Buy It Here; Build It Here

USW President Leo Gerard is a soft-spoken man, but he has some blunt words about General Motors restructuring plans:

The proposition General Motors has presented to the United Auto Workers and American taxpayers in its latest restructuring plan is simple: You must pay for your own execution.

GM, which already took $15.4 billion in bailout money, wants another $11.6 billion and is offering in return this deal: It will close 16 of its American manufacturing plants, terminate 21,000 of its factory workers and double the cars it builds in low-wage Mexico, China and South Korea and ships back to the U.S. to sell.

There it is: GM is demanding that Americans pay to send their own jobs overseas.

In the world where corporate executives live, the one in which boards of directors grant CEOs multi-million dollar bonuses even after companies tank, maybe that’s not a perverse proposition.

But in the world where real Americans live, we’ve had enough of this crap. Decades of foolish tax and other federal policies that encouraged American manufacturing firms to throw Americans out of work and expatriate were bad enough. To expect American taxpayers to bankroll GM’s plans to layoff American workers and move their jobs overseas goes too far.

Gerard goes on to point out that this isn't just about the UAW or GM. This is about American manufacturing and the millions of people in good-paying jobs who depend on the auto industry - steelworkers, rubber workers, glass workers, healthcare, education, retail - a total of more than 7 million people.

What will we be left with if manufacturing dies? "America is in danger of attempting to subsist on an economy based on nothing more than amorphous derivatives, credit default swaps and Ponzi schemes." Manufacturing jobs helped millions of people achieve the American Dream and that dream is now under assault.

In just the past eight months of this recession, caused in huge part by recklessness on Wall Street, this country has lost 1.2 million manufacturing jobs, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. GM cannot take tax dollars to slash more. Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich agrees. Here’s what he told the Washington Post, “. . . it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of bailing out these big companies. If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?”

Gerard says, "We have no intention of buying our own noose. We intend to win this fight." He's being joined in that fight by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, actor Danny Glover and Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, as well as the USW, the Alliance for American Manufacturing, and the Mayors and Municipalities Automotive Coalition, among others. They're conducting an 11-state, 32-city protest bus tour: “Keep it Made in America.” The idea is simple. If we buy it here, we should build it here, which Gerard points out is not impossible for a U.S. auto company to do.

Ford Motor Co., which is not taking any bailout money, is investing $500 million in retooling its Michigan Truck plant outside Detroit so that it can make small cars that it will sell worldwide, including its next-generation, battery-electric Focus. And Chrysler, which is getting bailout money, has made a deal with Fiat under which the Italian car company will manufacture a small car in one of Chrysler’s U.S. assembly facilities, which, along with other long-term commitments, will eventually create 4,000 U.S. jobs.

At each stop along the tour, people are being asked to sign their petition supporting "Buy it here; build it here." Please click over and add your name too. They'll present the petitions at a teach-in conference in Washington, D.C. on May 19 when they'll explain to elected officials why GM’s plan fails America and why they must require GM to submit a new plan supporting American jobs.

G.M. Worker Loses Job, Writes Song

This is a bittersweet story from the Flint Journal. Greg Miles worked for General Motors' Grand Blanc Weld Tool Center for three decades, and then a few weeks ago he learned that his job had been outsourced to a foreign country. What did he do? He wrote a song, "Didn't Quit My Day Job, It Quit Me."

The lyrics came to him in a rush one Sunday afternoon.

In an hour, he scribbled the song on a yellow notepad. He spent a few weeks recording the song in the basement of his Waterford home.

The title comes from realizing that his job, designing tools for assembly lines, was outsourced to foreign countries. The job didn't go away; it just wasn't being done by U.S. workers anymore. [...]

Sitting next to the Irish flag hung on the basement wall, Miles sang in his warbly voice, strummed his Fender acoustic guitar and played his harmonica.

The song combines folk, rock and country.

"It's kind of like a country song, but it's not real twangy," Miles said.

The song has become something of an Internet sensation, and he's already been contacted by several local media outlets and asked to sing at a concert.

"I've never had more fun losing a job in my whole life," Miles said, laughing.

At least they didn't take away his sense of humor, and his talent for strumming that guitar. He's pretty darn good.

Check out this excerpt from his song, along with the YouTube video.

"Need to figure out what I am going to be
Might be a rock star or a pirate at sea
All I know is that this job is history"

"It started very slowly, our work shifted overseas
Began to pick up speed, it spread like some disease
Didn't know why they did this, they don't buy our cars over there"

"Need to figure out what I am going to be
A Wal-Mart greeter or pizza delivery
Do you want fries with that or super-size it please
I'll park that car sir, just give me your keys
All I know is that this job is history"

For his sake - and everyone else in the same situation - I hope the future brings him something better than a Wal-Mart greeter or pizza delivery job. You can't live the American Dream on those wages. Good luck, Greg.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

Creating jobs in America is the whole point

Following up on my earlier post about the "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus package - provisions designed to stop the bleeding of jobs and to create new jobs here in America - is a post from Robert Reich that admonishes us not to "confuse American companies with American jobs."

The new stimulus bill, for example, requires that the money be used for production in the United States. Foreign governments, along with large U.S. multinationals concerned about possible foreign retaliation, charge this favors American-based companies. That's not quite true. Foreign companies are eligible to receive stimulus money for things they make here (as long as the nations where they're headquartered have signed the WTO procurement agreement). [...]

I'm not defending the "buy American" provisions of the stimulus bill. I'm just saying they're not the same as "buy from American companies." And although these provisions skate close to protectionism and risk foreign retaliation, at least a case can be made that if American taxpayers are footing the bill in order to create American jobs, the jobs should be created, well, here in America.

I added that emphasis because it's an important distinction. If we buy steel slabs produced in Canada or China, jobs will be created or maintained over there and fewer jobs will be created here, which defeats the whole purpose of the stimulus plan.

Reich also applied this line of reasoning to the auto bailout:

I’m not arguing against an auto bailout. But it ought to be focused on helping American auto workers rather than helping global auto companies headquartered in America. [And he points out that the Big Three themselves are global.] Why pay the Big Three billions of taxpayer dollars to stay afloat when, even after being bailed out, they cut tens of thousands of American jobs, slash wages, and shrink their American operations into small fractions of what they used to be?

That’s backwards. The auto bailout should help American autoworkers keep their jobs or get new ones that pay almost as well.

We're between a rock and a hard place place in this country. I agree with E.J. Dionne's opinion that "there are no good solutions for fixing the auto industry," but I also agree with USW President Leo Gerard who said...

Saving the domestic auto industry is crucial to the economic renewal of the U.S. The steel, glass, auto parts, tires, and paper industries produce products for this industry and employ a quarter million of our members alone.

Our livelihoods are all interconnected, and as Reich concluded, "Whether it’s stimulus or bailout, policy makers must remember that American companies aren’t the same as American workers – and our first responsibility is to the latter."

Absolutely. That's why spending money from the stimulus bill on products created here is so important. It keeps Americans working, helps restore our economy and may save our domestic auto industry. Isn't that the whole point?

Washington Should Protect U.S. Cars and U.S Jobs

Gettelfinger appeared before the Senate Banking Committee today in Washington and was asked a question that I can't recall now (I'll keep searching for the transcript), but I do remember he referred to the Level Field Institute when giving his answer. It's an interesting site with a wealth of information and statistics on quality, R&D, jobs, suppliers, etc. But more importantly, they have the facts you need if you want the car you buy to support jobs and investment in your community.

Here's some information I gathered from their pages.

Ford, GM and Chrysler sell about half the cars bought in the U.S., but they buy nearly 80% of the parts made here.

On average, Ford, GM and Chrysler cars use two and a half times more "domestic" parts.

GM and Toyota use approximately the same numbers of workers to build each car. The difference is, only 12% of Toyota's workforce is here. At GM, it's nearly 40%.

The bulk of Ford's engineering, design, financing and marketing are here, while Toyota conducts much of that work in Japan.

U.S. automakers invest more in R&D than any other industry - and Ford, GM and Chrysler invest approximately 80% of that spending here in the U.S.

Ford, GM and Chrysler spend nearly fifteen times more than the Energy Department spends on energy efficiency/alternative fuels programs.

Buying a Ford, GM or Chrysler supports about 6 times more U.S. jobs, on average, than buying a Hyundai - and 2.5 times more U.S. jobs, on average, than buying a Toyota. Does that mean the Big 3 are 6 times less efficient than Hyundai, or 2.5 times less efficient than Toyota? It's where the work gets done that matters most to U.S. jobs.

"Made in America" matters even more when you look at the men and women working for auto parts suppliers that serve automakers. These companies employ about twice as many Americans as the automakers themselves. And Ford, GM and Chrysler purchase nearly 80 percent of the parts these people make. Based on their market share, foreign automakers should be buying about twice what they are.

Tomorrow's jobs will depend, in part, on today's R&D, particularly in fuel efficiency and safety. The Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA), an association of 14 Japanese automakers doing business in America, notes that they collectively employ 3,600 R&D workers at 36 facilities nationwide. Honda operates 10 facilities employing 1,300 R&D professionals. Level Field welcomes these jobs, but more than 65,000 Americans (nearly 20 times JAMA's total) work in 215 automotive R&D facilities in Michigan alone.

Check out the Level Field Institute for yourself. I only touched on a few areas, but one thing is certain - the U.S. car industry is huge and allowing it to fail will kill jobs we'll never get back.

Gettelfinger touched on that today when he noted the following (I'm paraphrasing):

For every 2500 cars made in U.S. plants by the Big 3, approximately 78 people are employed to make them. If the domestic automakers fail and foreign makers in our country pick up their production, only 33 jobs will be created per 2500 cars. That's because the foreign automakers buy more of their parts from overseas. We'd still experience net job losses of about 45 jobs per 2500 cars produced.

Once those jobs go, they'll be gone forever, and foreign automakers will reap the profits. R&D will suffer too. Is that Washington's idea of putting America first?

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI)

McCain Contradicts Himself on Offshore Drilling

McCain was against offshore drilling before he was for it. From the Concord Monitor [emphasis added]:

Politicians need a host of skills, but there was one that the old John McCain was proud not to possess: the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

On Tuesday, while perched on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, McCain proved that he's mastered that trick.

"It is time for America to get serious about energy independence, and that means we need to start drilling offshore at advanced oil rigs like this,'' McCain said, from the giant, 10,000-barrel-per-day structure owned by Chevron and Exxon Mobil. Barack Obama has said that offshore drilling "won't solve our problem. . . . He's wrong, and the American people know it," McCain said.

Unfortunately, although many Americans believe that offshore drilling will provide real relief from high energy prices, it's the new McCain who's wrong. Before he switched positions, McCain opposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling and had this to say: "Those resources, which would take years to develop, would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels." That's still true.

Oops! That statement from McCain's straight-talking days contradicts what Representatives McCotter (R-MI), Walberg (R-MI), Hoekstra (R-MI), etc., have been saying.

So how green is McCain? Not very according to the Concord Monitor who judged his Senate career.

Last year McCain received a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters - an organization whose members aren't given to chaining themselves to trees. His lifetime score from the group is just 24 percent. That's less than one-third the ratings given to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Earlier this summer, McCain backed a gas tax holiday. That's another bad idea. It would have helped to keep demand high and deprived the nation of money needed to repair collapsing roads and bridges. He has opposed moves to eliminate subsidies for oil companies and, until recently, opposed tax incentives to stimulate production of alternative energy sources.

In an issue that will hit home hard in New Hampshire this winter, McCain has also opposed additional funding for the national low-income fuel assistance program because he didn't like how its cost would be borne. Now, however, he says he will support "whatever is necessary to help people meet literally incredible challenges this winter." But what about next year?

Big oil is spending more than $2 million dollars a day to influence public policy and opinion - including $12.2 million dollars spent in the past six months by Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign - and McCain received nearly $1 million dollars since he announced his support for offshore drilling. It appears McCain had an incentive that helped him change his mind. It's amazing what one million dollars can buy.

Outsourcing a threat to workers and national security

As I wrote earlier in the month, the aerospace industry is sending jobs to Mexico - including those in airline maintenance.

At least one U.S. airline, Delta, is already sending entire planes to Mexico for maintenance work. In 2006, it signed a deal handing heavy maintenance of 120 of its planes over to Aeromexico, an airline.

My concern was for the number of good paying jobs being lost, but that pales in comparison to the security risk our country faces. Teamsters President Jim Hoffa explains [emphasis mine]:

The outsourcing of aircraft maintenance is another major concern—just ask the United Airlines mechanics and related workers. Some 9,300 of these skilled workers resoundingly chose to join the Teamsters last month because we understand the real danger the outsourcing of aircraft maintenance poses to national security.

From 1996 through 2006, major U.S. airlines' outsourcing expenses increased from 37 percent to 64 percent, and the number of foreign repair facilities grew from 344 to 698 over a comparable period.

As outsourcing expanded, regulatory standards and oversight have failed to keep pace. Background checks, duty-time limitations, and alcohol and drug testing are much more lax at foreign stations than they are in the United States. For example, supervisors and inspectors who sign off on maintenance work at foreign repair stations are not required to hold a Federal Aviation Administration repairman certificate or an airframe and power-plant certificate, and neither are mechanics working on the aircraft at these facilities.

Increased outsourcing is a domestic security risk. In the U.S., FAA-certificated repair stations have standards for personnel background checks and restricted access to aircraft. Foreign repair stations lack these precautions. Outside of our borders, only flimsy safeguards prevent a terrorist from exploiting an opportunity to do us harm by tampering with airline systems or inserting explosives into aircraft while they are undergoing maintenance. (Despite a mandate in 2003 to create a security standard for repair stations and audit foreign stations, the Transportation Security Administration has yet to do so.)

My son-in-law recently graduated from airline mechanics school after 22 months of studies. He's in the process of taking three written tests and two oral tests in order to receive his certification so he can work on planes. I should also mention his education was very expensive. That 22 month program cost him nearly as much as four years in college.

It just doesn't make sense for our country to mandate higher education and licensing requirements for jobs that we then turn around and allow employers to outsource without equal standards. Americans can't compete with the lower wages and now it appears we're fighting against reduced educational requirements. That's crazy. Why should our young adults spend thousands of dollars to get an education if a person in Mexico or some other country is allowed to do the job without any advanced training or certification?

We definitely need to level the playing field in this country so our workers can compete and our national security isn't compromised.

(Cross-posted at Blogging for Michigan.)

America, Inc.

You can't pick up a paper anymore without reading bad news about our economy, but this headline really got my attention.

Weak Dollar: Airbus, VW Plants in U.S.?

A rising euro and high labor costs are leading at least two European manufacturers to consider building new plants in the U.S. [...]

A recent study by the Center for Automotive Research, completed prior to the recent fall of the dollar, found that autoworkers in Western Europe make almost $10 more per hour than their colleagues in the United States make.

Wonderful. Jobs are being created in this country because we have cheap labor and our dollar isn't worth much. Neither are our homes:

Home prices see biggest drop in 25 years.

Add into that mix the financial crisis and the costs associated with the Iraq war and the picture looks pretty gloomy. It doesn't look like conditions will improve anytime soon. So, who's to blame? Danny Schechter @ AlterNet nails it:

Its probably truthful but not helpful to say that the mismanagement of our economy is an outgrowth of the very corporatist policies that will haunt this country for decades to come, including costly wars, and obscenely high levels of corruption and the list goes on.

This crisis, however is a bit different because it has built in intensity for years without much visibility or attention. It speaks to structural problems in an economy built on the quick sand of debt and delusion.

In order for the economy to function, in order for consumption to continue and profits to keep flowing, people have to believe that everything's all right. They want remedies modeled after Alka Seltzer. Put one tablet in water. It fizzes. You drink and feel better in minutes.

The truth is that confidence is eroding not because "the masses" hate capitalism but because our brand of unregulated capitalism is increasingly not working for them. They know that because prices keep rising and good paying jobs are harder to find. They know that because crime is going up in many cities, and it's harder to make ends meet.

And some even know that the very concept of the masses has been replaced by highly stratifies classes built on growing income inequality.

Greed, Republican corporatism, free market ideology...there's plenty of blame to go around. The American consumer shares part of that blame too. We drank the Kool-Aid. We kept spending. We closed our eyes and ears when good paying jobs were sent out of the country. We voted for politicians who tricked us into believing abortion was the most important issue we faced. Then we voted for them again when they told us terrorism was the most important threat. We were enablers and now we're feeling the pain.

So, what's the prognosis? We shouldn't expect a full recovery:

The pessimism, moreover, isn't momentary but reflects voters' worries beyond the current business cycle. Early last month, a sobering consensus emerged from a focus group of a dozen Republican-leaning voters in the Richmond, Va., area, sponsored by the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The participants unanimously agreed that they didn't think their children's generation would be better off than their own -- breaking with traditional American optimism -- largely due to the debt future taxpayers will inherit.

"Who's buying our loans?" said former secretary June Beninghove, 67. "Who's going to own us? We are going to give ourselves to another country because of debt."

And we have reason to believe things will get worse before they get better:

There is a conflict coming, as this problem turns into an issue. It could lead to an economic civil war. Its won't be just a working class led class war either. Says credit expert Robert Manning:

"What we've seen with this kind of financialization of the American economy, where the democratic system and so many democratic institutions have been co-opted and literally bought by the financial service industry, is that we're seeing a big backlash from the American people.

This is what happens when politicians run our country like America, Inc. instead of a Republic. I hope our country can survive the mess they've made.

Republicans don't even try to pretend they care anymore

Several news items caught my eye this week that showed the Republican Party's true colors and/or total disregard and disrespect for American citizens. First, from the WaPo, comes this:

The Justice Department notified Chiquita Brands International yesterday that it will not seek to criminally charge its former top executive and other former high-ranking officers over the company's payment of bribes to a Colombian organization on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

Corporations trump taxpayers and soldiers. How typical. Why should they be held accountable or have to sacrifice for the war on terror? That's what we have soldiers and taxpayers for according to Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). From Think Progress:

In an interview on CNN today, Wolf Blitzer asked House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) about “the Americans who are killed every month” in Iraq and “how much longer” the “military commitment is going to require?” “The investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here,” replied Boehner.

What arrogance. Even one life is too much to pay for Bush's lie. But, wait, there's more:

...it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

Does Boehner honestly think we believe he cares about our children? Bush and friends only care about corporations. Take the recent toy recalls by Mattel as an example. This is how Dana Milbank described the testimony of Nancy Nord (acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Bush appointee) when she appeared before legislators to answer questions about all that lead:

Actually, the lawmakers' drilling of Nord made it sound as if every day is a sad one for her agency. Product safety regulators, broke and undermanned, have been powerless to prevent millions of Barbie dolls, Polly Pockets, Dora the Explorers and Thomas the Tank Engines from entering the country from China with lead paint and other defects. Parents -- and therefore lawmakers -- are furious. But instead of showing contrition, Nord treated the lawmakers as if they were impertinent children.

"Are you saying that the Chinese have now adopted a new and different standard when it comes to lead paint?" asked Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chairman of the panel examining the issue.

"I think, sir, that that's a question you would really need to put to the Chinese," Nord replied curtly.

Durbin, with some of the offending toys on the table in front of him, asked why the commission didn't do more to block lead in children's jewelry.

"Well, the law is what it is" was Nord's brushoff.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked Nord if she knew what percentage of toys get lead tests.

"No, I don't."

After much hemming and hawing from Nord about her agency's ability to stop dangerous toys coming from China, Brownback got cranky: "Chairman, what I want to hear is you say these products are not going to enter our shores if that's what you continue to find."

"Well, I'm happy to say that," Nord retorted.

It's pretty obvious Nord doesn't care about our children, which turns out to be a plus for corporations.

While dismissive of the senators, the acting chairman was solicitous of the manufacturers. She "commended" the industry for its safety initiatives. A toy manufacturer reciprocated, calling Nord's agency "exemplary."

If Nord sounded a bit like a corporate fox guarding the consumer henhouse, consider her previous employers: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Corporate Counsel Association and Eastman Kodak.

Among the nuggets served up at yesterday's hearing: The CPSC's staff, once 978, is down to 401; its budget is half of what it was three decades ago, in inflation-adjusted terms; its toy-testing department consists of one man, Bob, who drops toys on the floor in his office; and its toy-testing lab is an overloaded workbench in its outmoded headquarters.

So the toy testing department's budget has been drowned in a bathtub. Let me guess. The Republicans trust corporations to do the right thing and test their own products, those same corporations that cut costs by outsourcing jobs to China. The same corporations that never stopped to think that the Chinese might cut costs too.

Why is lead paint — or lead, for that matter — turning up in so many recalls involving Chinese-made goods?

The simplest answer, experts and toy companies in China say, is price. Paint with higher levels of lead often sells for a third of the cost of paint with low levels. So Chinese factory owners, trying to eke out profits in an intensely competitive and poorly regulated market, sometimes cut corners and use the cheaper leaded paint.

So you can see why I don't believe the Republicans and their corporate friends when they say they care about our children. Their actions speaker louder than their words, and because of them, our children are dying or in danger.

Microsoft workers feel the pain

Workers in the textile, steel, and manufacturing industries have been losing jobs, wages and benefits for years, but most of America turned a blind eye to the situation. That may be changing according to David Sirota, because the upper-middle professional class is starting to feel some pain - and they're starting to make some noise.

From Windows Into Populism’s Rise, here's a snippet of Sirota's recent visit to Microsoft's headquarters:

Pundits today seem puzzled by the Lou Dobbs-ification of politics — the sudden political emergence of economic issues such as trade, jobs, wages and even immigration, and the meteoric ascendance of populist red-state politicians such as Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, also a Democrat, demanding immediate change. But on a recent trip to the iconic capital of the upper- middle class professional, it all made perfect sense.

With buzzing twentysomething worker bees and beige low-rise buildings dotting a bucolic setting, the Microsoft campus in Redmond, Wash., looks like a cross between a university and a suburban office park. The comfortably tranquil image is carefully massaged by company icon Bill Gates, who cheerily testified to Congress this month that “anyone here in the United States who has [computer engineering] skills is going to have a super-high-paying jobs.” Yet a darker reality emerges when talking to workers.

They pointed me to company documents published by the worker advocacy group WashTech, proving Microsoft salaries for mid-level full-time employees have been stagnating, even as company revenues rise. They fumed over how the company employs thousands of “permatemps” — full-time employees technically designated “temporary” so the company does not have to pay them as well or provide them benefits.

Showing how the immigration backlash extends beyond odious xenophobia and into legitimate economic worries, they lamented that wages are forced ever lower by Microsoft’s use of the H-1B visa program — a program that forces permatemps to compete with temporary, nonresident workers from other countries who are imported here by companies because they will accept low pay (government data shows tech companies pay H-1B workers $13,000 per year less than American workers in the same jobs). “They say they need H-1B’s because they can’t find a qualified American,” whispered one permatemp in the hall outside his office. “What they really mean is they can’t find a cheap American.”

Pay grades are only part of the ferment — it is also anxiety over job security at a time when 1.1 million American information-sector jobs have been eliminated in the past five years. While Gates told Congress that the demand for highly skilled computer workers “is going to guarantee them all jobs,” one 10-year Microsoft “permatemp” making $25-per-hour with no benefits told me everyone knows better.

“You can knock yourself out here and do your best and fix a thousand bugs,” he said. “But at the end of that, they can — and often do — just say goodbye. And everyone here knows that.”

Another permatemp said that while he helped build the new Vista operating system, he found not one Microsoft division that doesn’t fear showing up and having their keycards not work because all their jobs were sent to India. That concern is justified: A Microsoft slide presentation, also uncovered by WashTech, shows the company encourages foreign outsourcing in most major decisions.

WashTech has tried to convert workers’ anger into union drives. But those grinning, business-casual Microsoft executives have learned a thing or two about how to bust unions. One example: When a handful of Microsoft workers developing fledgling tax software took an initial step to unionize, the entire project was terminated by management. [emphasis mine]

As Sirota's article pointed out, when rich people's kids had to serve in Vietnam after the draft lottery was created, pressure to end the war changed policy; when companies like Enron started undermining the savings of rich people, Washington passed corporate accountability legislation; and when recent subprime mortgage defaults started hurting the stock market, Congress called it a crisis.

It's a shame that the pain has to trickle up to the rich before Washington takes notice and starts challenging wages, trade and outsourcing. We're all Americans. Getting Washington's attention shouldn't depend on the balance in our checkbook.

Corporations Will Ship 2.4 Million High-Tech/Professional Jobs Overseas by 2015

I broke down and bought a new computer and I've been in hell the last few days trying to get everything transferred over and working okay. I haven't had much chance to catch up on the news, but I did notice the stock market lost more than 400 points today. (Coincidentally, Netflix notified me that the film "Crash" is on its way to me! )

Oh, I also noticed this gloomy article on the AFL-CIO blog:

Corporations Will Ship 2.4 Million High-Tech and Professional Jobs Overseas by 2015 According to the Bureau of National Affairs Daily Labor Report (subscription required):

"Growth in the offshoring of information technology, business office, and other service-providing occupations will cause the loss of an estimated 2.4 million jobs in some 250 U.S. cities between 2004 and 2015, according to a report by the Brookings Institution.

The offshoring of service jobs, including ones held by college-educated professionals who previously thought their jobs were immune to foreign competition, has “created a new source of job insecurity,” and the movement of work to other countries is expected to grow over the coming decade, especially in information services and “back-office” services, the study said."

The most susceptible areas include Boston, Washington, D.C., Minneapolis, Dallas, San Francisco, and Seattle because they have higher proportions of residents employed in computer programming, software engineering, accounting, telemarketing and other occupations that are highly susceptible to being offshored.

Michigan understands all too well the effects of offshoring. It's a race to the bottom none of us wish on anyone.