Search News
For the Media
For media inquiries, call CWA Communications at 202-434-1168 or email comms@cwa-union.org. To read about CWA Members, Leadership or Industries, visit our About page.
In My Opinion: Making the Global Economy Work for Us All
I was invited recently to speak to the Council on Competitiveness as part of a panel discussion on the topic: "How can a country best prepare its workforce to meet the demands of a global economy? What are some of the solutions for the U.S. to maintain a competitive workforce while upholding our standard of living?"
That was a chance for me to point out that the very question of "preparing the workforce" for the upheaval of globalization implies that the burden of adapting is up to the individual worker - and that's plain wrong.
It ignores the fact that U.S. policy-makers have a responsibility to make sure that workers aren't thrown on the scrap heap, and that American living standards aren't destroyed, as we set the rules of the global marketplace.
At the core of this topic, of course, is the fact that rampant foreign outsourcing and shoveling of investment dollars to low-wage areas overseas is what U.S. companies mean when they speak of improving "competitiveness." And the discussion question rightly suggests that fostering this kind of competitiveness does impact wages and living standards here at home.
I tried to put a human face on the issue for the Council's largely corporate audience.
For instance, Janet Bernard is the 50-year-old president of her IUE-CWA local at a GE light bulb plant in Youngstown, Ohio. She is second generation at the GE plant, and she's seen employment drop from 400 to 95 people as their jobs have gone to Mexico, where wages are $2 an hour, and to China, where workers make 60 cents.
These losses are among the 2.3 million manufacturing jobs that have vanished since January 2001. And GE has just announced the opening of a $64 million technology center in Shanghai, signaling a shift of even more investment - and jobs - to China.
For years we were told not to worry about losing our industrial base, because there would be plenty of good new jobs created in high-tech and information-based services to replace this work. Workers like Janet Bernard would merely have to get some retraining and they'd be just fine.
What happened? Ask Clarissa Davila, a 32-year-old mother of three who lost her job as a service rep when AT&T closed its San Antonio call center and sent the work to India. As a result, Clarissa, a cancer patient in remission, joined the ranks of 43.6 million Americans without health insurance.
As for the high-tech promise, take the case of Natasha Humphries, a Stanford graduate who worked for seven years as a quality assurance manager making Palm Pilots in California's Silicon Valley. This CWA member was laid off last August after being sent to India to train her replacement. She and 13 fired co-workers are still looking for work as Palm's outsourcing continues.
The reality is that all of these Information Age jobs are easily exportable. Outsourcing is the corporate rage today, and it's even easier to shift information-based technical and service jobs to areas such as India, China, Russia and the Philippines than it is to move manufacturing processes.
At risk are not only customer service and business "back office" jobs, but also highly skilled computer programming, IT and telecom network design and engineering work, and even the functions of radiologists who interpret CT scans.
At least 3.3 million more white collar jobs will be outsourced by 2015, according to a widely quoted estimate by Forrester Research. However, researchers at UC Berkeley now think that figure is low, and they say that 14 million jobs are at risk.
This trend poses a serious threat to American economic growth and the living standards of our people, and it's one that only government leadership can address. However, government policy lately has presented more problems than solutions.
From labor's standpoint, here are some of the policy changes that are needed:
That was a chance for me to point out that the very question of "preparing the workforce" for the upheaval of globalization implies that the burden of adapting is up to the individual worker - and that's plain wrong.
It ignores the fact that U.S. policy-makers have a responsibility to make sure that workers aren't thrown on the scrap heap, and that American living standards aren't destroyed, as we set the rules of the global marketplace.
At the core of this topic, of course, is the fact that rampant foreign outsourcing and shoveling of investment dollars to low-wage areas overseas is what U.S. companies mean when they speak of improving "competitiveness." And the discussion question rightly suggests that fostering this kind of competitiveness does impact wages and living standards here at home.
I tried to put a human face on the issue for the Council's largely corporate audience.
For instance, Janet Bernard is the 50-year-old president of her IUE-CWA local at a GE light bulb plant in Youngstown, Ohio. She is second generation at the GE plant, and she's seen employment drop from 400 to 95 people as their jobs have gone to Mexico, where wages are $2 an hour, and to China, where workers make 60 cents.
These losses are among the 2.3 million manufacturing jobs that have vanished since January 2001. And GE has just announced the opening of a $64 million technology center in Shanghai, signaling a shift of even more investment - and jobs - to China.
For years we were told not to worry about losing our industrial base, because there would be plenty of good new jobs created in high-tech and information-based services to replace this work. Workers like Janet Bernard would merely have to get some retraining and they'd be just fine.
What happened? Ask Clarissa Davila, a 32-year-old mother of three who lost her job as a service rep when AT&T closed its San Antonio call center and sent the work to India. As a result, Clarissa, a cancer patient in remission, joined the ranks of 43.6 million Americans without health insurance.
As for the high-tech promise, take the case of Natasha Humphries, a Stanford graduate who worked for seven years as a quality assurance manager making Palm Pilots in California's Silicon Valley. This CWA member was laid off last August after being sent to India to train her replacement. She and 13 fired co-workers are still looking for work as Palm's outsourcing continues.
The reality is that all of these Information Age jobs are easily exportable. Outsourcing is the corporate rage today, and it's even easier to shift information-based technical and service jobs to areas such as India, China, Russia and the Philippines than it is to move manufacturing processes.
At risk are not only customer service and business "back office" jobs, but also highly skilled computer programming, IT and telecom network design and engineering work, and even the functions of radiologists who interpret CT scans.
At least 3.3 million more white collar jobs will be outsourced by 2015, according to a widely quoted estimate by Forrester Research. However, researchers at UC Berkeley now think that figure is low, and they say that 14 million jobs are at risk.
This trend poses a serious threat to American economic growth and the living standards of our people, and it's one that only government leadership can address. However, government policy lately has presented more problems than solutions.
From labor's standpoint, here are some of the policy changes that are needed:
- National health care reform. Our current health care system increases labor costs by about one-third, making U.S. products non-competitive with those of Europe and Canada, which have universal coverage.
- Trade policy reform. The Bush administration has been shy about taking action against dumping and other trade violations while pursuing trade agreements that will further spur the exodus of jobs.
- Tax policy that promotes full employment. An example of bad policy is the bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) that expands tax cuts for income earned abroad.
- Ending H1-B and L1 visa programs. With hundreds of thousands of jobless high-tech workers today, there is no legitimate reason to promote the importation of foreign IT labor.