold the keys to enterprise-level decisions.
Once these high-performing sales professionals gain access to boardrooms, they present proposals featuring dramatically underpriced IT managed service contracts. These agreements often include taking over an entire company’s IT operations at costs far below market rates.
The takeover process is swift and discreet. The implementation team begins by replacing high-ranking and critical IT roles within the client company with Indian professionals. This workforce is carefully selected and managed through the traditional Indian caste structure, known as Jati. As the transition deepens, the native local workforce is gradually reduced to a bare minimum and eventually replaced almost entirely by Indian employees—many of whom are loyal to this caste-based hierarchy. This management approach raises questions about workplace equity and cultural homogenization in global corporations.
So what becomes of the Indian IT professionals working abroad on restrictive work visas?
Sadly, they are the ones paying the highest price. These individuals are often bound to their visa sponsors—typically the outsourcing firms—which severely limits their job mobility. They are subjected to long hours, including night shifts, weekends, and holidays, without additional compensation. This is not merely a tough work schedule; it’s coerced. If they refuse these conditions or fall out of line, they risk having their visas revoked, which would require them to return to India within a few weeks of termination.
Unfortunately, these are the people, these are the humans that are treated as slaves. It describes how visa holders are “forced to work overtime, nights, weekends, and even holidays at no extra pay, or otherwise their work visas could be canceled.”
This grim reality raises a broader concern: how does this industry model impact other professionals in the technology sector?
If you’re an IT professional, the implications are significant. It becomes extremely difficult to break into companies whose entire IT departments are controlled by Indian outsourcing firms. These companies, often show a hiring preference toward Indian candidates over equally qualified local professionals. “Most likely they will prefer to hire an Indian person over you,” it states.
Moreover, if you’ve had a negative experience or left one of these outsourcing firms on bad terms, your prospects become even dimmer. “Unfortunately and unfairly the doors of many companies around the world will be close to you,” the article warns. This effectively creates a form of labor monopoly that excludes outside talent and punishes dissent.
So, is it fair to have such a dominant and exclusive labor structure in place, particularly one that marginalizes local professionals while placing migrant workers in borderline exploitative conditions?
That question remains deeply controversial. While companies enjoy reduced costs and streamlined IT services, the human and ethical cost is becoming increasingly hard to ignore. The outsourcing model may have delivered short-term savings and growth, but it has also led to long-term consequences—professional displacement, monopolistic practices, and a new kind of labor exploitation under the guise of visa dependency.
As this system continues to evolve, the global workforce is left to grapple with one unavoidable question: Should cost-efficiency come at the expense of equity, diversity, and human dignity?