Volume
3, No. 1, February 2003
New Economy Information Service E-Bulletin
| |
|
In this issue:
| |
John Monks, General Secretary of the British Trades Union Congress (TUC), came to Washington just after New Year's to explain the strategic experiment many TUC member unions are undertaking with business/labor partnerships and cooperation in education and training. His attentive audience, which included a number of figures from America's top labor leadership, was brought together by the New Economy Information Service and the Albert Shanker Institute.
(For a full text of Monks's presentation, and the introduction and comments by Communications Workers' President Morton Bahr, see the NEIS web site.)
Monks began by summing up the plight of all who promote workers' education: "It is about the least sexy subject you can ever put on the agenda of a trade union meeting. And 'lifelong learning' may be the most deadly phrase I have ever heard: only one level up from a life sentence at San Quentin. Think of yourself as a kid who did not do too well at school, and who was very relieved to escape into the world of work. Then somebody comes along and says, 'Have I got a great idea for you: lifelong learning.' "
Nevertheless, by his description, British labor is now eye-deep in "life-long learning."
Monks described the battered state of Britain's unions at the end of the 1990s, after a decade of industrial combat under two bitter antagonists, Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Arthur Scargill of the Miners' Union. The TUC dusted itself off and went out to re-assess what union members wanted the leadership to do. Opinion polls and conversations with the rank-and-file produced some surprising conclusions. Union members not only wanted job security and better pay, they also wanted their employers' respect and improved skills. Respect even finished ahead of better pay.
TUC leaders also learned that in spite of a decade of industrial conflict there were still many good union/employer relationships in Britain. But, Monks noted, "we did not celebrate the good agreement; we celebrated the strike, we celebrated the conflicts."
This led the unions to a new emphasis on partnership and skills development. Monks was careful to point out that "partnership is not the partnership between a man and his dog. It is a relationship of equals." Such partnerships, he contends, have been established with a number of major employers: Barclays Bank, TESCO, Ford/Jaguar and the baking industry.
These partnerships have produced many joint programs in which unions and employers help workers both with basic education and vocational skills. Britain's Labour government has created a Union Learning Fund to supplement contributions from unions and employers, and is now requiring large employers to allow union representatives paid time to assist workers wishing to improve their competence.
The TUC believes this strategy has improved its relations with some employers, helped in the development of union staff, and benefited its image with sectors of the public. Traditional union strategies are still needed -- organizing campaigns and sometimes strikes -- but in some circumstances unions can benefit by showing employers how they can help the company succeed. Tensions can arise within unions -- and within the broader labor movement -- between cooperation and a more adversarial approach, Monks conceded. But, he argued, "in a labor market as complex as today's, you nee a variety of approaches.”
CWA President Morton Bahr, whose union has been at the forefront of skills development and education here in the U.S., argued that union efforts in this area are a way to reach out to "workers in the so-called New Economy, where traditional ways of organizing do not always resonate." He pointed out that a joint educational program established in the telecommunications industry has "survived strikes, lockouts, all sorts of disputes, because…neither side has been willing to jeopardize it."
|
|
|
The Global Labor Market: 1. The impact of immigration on the U.S. economy has been underestimated. According to research from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, "the influx of foreign immigrants during the 1990s has had a staggering – and heretofore unexamined – impact on the growth of the U.S. labor force." This study of census data finds that immigrants accounted for half of new workers and played a critical role in U.S. economic growth over the past decade. Over a third of the new immigrants were employed in blue-collar occupations, but nearly one in four held a technical, managerial or professional job. They were concentrated in manufacturing, retail trade, business, personal and entertainment services. They also have an above average share of jobs in engineering, computer science and physical science. But one likely consequence of September 11 will be tighter restrictions on such immigration.
2. Recruitment of foreign workers drains capacity abroad. In his State of the Union speech President Bush announced a $15 billion program to combat AIDS in Africa. Meanwhile, CBS
60 Minutes
reports that a major effort is underway to recruit South Africa's English-speaking nurses to come to work in staff-short hospitals here in the U.S. Similar campaigns are underway in Ireland, India and the Philippines. The U.S. nursing shortfall is expected to worsen over the next 20 years, as our aging population needs more help while the current nursing population (average age of 45) retires. Fewer Americans are expected to go into the field because its high stress and comparatively low pay.
3. Foreign productive capabilities can be tapped out. Wired Magazine
describes India as "poised to become the back office to the world." But a shortage of middle and senior-level managers is reaching crisis levels in India. With its well-educated, English-speaking and cheap workforce, India has attracted a large proportion of outsourced IT jobs: software code writing, call centers, telesales, consulting and other support services. These booming sectors are forecast to employ over 2 million people -- over 30,000 are currently employed at call centers alone. But, even with an economic downturn, a shortage, of experienced managers has developed. As in the U.S., many Indian companies are poaching from others that provide training. Kirhan Karnik, president of the National Association of Software and Service Companies, India's largest IT industry association says "Companies need to invest a lot more in training people, since hiring from competition will not help to grow the industry." 4. U.S. Government privatization may invigorate the private sector---somewhere else. The private sector has been exporting its data entry and "back-office" jobs for many years. But as cash-strapped governments in the U.S. turn more to outsourcing, even more American jobs may end up overseas. New York City hired a US-based firm to enter and manage data for tickets on its environmental violations. But the work was actually done in Ghana, at least until a front-page New York Times story spooked the company. ("In New York Tickets, Ghana Sees Orderly City," Robert F. Worth, NYT, July 22, 2002) The Times also reported that a New Jersey state senator discovered that a welfare and food stamp contractor had moved its customer service center to Bombay from Wisconsin. ("India is Regaining Contracts with U.S.," Saritha Rai, NYT December 25, 2002). 5. Labor market tensions can feed foriegn policy woes. Columnist Anne Applebaum notes that out of debate about Iraq in recent weeks "…a clearer definition of 'New Europe' begins to emerge. Britain, Italy, Spain, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, the Czech Republic: Perhaps not coincidentally, these are all countries that have recently undergone (or are undergoing) economic liberalization, privatization and labor-market reforms that have brought their economies at least marginally closer to ours." They are also countries that have been more pro-American in foreign policy. Not all these countries are governed by free market conservatives. Tony Blair's Britain, for example, is trying to sustain British Labour's egalitarianism and close links to trades unions while reforming a rusty and ponderous welfare state. He and others among Europe's modernizers worry that the Rhineland Euros may be headed into a dead end. Some of this may explain the vehemence of French and German protest against the United States. Why have countries once considered rather cynical about international affairs suddenly become such hotblooded moralists? An element of the answer may lie in the stresses "Old Europe" faces as technology and globalization threaten its corporatist economies. Although these trends have had many disruptive effects in the U.S., most Americans so far have proved willing to "go with the flow." Europe has been far more rigid, but the struts are beginning to bend. Even labor and social democratic political leaders are beginning to bow to seemingly inevitable change: modifications in some health and retirement benefits, acceptance of second tier labor markets that have more flexibility but provide less job security, more open trade and immigration. One way to deflect the outcry this change often arouses is to find a scapegoat: those cowboy capitalist Americans. There are grounds for concern about the effects of pure laissez-faire capitalism. But it may prove dangerous for European politicians simply to bind oneself to the old order and castigate the Americans. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has not been able to bring GDP growth above 1%, or unemployment below 10%. His party took a severe beating in two critical state elections last Sunday.
The Washington Post reported that German conservatives believe that anti-Americanism has exhausted its usefulness. "'It especially pleases me [that Schroeder] was not successful a second time in exploiting the fears of people with populism regarding Iraq,' the conservatives' leader, Angela Merkel, said at a jubilant party headquarters in Berlin tonight. 'This is also a very important signal for our allies.' " The story went on to note that domestic reform may soon be on the way in Germany.
|
Davos and Porto Alegre: The Extremes Touch
These two events have increasingly become public relations extravaganzas that mirror image one another: they are in certain ways similar, and in others, opposites.
This year one notable similarity was their anti-Americanism.
Senator Joe Biden, a U.S. participant at the Davos Forum, described it as an occasion for "… the most uniform and significant anti-American sentiment I have ever encountered in my career of 30 years dealing with foreign leaders abroad. Not a single American diplomat, elected official, American journalist, businessman or labor leader would disagree…."
An
AP story from the Porto Alegre meeting reported that "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, facing protests at home, got an enthusiastic welcome after arriving at the World Social Forum to meet with sympathizers among 100,000 activists venting against American-style capitalism."
Inter Press Service News reported that Noam Chomsky and Indian novelist Arundathi Roy packed Porto Alegre's Gigantinho stadium and "delivered lines that had the crowd in raptures given the 'evil one' on their minds – the U.S. government and its grand designs of empire building."
Back in its early days the World Social Forum adopted a
Charter of Principles. Point One declared that the gatherings were organized for the benefit of "groups and movements of civil society opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism." But that neo-Marxism has steadily morphed into anti-Americanism and opposition to U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. U.S. pretensions to support democracy are dismissed as deceptions.
The octogenarian President of the Davos Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, is not one to overlook an opportune development. He excused himself from the financiers and corporate chiefs for a moment to belittle any differences with the chanting crowds in Brasil. "I have one just one word to Porto Alegre," he effusively told an IPS reporter, "We are the same. Both events, in principle, have the same objectives. That is to create a better world."
U.S. Labor and Iraq
American labor is engaging the debate about intervention in Iraq. Last week AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and British TUC General Secretary John Monks sent a joint letter
to President Bush and Prime Minister Blair on the eve of their meeting at Camp David. The letter urges additional time for UN inspections and more effort for building coalitions. However, it does not make military action depend on authorization from the UN Security Council.
A new grass roots campaign has also gotten underway, aimed at AFL-CIO affiliates and its state and central bodies, that seeks to move the national federation toward a stronger anti-war stance. On January 11th some 100 labor and allied activists met in Chicago to establish US Labor Against the War (USLAW).
The group's statement rejects any military action in Iraq, even if the UN has approved such a step, on the grounds that war hurts workers' interests.
One of the organizers of the Chicago meeting, Bob Muehlenkamp, an aide to former Teamsters' President Ron Carey, urges grass roots labor activists also to participate in a new "Keep America Safe" campaign. This group holds that Saddam can be disarmed entirely through "legal diplomatic means." It includes the National Council of Churches, NOW, the NAACP and other "mainstream" groups—and appears to have been created to enable such groups to disentangle themselves from extremists who dominated many early anti-war activities.
Several international unions affiliated to the AFL-CIO have passed resolutions on Iraq. The
Communications Workers passed a resolution on January 22 arguing that an invasion of Iraq can be supported "only if it is sanctioned by the United Nations and enjoys the broad multinational support as existed in Desert Storm." A December 13 press release from the The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers states flatly that
"AFSCME Issues Resolution Condemning War on Iraq." It then quotes the more nuanced view of President Gerald W. McEntee: "We must assure that war is the last option, not the first, used to resolve this conflict."
The American Federation of Teachers takes a different tack. Its
January 23rd resolution endorses UN, NATO and Congressional resolutions demanding that Iraq disarm, while acknowledging that unilateral U.S. action against Saddam Hussein may ultimately be required. The AFT statement calls on the Bush Administration to give due attention to prospects for democracy in Iraq and elsewhere in the region, and faults it for exploiting the conflict for partisan ends. According to an AP write-up, "AFT president Sandra Feldman said the statement reflects the union's long history of supporting democratic movements, including the fight against dictatorship in Chile and efforts to overturn apartheid in South Africa."
|
|
This E-Bulletin is published by the New Economy Information Service
(NEIS), a project of the Foundation for Democratic Education. NEIS
provides information and reviews debate on the impact globalization
and technological change has on democracy at home and abroad.
Current interest focuses on how American workers can be equipped
with the skills they need for decent employment and economic
security, and on how the globalization of the economy and the
expansion of democracy can strengthen one another.
| |
|
Did
you miss us? | |
|
| |