[netz] Article On IAM JOURNAL (fwd)

[Michael Gurstein]

For Clara

Mikeg

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:11:15 EDT
From: Louis Dequesa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [netz] Article On IAM JOURNAL

Hello Fellow Netizens:
The following is a copy of an article which I am in total agreement
with, which appears on the Spring 1998 issue of "IAM JOURNAL" (your
guess is as good as mine as to what "IAM"stands for).

   "BIG BUSINESS LIE"
   "MYTH OF THE OVERPAID AMERICAN"
 
  We hear the drumbeat every day:"U.S. workers earn too much
and produce too little. They've priced themselves out of the world
market. To compete, U.S. workers must make concessions".
 But the myth of the "overpaid American" collapses the minute
we look at wage and other benefits levels in other industrialized
lands.
 In 1996 (the most recent year for which figures are available)
U.S.ranked No.12 in the world in wages and benefits paid to production
workers according to the Dept.of Labor Bureau of Labor Standards 
(BLS).
 Far from leading the world, the U.S. hasn't even ranked among
the "TOP 10" highest paying nations since 1990, according to BLS
studies of hourly compensation costs in 28 industrial countries
across Asia, America and Europe. Indeed, U.S. workers' wages and
benefits, placed in the "TOP 5" internationally, only seven times
during the past 22 years.
 When the BLS looked at wages alone ("hourly direct pay"), U.S.
production workers ranked No.11 in the world in 1996 and finished
in the "Top 5" in only nine of the last 22 years. U.S.wages last
lead the world in 1985, when the U.S.tied with Norway.
 U.S.employers are ultra-cheap when it comes to benefits. The U.S.
ranked last in the world every year for the last 22 years in paid
vacations, holidays, leave time and other vital benefits, BLS figures
show. Japanese employers earmarked a world leading average of 26.7
percent of hourly compensation costs to worker benefits and services
in 1996, while U.S. companies spent only 6.4% for such purposes.

"CRYING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK"

  To hear Corporate America cry, you'd think business taxes are
eating them alive. But the U.S. business community has never-in the
past 22 years-ranked among the world's "TOP 5" most heavily taxed
industrial sectors, when the BLS compared labor and social insurance
taxes as a share of hourly compensation costs.
 The highest U.S.business ever ranked internationally was No.8
and the U.S. appeared in the "TOP-10" most heavily taxed business
sectors in only 6 of the past 22 years.
  U.S. business also has no reason to cry about worker 
productivity. Indeed, every year, since 1960, U.S. workers have 
produced more wealth, per capita, than any industrial workforce on
earth, two BLS studies show. (The much-vaunted Japanese workforce
lagged U.S. worker output by 31% during the past 36 years.
 U.S. workers also out-produced the world in two BLS studies
measuring wealth created per worker. In one study, U.S. workers
ranked No.1 in 29 of the past 36 years; in a second study, they
ranked No.1 in 32 of the past 36 years. In no year studied did the
U.S. worker output ranked below second in the world.

GLOBAL WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR PRODUCTION WORKERS IN MANUFACTURING,
1996: 
 
Germany...$31.87
Switzerland.. $28.34
Belgium...$26.07
Austria...$24.95
Norway$24.95
Sweden$24.56
Finland...$24.45
Denmark...$24.38
Netherlands...$23.33
Japan.$21.04
France$19.34
Italy.$18.08
U.S. .$17.74

Lou D.

Re: American Worker at a Crossroads

[Tom Walker]

Clara,

Perhaps you could give some background on the "American Worker at a
Crossroads Project" and on Bernard L. Hayes' area of interest and expertise.
This is, after all a Republican House subcommittee. Some of the language in
Bernard L. Hayes' invitation was, well, ambiguous:

"any government labor laws that stifle workplace practices." 

I visited the project website and found the following press release from the
ranking Democratic member of the committee, William L.Clay:

Clay Calls Republican Labor Plan a $1.4 Million Boondoggle
Real agenda is a Sneak Attack on Working Americans
July 9, 1997

"I am appalled that the Republican majority has hijacked $1.4 million of
public funds to pursue a devious, fully orchestrated campaign to attack
working Americans, labor unions, and the Department of Labor. The
Republicans spent weeks hatching this plan to raid public funds, then
revealed it at the last moment on July 8th so they could have it
rubber-stamped by the House
Oversight Committee. 

"Although the majority has tried to dress up their mission statement, the
real agenda is to pursue their extremist, anti-union agenda. The Republicans
are scheming to attack union dues as payback for labor union participation
in the 1996 elections. At the behest of powerful special interests, the
Republicans will try to undermine worker protections under OSHA, the
National Labor Relations Act, and the Davis Bacon Act-all at a taxpayer
expense. 

"This is a blatant waste of taxpayer money by the very people who repeatedly
decry such waste. Worse, it was railroaded through in the dead of night. I
join my Democratic colleagues in warning the Republicans that we will
closely scrutinize this misuse of public funds. This shameful attempt to
harass and intimidate the Department of Labor and labor unions will fail."


Regards, 

Tom Walker
^^^
Vancouver, B.C.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 669-3286 
^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/

Re: UK Employment zones: will they work? (fwd)

[Michael Gurstein]

A real difficulty with the degree of decentralization that is going on is
that success in employment creation in the current economy is going to
require more sophistication, more knowledge of the larger world
and larger economic forces, more capacity to link the local with the
regional, the national and the global rather than less.

The more decentralized decisions become, the less "worldly", the less
"plugged-in" (by and large) are going to be those who are making those
decisions.

Mikeg


  On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, peter stoyko wrote:

> 
> Greetings all...
> 
> Let me thank Michael Gurstein for his thoughtful response to my comments.
> It rings true to my ears.  Let me take this opportunity to add a few
> additional notes.
> 
> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>  
> > From what I can see, in Canada we have the worst of both worlds.  We have
> > national program stipulations which introduce absurd rigidities locally
> > (for us), and we have almost complete local decentralization which makes
> > us subject to the training and skill set of case officers and local
> > managers with no knowledge of or sensitivity towards any of the areas
> > where new opportunities for employment creation are emerging. (cf. my
> > recent posting on WiNS2000).
> 
> [snip] 
>  
> > The labour market in Canada is so regionally specific that national design
> > and even national standards make little sense.  What works or could work
> > in Cape Breton bares little or no relation to what could work in Southern
> > Ontario or rural Saskatchewan.  In that sense decentralization is useful.
> > But to have the degree of decentralization which has been recently
> > introduced while having virtually no capacity for research, analysis,
> > longer term planning, or staff upgrading is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> I tend to agree, for the (soon to be devolved) federal system is
> organised around two conflicting forces.  
> 
> On the one hand you have administrative decentralisation.  An Human
> Resources Development Canada official was bragging (at last summer's
> Social Policy Conference at Queen's) that HRDC programme administration is
> the second most decentralised in the country (after Quebec's).  The
> decision to decentralise in this way is informed (according to my
> interpretation of public servants' comments) by the fashionableness of
> "new public management's" decentralisation credo and programme evaluation
> evidence that suggests that decentralisation of active measures works
> better.  
> 
> But it is not totally decentralised, for on the other hand you have a high
> level of policy-making centralisation.  This retention of decision-making
> power in the National Capital Region is informed by our Westminister
> model's policy-making centralisation convention (handmaden to politicians
> wanting new targeting) and the paradoxical desire, on the part of public
> servants, to implement more lessons from programme evaluations (of which
> they have accumulated over 25 years worth).  The result: the system
> Michael Gurstein describes in Cape Breton.
> 
> This is an important lesson for Blair, for a look at his government's
> administrative structures in the wake of the Next Steps reforms -
> according to Colin Campbell's interviews of British public servants -
> shows that this type of problem beleaguers the British state
> across-the-board. In other words, it is a state cut in half.  At the top
> you have policy wonks wanting to test new ideas all the time (e.g. Market
> Testing) and at the bottom you have management drones charged with the
> duty to "manage", but must continuously react to new demands coming from
> the centre. UK Employment Zones, to return to the original topic, are a
> reaction to this - more discretion to local managers.  Or are they a
> result of this, with all of the claw-backs and the promise of implementing
> success stories? This seems so very schizophrenic, and unfortuneatly
> for Blair, dangerously complicated.  
> 
> Thank you for your attention.
> 
> Cheers, Peter Stoyko
> 
> 
> 

Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair in the Management of Technological Change
Director:  Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN)
University College of Cape Breton, POBox 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2
Tel.  902-539-4060 (o)  902-562-1055 (h)  902-562-0119 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca

American Worker at a Crossroads

[Clara Horvath]

Hello everyone,

I've been lurking on this list for some time and enjoying the conversation.
I'd like to get some input from the members of the list on behalf of a
friend who will be testifying early next week before the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee, Education and Workforce Committee, of the House
of Representatives. The topic is the American Worker at the Crossroads
Project .


Please respond directly to him -- Bernard L. Hayes  [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
to me -- Clara Horvath [EMAIL PROTECTED]

My friend's invitation to testify provides the following framework:

> This hearing is designed to gather extensive information of how the
>American people and Congress must prepare to meet the challenges of a
>rapidly changing world.  In particular, I look forward to hearing your
>views and discussing your concerns on any government labor laws that
>stifle workplace practices.  I am also interested learning what  you
>believe would make the workplace more productive, worker-friendly, and
>what it will take to compete effectively in the next century and beyond.

>As you so appropriately and succinctly communicated in the December 12,
>1997 American Worker Project Roundtable in Silicon Valley, the
>Subcommittee believes it is now important to hear your live testimony
>and have it entered into the official record regarding such items as:
>
>1) Emerging trends and issues in the industry and the ramifications for
>the American workforce;
>
>2) The effect of federal regulations, programs, and laws on the American
>workplace;
>
>3) How new worker-management relationship structures, technological
>changes, a more diverse workforce, and globalization are bound to affect
>the American workplace; and
>
>4) An overview of the future American workplace.


Thanks for your help.

Clara

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Clara Horvath
CAREERWORKS
650-570-5880
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Re: UK Employment zones: will they work? (fwd)

[peter stoyko]

Greetings all...

Let me thank Michael Gurstein for his thoughtful response to my comments.
It rings true to my ears.  Let me take this opportunity to add a few
additional notes.

On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Michael Gurstein wrote:

[snip]
 
> From what I can see, in Canada we have the worst of both worlds.  We have
> national program stipulations which introduce absurd rigidities locally
> (for us), and we have almost complete local decentralization which makes
> us subject to the training and skill set of case officers and local
> managers with no knowledge of or sensitivity towards any of the areas
> where new opportunities for employment creation are emerging. (cf. my
> recent posting on WiNS2000).

[snip] 
 
> The labour market in Canada is so regionally specific that national design
> and even national standards make little sense.  What works or could work
> in Cape Breton bares little or no relation to what could work in Southern
> Ontario or rural Saskatchewan.  In that sense decentralization is useful.
> But to have the degree of decentralization which has been recently
> introduced while having virtually no capacity for research, analysis,
> longer term planning, or staff upgrading is a recipe for disaster.

I tend to agree, for the (soon to be devolved) federal system is
organised around two conflicting forces.  

On the one hand you have administrative decentralisation.  An Human
Resources Development Canada official was bragging (at last summer's
Social Policy Conference at Queen's) that HRDC programme administration is
the second most decentralised in the country (after Quebec's).  The
decision to decentralise in this way is informed (according to my
interpretation of public servants' comments) by the fashionableness of
"new public management's" decentralisation credo and programme evaluation
evidence that suggests that decentralisation of active measures works
better.  

But it is not totally decentralised, for on the other hand you have a high
level of policy-making centralisation.  This retention of decision-making
power in the National Capital Region is informed by our Westminister
model's policy-making centralisation convention (handmaden to politicians
wanting new targeting) and the paradoxical desire, on the part of public
servants, to implement more lessons from programme evaluations (of which
they have accumulated over 25 years worth).  The result: the system
Michael Gurstein describes in Cape Breton.

This is an important lesson for Blair, for a look at his government's
administrative structures in the wake of the Next Steps reforms -
according to Colin Campbell's interviews of British public servants -
shows that this type of problem beleaguers the British state
across-the-board. In other words, it is a state cut in half.  At the top
you have policy wonks wanting to test new ideas all the time (e.g. Market
Testing) and at the bottom you have management drones charged with the
duty to "manage", but must continuously react to new demands coming from
the centre. UK Employment Zones, to return to the original topic, are a
reaction to this - more discretion to local managers.  Or are they a
result of this, with all of the claw-backs and the promise of implementing
success stories? This seems so very schizophrenic, and unfortuneatly
for Blair, dangerously complicated.  

Thank you for your attention.

Cheers, Peter Stoyko

Re: UK Employment zones: will they work? (fwd)

[William Eric Perkins]

i

European Marches Against Unemployment

[Tom Walker]

marches97-info.eng
--

The European Marches Assizes Against Unemployment, Job Insecurity and 
Social Exclusion
Brussels, 18 and 19 April 1998

Final Motion 

Platform of European Demands against Unemployment, Job Insecurity and 
Social Exclusion


We are witnessing the systematic dismantelement of social protection and 
of public services, linked to dereglementation, and to the precarisation 
of jobs and salaries. 
Throughout Europe, Big Business is on the offensive making full use of 
both the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties. 
The struggles of the unemployed men and women have grown and with it 
increasing demands for the redistribution of wealth. These demands 
arising out their struggles must be listened to by the economic and 
political leaders at all levels of the decision making process, including 
the European Union.
Here are some of the more urgent demands that we have put forward to the 
unemployed, those in short-term contracts, wage-earners, and European 
citizens. In order to succeed, these demands need the combined forces of 
salaried workers and the jobless, in coordonnated joint struggles, that 
ignore borders.

* A income which will allow each and everyone to have a decent standard 
of living, without discrimination of age, sex or origin, or any other 
form of discrimination.
Profits have never stopped growing, while millions of people in Europe 
are increasingly living below the poverty line. We demand that everyone 
has the right to a guaranteed income in relation to the degree of wealth 
product by society as a whole.

* An immediate and massive reduction in working hours : for a 35 hour 
week throughout Europe, decreasing to 32 hours and down to 30 hours per 
week, with job creation, without loss of salary, or purchasing power, or 
flexibility or annualisation of working hours.
In order to generate jobs, this reduction of working hours must cover all 
types of businesses, and all economic sectors and must be reinforced by 
legislative measures and directives which reproduce and represent the 
results of their struggles. 

* For a massive new jobs that are socially, culturally and ecologically 
useful with decent salaries and including social gains already acquired.

*Total opposition to any attempt to introduce workfare, under the cover 
of "return to work" and total rejection of "employability" because both 
these measures are a form of coercion to force the unemployed to take 
jobs with unacceptable working conditions.

* Total opposition against all forms of precarisation of salaries, 
whether in the public sector or private sector, total opposition to the 
imposition of part-time work, to overtime and to sackings. 

* Total opposition of all forms of discrimination which prevent equal 
access to jobs and salaries to women. This will mean, amongst other 
things, the development of collective structures, for example the 
responsibility for looking after very young children.

* Call for European harmonisation of existing Social Rights and for our 
demands to be aligned on the most advantageous rights for men and women :

 -  Right to health-care;
 -  Right to housing;
 -  Right to education, culture and training courses;
 -  Right to an income, employment and training courses for the young;
 -  Right to transport and access to all forms of communication
 -  Right to utilities :  electricity, gaz and water...
 -  Right to a retirement pension;
 -  Equality between men and women;
 -  Free circulation of people;
 -  Opposition to work by children, exploitation of immigrant workers in 
the undeclared work;
 -  Opposition to insecure jobs  ...

* For the right of recognition of unemployed associations and 
organisations, for the respect of workers' rights to form trade unions, 
to control their own work situation and to join forces in struggles.

* For a democratic Europe that is open and caring, ecological, without 
discrimination, racism, national chauvinism or borders, where there is 
equal civic and political rights for all inhabitants and residency 
documents for all.


The struggle against unemployment, job insecurity and social exclusion 
has highlighted the terrible social injustices of a capitalist society 
where an extreme minority dominates all aspects of life for the sake of 
the profit motive.
Yes, despite attempts to present the current situation as inevitable, 
despite calls for patience and submission, we want to convey, via our 
struggles and our demands, a message of hope and of new perspectives : 
the Abolition of unemployment, plans for a society based on liberty and 
social justice, for a Europe and a World where politics and economics are 
at the service of men and women, rather than the other way round, and 
where all citizens can participate in major decisions effecting their 
daily lives.

The European Assizes against unemployment, job insecurity and social 
exclusion.
Brussels.
19 April 1998


Marches Europeennes
104 rue des Couronnes 
75020 Pari

Re: Bank mergers

[Ed Weick]

The following, from this mornings Globe and Mail, is the best explanation
yet for why banks feel they are not big enough and feel compelled to merge.

Ed Weick

B of M eases stand on welfare clients
Contract with Toronto will be extended
BY MARGARET PHILP
Social Policy Reporter
Globe and Mail, April 23, 1998

TORONTO - The Bank of Montreal has retreated from the tough line it was
taking with Toronto over cashing welfare cheques.

At a time when the banking industry is making overtures to low-income
people, the bank was pushing proposals that social-service officiaLs said
would treat people on welfare like second-class customers.

A report this week from Shirley Hoy, Toronto's commissioner of community and
neighbourhood services, said that when its contract with the city runs out a
the end of the month, the bank wanted a new six-month deal that would
restrict the number of branches where welfare recipients without bank
acoounts could cash cheques, and also raise the monthly service charges
billed to the city by 25 per cent.

"There is very much a differential treatment of this client group," Ms. Hoy
said in an interview. "The pe ople who can least afford it and are least
able to deal with the banking institutions are the ones who have the poorest
service."

But late yesterday afternoon, a day after a spokesman described how costly
and administratively tricky the bank has found serving a clientele whose
cheques all arrive on the same day, the bank decided to leave the terms of
the existing agreement intact when it renews the contract.

"We have now decided to leave everything as it was prior to the contract
expiring, since it's only going to be a six- or seven-month extension," Bank
of Montreal spokesman Joe Barbera said. "The feeling was, `Wouldn't it be
simpler to leave it as it was?"'

The bank had wanted to raise the service charges for cashing welfare cheques
- a bill covered by the cityfrom $48,000 a month ($5 a cheque) to $60,000 a
month.

As for limiting the branches serving people on welfare without accounts, Mr.
Barbera said city officials had quite understandably drawn a false
conclusion from the murky wording of a letter issued by the bank listing 13
branches. He said the letter never intended to suggest those branches were
the oNy ones that would cash cheques for welfare recipients.

The six-month extension is needed to tide the amalgamated Toronto over until
it can choose a financial institution to provide all the city's banking
services.

The squabble between the bank and Toronto officials erupted as Canada's big
chartered banks are collectively starting to reckon with a long-standing
problem of policies that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has criticized
as baldly discriminat  against poor people.

While almost all Canadians have bank accounts, a disproportionate number of
people who collect welfare do without them - often after being  turned away
at the wicket by teller; following bank policy.

On Tuesday, Mr. Barbera said the bank was trapped with a "dilemma' around
cashing welfare cheques.

When it signed the deal, the bank did not anticipate the crush of welfare
recipients lining up to cash cheques on the first few days of every month,
exhausting the cash inventory at some branches. Not only are welfare cheques
issued all at once, but rival banks started sending their customers on
welfare to the Bank of Montreal, he said.

"There has to be a huge amount o1 cash in inventory and staff in the
branches to service the accounts, and we've had real problems with that,"
Mr. Barbera said. "There's a real cost financially, a real cost from the
standpoint of security for those peak days. That would lead us to say `Can
we pick branches where there is a high amount of this business as op· posed
to havlng to scatter it everywhere?'" etc., etc.

Re: UK Employment zones: will they work? (fwd)

[D S Byrne]

On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Eva Durant wrote:

> I admit I did not follow this thread
> closely, what I'd like to know, where the EXTRA
> jobs are coming from for these targeted
> people?
> 
> Eva



Exactly the point made by Ken Clarke - the former Tory Chancellor of the
Exchequer and a Keynesian, even if on the extreme right of that position.
He pointed out that the present Chancellor - a gloomy Scotch nerd called
Brown - had produced a budget in which there was no macro-economic content
whatsoever. The only UK macro-economic tool still available was
determination of interest rates - a one club golf bag - but Brown had
given this club away to the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of
England, the membership of which includes a US citizen who is a former CIA
employee ! Far from there being any kind of Keynesian stimulation of
demand, the policies of New 'Labour' are so attractive to international
capital that the pound is rising inexorably and the result is that
exporting manufacturing industries are laying of labour. At the same time
local authorities, which could very usefully create lots of rather good
jobs in social care and environmental management, are under cash
constraints (those imposed by Clarke and endorsed by Brown, Clarke is no
angel here) and are actually reducing their employment. The subsidies
being paid to employers to take on the unemployed are quite likely to lead
to a churning of the bottom end of the labour market with no net increase
in employment whatsoever. 

David Byrne
Dept of Sociology and Social Policy
University of Durham
Elvet Riverside
New Elvet
Durham DH1 3JT

0191-374-2319
0191-0374-4743 fax

> 
> 
> > 
> 
> 

bootstrap jujitsu

[Tom Walker]

http://www.heritage.org/heritage/library/categories/theory/fyi102.html

Mark Wilson and Angela Antonelli of the conservative Heritage Foundation
offer a plan for "How to Raise Take-Home Pay without Destroying Jobs." As
far as I can see there's only one problem with the proposal -- it calls on
the government to enact policies. Why is it that "free enterprise"
ideologues always come up with things for the government to do?

Wouldn't it be refreshing if the people who profess a profound distrust of
government intervention would, for once, think of something that
corporations and wealthy people could do instead of obsessing about what
government must do? According to Heritage Foundation reasoning, however,
corporations and the rich are passive tax avoiders who adapt their economic
behavior in response to whatever fickle loopholes the tax system offers
them. C'mon, guys, don't these rich folks have any character?

Here's a surprise for Heritage -- there is something corporations can do to
reduce taxes and government spending, raise take-home pay, create jobs and
strengthen their own bottom line without so much as a howdy-do from
government. Will they do it? That depends on whether corporations are
responsible, productive enterprises or just state-subsidized funding
conduits for right-wing think tanks and lobbiests. (CEO's who want to find
out how can contact me at the email address below).

Wilson and Antonelli focus on the "tax wedge" between the employer's payroll
costs and the take home pay of workers. They are right that the size of that
wedge is oppressive. But ironically, many employers could substantially
reduce the impact of the tax wedge on their own payrolls by negotiating more
time off for experienced workers at the top of the pay scale and hiring new
employees at good, entry level wages. 

An employer who offered a package of reduced work hours at a higher hourly
rate -- say a 20% reduction in hours combined with a 10% hourly raise --
would have lots of takers. A recent study by the Families and Work Institute
found that nearly two-thirds of respondents would like to reduce their work
hours by an average of 11 hours a week, if they could. That is to say that
instead of whining about the wedge, employers could leverage the wedge into
a competitive advantage.

"Reduce the workweek??!!!" I can imagine conservatives gasping in horror,
"that would increase payroll costs and harm competitiveness." Wrong. If one
takes into account only the fixed-cost, per employee portion of the wedge,
reducing the workweek would increase cost per hour. However, as Wilson and
Antonelli suggest, there is an opposite and often larger income tax
"anti-wedge" that, because of its progressivity makes marginal hours of work
more expensive. Taken together, these the wedge and anti-wedge make the cost
per hour question very much a matter of other, local factors: pay increment
scales, average seniority etc.

Of course, conservatives would rather have a flat tax and eliminate
government mandated benefits. That is to say, conservatives would rather
lobby government to impose tax changes than make the best of whatever policy
is in place. To do the latter would require more faith in free enterprise
than conservatives can muster.



Regards, 

Tom Walker
^^^
Vancouver, B.C.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 669-3286 
^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/

Boom in US Economy is Credited To Internet (fwd)

[Michael Gurstein]

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:07:37 EDT
From: Curt Priest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Community and Civic Network discussion list
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Boom in US Economy is Credited To Internet

"Internet traffice is doubling every 100 days, producing
tenfold annual increass and the biggest, fastest revolution
in the history of shopping, says an official US government report."

from The Daily Telegraph 4/22/98

























_
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Re: UK Employment zones: will they work? (fwd)

[Eva Durant]

I admit I did not follow this thread
closely, what I'd like to know, where the EXTRA
jobs are coming from for these targeted
people?

Eva


> 
> I would like to share my concerns about an apparent contradiction in
> the UK Employment Zones approach.
> 
> Reform of active labour market measures in Canada and the UK in the 1990s
> has involved increases in targetting (but not money), by which I mean the
> number of discrete programmes aimed at those with distinctive needs
> (youth, the long term unemployed, older labour force participants, etc).
> 
> This creates a rigidity when administered on a regional basis.  When
> administered at the local or regional level, the administrators have a
> specific budgetary allotment for, say, youth, and a different allotment
> for the aged, both of which are pretty much set.  If one locale (zone) has
> more youth unemployment than unemployment among older workers, too bad;
> they must spend the allotment as budgeted and programmed. In this context,
> the UK Employment Zone proposals (if I'm reading the proposals correctly)
> show promise, for they allow localities the flexibility to reallocate
> funding according to needs - budgetary decentralisation with a
> small measure of local policy discretion.
> 
> But wait, what about all these other conditions?  Those over 25 and are
> classified as long(ish)-term unemployed (over 1 year) are targeted - a
> slight claw-back of decentralization.  A minimum amount must be spend on
> certain key targeted programmes - a restiction on policy making
> capacity of the zone.  Project success stories will be
> replicated across Britain, whether they are suitable to other regions or
> not - a reduction in local flexibility.  And what happens when the central 
> governments wants to target another class of labour market participant?
> Budgetary centralisation and a reduction in local policy discretion,
> that's what.  
> 
> In fact, this is the cycle that has taken place in Canada:
> (1.) demands for more flexibility come from local programme offices of
> the federal ministry; (2.) budgetary allotments between programmes are
> made more flexible; (3.) new demands emerge for another targeted
> programme, such as youth; (4.) central level of government demands
> such-and-such amount spent on the new initiative (or package of
> iniatiatives), and local flexibility is reduced.  With the Blair
> government embarking on an on-going redesign of the welfare state, the
> likelihood of new targeting measures seems very high. 
> 
> What this boils down to is one question: are these local
> experiments to create ideas for redesigning of the larger system, or are
> they pilot projects in decentralisation of the entire system?  (Surely,
> the maintenance of a small and perminent cadre of priviledged zones is
> politically unsustainable as backbenchers lobby behind the scenes for
> special status for their own constituencies.) This is an either-or
> proposition, each with its own perils, for making compromises between the
> two creates an overly complex system - a state that active measures
> sometimes seem prone to gravitate towards. The Australian scenario would
> be the risk: programme targeting becoming so complex and success so
> difficult to monitor that, eventually, those held accountable get fed up
> with the unwieldliness and chop the system down to size.
> 
> Thank you for your attention.
> 
> Cheers, Peter Stoyko
> 
> 
> -
> 
>  Peter Stoyko
> 
> Carleton UniversityTel:  (613) 520-2600 ext. 2773
> Department of Political ScienceFax:  (613) 520-4064
> B640 Loeb Building V-mail:   (613) 731-1964
> 1125 Colonel By Drive  E-mail:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ottawa, Canada, K1S 5B6Internet: http://www.carleton.ca/~pstoyko
> 
> --
> 
> On Tue, 21 Apr 1998, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 
> > 
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:51:41 +0100 GMT
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: UK Employment zones: will they work?
> > 
> > UK Employment zones: will they work?
> > Zones d'Emploi britanniques: marcheront-ils?
> > 
> > The Blairite solution to poor prospects for employment is to identify parts 
> > of Britain where these problems cluster and then concentrate resources. 
> > Smart. Will the policy work? 
> > 
> > Employment zones are areas where the usual national programmes for 
> > the unemployed will be ditched in favour of running trials of local 
> > initiatives. The five areas chosen to pilot the scheme all have high 
> > concentrations of the long-term jobless.
> > 
> > "Employment Zones will give communities the flexibility to devise local 
> > solutions which best meet local needs," said the Employment Minister, 
> > Andrew Smith, when he invited bids for zo

Re: Boom in US Economy is Credited To Internet (fwd)

[Tom Walker]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?


>"Internet traffice is doubling every 100 days, producing
>tenfold annual increass and the biggest, fastest revolution
>in the history of shopping, says an official US government report."
>
>from The Daily Telegraph 4/22/98

Regards, 

Tom Walker
^^^
Vancouver, B.C.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 669-3286 
^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/

Re: UK Employment zones: will they work? (fwd)

[Michael Gurstein]

My compliments to Peter Stoyko for his very acute observations... I'ld
like to add a few comments based on my current and direct experience at
the "labour market measures 'coalface'" here in Cape Breton and rural 
Atlantic Canada where the needs are the most acute and the options are the
most limited. 

On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, peter stoyko wrote:

> Greetings all...
> 
> I would like to share my concerns about an apparent contradiction in
> the UK Employment Zones approach.
> 
> Reform of active labour market measures in Canada and the UK in the 1990s
> has involved increases in targetting (but not money), by which I mean the
> number of discrete programmes aimed at those with distinctive needs
> (youth, the long term unemployed, older labour force participants, etc).

Most of the current Canadian government labour market measures appear to
be focussed on youth (19-30).  There are a variety of internship, job
creation, and employment support programs with that age category as a
stipulated condition.

There are several problems with this from my particular context.  The
most notable is that we have a significant lack of unemployed folks in
that age category as most have left the region (and most other rural
areas) seeking education, training and employment opportunities in more
urban areas.  That doesn't mean that we don't have unemployment (still at
20% or so, about the worst in the country) but that our unemployed are in
the 30-50 age category--laid off steelworkers, coalminers or fishery
related workers.

The absurdity thus is that we can't "fill our quota" for some of these
programs because we don't have enough unemployed in the right categories.
We received some funds to develop an occupational health and safety (OHS)
web-site.  We decided to link it into OHS at Sysco the local steel plant
which continues to verge over the edge of bankruptcy and closure.  We
wanted to hire (and train in the technical skills required for the
project) currently unemployed steelworkers (and we had suitable candidates
lined up).  We were told that we would be in violation of the contract if
we were to hire these folks (who apart from anything else had the content 
skills we were looking for).  Rather we had to search around for young
people to put on the contract even though several of them were already
employed at least part-time doing other things.  I had half a mind to
pursue this absurdity through the Human Rights (agism) channel and would
still do so if someone wanted to offer some free legal support.
 
> This creates a rigidity when administered on a regional basis.  When
> administered at the local or regional level, the administrators have a
> specific budgetary allotment for, say, youth, and a different allotment
> for the aged, both of which are pretty much set.  If one locale (zone) has
> more youth unemployment than unemployment among older workers, too bad;
> they must spend the allotment as budgeted and programmed. In this context,
> the UK Employment Zone proposals (if I'm reading the proposals correctly)
> show promise, for they allow localities the flexibility to reallocate
> funding according to needs - budgetary decentralisation with a
> small measure of local policy discretion.
> 
The reality of decentralization is even more dislocating than you are
suggesting.  In practise most work support program funding has been
decentralized to local offices and individual case workers.  What this
means is that any project or proposal which is broader than the
catchment of a local case officer is almost impossible to pursue and
similarly any project which is more skill intensive than the experience
or training of the individual case officer (viz. anything beyond unskilled
labour for the most part) is almost impossible to get supported.  Both of
these limitations has the direct result of eliminating financial support
for employment development for virtually any knowledge or skill intensive
activity (ie. the roughly 40% of the economy where virtually all
new jobs are being created) without the most intensive of lobbying. 
 
  
> But wait, what about all these other conditions?  Those over 25 and are
> classified as long(ish)-term unemployed (over 1 year) are targeted - a
> slight claw-back of decentralization.  A minimum amount must be spend on
> certain key targeted programmes - a restiction on policy making
> capacity of the zone.  Project success stories will be
> replicated across Britain, whether they are suitable to other regions or
> not - a reduction in local flexibility.  And what happens when the central 
> governments wants to target another class of labour market participant?
> Budgetary centralisation and a reduction in local policy discretion,
> that's what.  
> 
> In fact, this is the cycle that has taken place in Canada:
> (1.) demands for more flexibility come from local programme offices of
> the federal ministry; (2.) budgetary allotments between programmes are
> made more flexible; (3.) new

Re: UK Employment zones: will they work? (fwd)

[Tom Walker]

Mike Gurstein wrote, 

>. . .   I had half a mind to
>pursue this absurdity through the Human Rights (agism) channel and would
>still do so if someone wanted to offer some free legal support.

This gets into an issue I discussed intensively with a lawyer last fall (for
free). The government would argue, and the court would almost certainly
concur, that age discrimination is justified because it serves an overriding
public policy purpose. Whatever protection section 15 of the Charter grants,
section 1 removes in the public interest. The government would point out
that youth unemployment _is_ a national problem and that they can't tailor
every program to deal with each local circumstance.

This brings the discussion back to the issue of "targetted" programs, which
Peter Stoyko addressed so eloquently. A cynic might conclude that the whole
point of such programs is to grind people down with their complexity and
unresponsiveness. Sort of like an automated telephone answering system: "if
you're an unemployed youth, live in Cape Breton and are currently collecting
EI benefits, press 1, if you're a laid-off steelworker over the age of 40,
press 2 . . .

Speaking of automated answering systems, they installed one at the Canada
Employment Centre in Vancouver that went in an infinite loop: four
selections after the starting point led the caller inexorably back to the
starting point. It was the most succinct description of HRDC program design
principles I've ever encountered.



Regards, 

Tom Walker
^^^
Vancouver, B.C.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 669-3286 
^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/