May 8, 2008

Full Employment for Engineers, Scientists

These figures from the National Science Foundation buttress the case for a higher limit on H-1B visas.

The overall unemployment rate of scientists and engineers in the United States dropped from 3.2% in 2003 to 2.5% in 2006 (figure 1), according to data from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT).[2] This is the lowest unemployment rate measured by SESTAT since the early 1990s. It continues a trend of lower unemployment rates for scientists and engineers compared with unemployment rates in the rest of the U.S. economy.[3] Comparable unemployment rates for the entire U.S. labor force in 2003 and 2006 were 6.0% and 4.7%, respectively.[4] (See "Data Comments and Availability" for the definition of scientists and engineers and other variables and for notes on SESTAT.

James Sherk at the Heritage Foundation has authored a new issue paper that rebuts the arguments of those opposed to H-1B visas. The conclusion:

Contrary to the claims of immigration opponents, H-1B workers are highly skilled workers with vitally needed skills. H-1B workers are highly educated. Almost half have an advanced degree. The median H-1B worker earns 90 percent more than the median U.S. worker. They are in no way average workers.

Posted by Carter Wood at 6:52 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 30, 2008

Making New Jersey More Expensive for Employers

From NJBiz:

Gov. Jon Corzine will sign the paid family leave bill into law on Friday in a statehouse ceremony, the governor's office told NJBIZ. New Jersey will become the second state, after California, to offer workers six weeks of paid leave to care for newborns or seriously ill immediate family members.

Supporters of the bill say it will help workers balance their work and family life. Business lobbyists and other critics argue that employers—especially small ones like doctors' offices and car repair shops—cannot afford to lose key workers for up to six weeks at a time. The critics say that becoming the first state in the region to mandate paid leave would further damage the state’s image as a place to do business.

The New Jersey Business Matters blog comments:

In 2007 New Jersey added just 3,700 private-sector jobs, growing only 0.1%. That put the Garden State 41st in the nation. Meanwhile, NJ has already lost 10,000 private-sector jobs in 2008. Adding mandates unique to the state only worsens that trend. Call it subtraction by addition.

The bill is AB873. Here's the legislature's description and fiscal analysis. Only $100 million a year. For now.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:22 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 26, 2008

Ledbetter Act: It Wasn't Meant to Pass

The Wall Street Journal reaches the conclusion last week's Senate consideration of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have lifted all statutes of limitation on employment discrimination suits, was intended more as a political statement and loyalty pledge than an earnest legislative proposal. From "The Foul Play Act":

Ms. Ledbetter took the novel view that decisions made decades ago by her now-deceased former boss affected her pay all the way up to her retirement, so each paycheck was a new discriminatory act. On this theory, there would be no statute of limitations at all. Cases could be brought long after relevant evidence and witnesses had passed from the scene. In practice, every such suit would become a new trial lawyer pay day, as employers settled cases they would find impossible to defend.

And in The Washington Post, a letter to the editor from David A. Drachsler, vice chairman of the Virginia Council on Human Rights.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which you support, would permit an employee to file a pay discrimination lawsuit years after the pay decision was made, even if the employee was aware of that decision. Indeed, in Lilly Ledbetter's case, her lower pay, compared with that of men doing similar work, was caused by low performance evaluations of which she was aware years before she filed her charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A simple solution would be to amend Title VII to make the statute of limitations run from the date the employee discovered, or with due diligence should have discovered, the discrimination that caused the pay disparity.

Posted by Carter Wood at 4:59 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 23, 2008

Fair Pay, Fair Play and Fair Limitations

Cross-posted at PointofLaw.com.

Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute takes a look at today's Washington Post editorial, "Fair Pay, Fair Play," calling for passage of the Ledbatter Fair Pay Act, and finds certain facts and legal context missing. Again. From the Open Market blog:

The Post seems completely unaware of the existence of another law, the Equal Pay Act, that already has a generous deadline (3 years) for bringing pay discrimination claims.

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear (2007), the Supreme Court enforced the explicit 180-day deadline for bringing discrimination claims under Title VII, ruling that Lilly Ledbetter's pay discrimination suit under Title VII was untimely because she brought it long after 180 days had elapsed. But the court specifically noted in a footnote that the plaintiff had (for unknown reasons) dropped her claim under the Equal Pay Act -- which has a longer deadline (3 years) for suing. Liberal court reporters deliberately ignored the footnote and the very existence of the Equal Pay Act in order to cynically create the false impression that the Supreme Court's enforcing the Title VII deadline as written would leave women without any redress for sex-based pay discrimination after 180 days had passed.

Good legal issues to discuss once the Senate takes up the bill.

As for the political context, from FoxNews.com, "McConnell Complains About Delay in Senate Vote So Candidates Can Return." From the minority leader:

Now, look, we understand people have to run for president and are not likely to be here much of the time. But to have the schedule of the Senate completely revolve around the schedule of the Democratic presidential candidates strikes me as particularly ridiculous.

Posted by Carter Wood at 2:38 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

White House: Expect a Veto on Ledbetter Pay Act

The White House yesterday released its Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2831, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Expect a veto, the Senate is told.

H.R. 2831 purports to undo the Supreme Court’s decision of May 29, 2007, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. by permitting pay discrimination claims to be brought within 180 days not of a discriminatory pay decision, which is the rule under current law, but rather within 180 days of receiving any paycheck affected by such a decision, no matter how far in the past the underlying act of discrimination allegedly occurred. As a result, this legislation effectively eliminates any time requirement for filing a claim involving compensation discrimination. Allegations from 30 years ago or more could be resurrected and filed in federal courts.

Moreover, the bill far exceeds the stated purpose of undoing the Court’s decision in Ledbetter by extending the expanded statute of limitations to any “other practice” that remotely affects an individual’s wages, benefits, or other compensation in the future. This could effectively waive the statute of limitations for a wide variety of claims (such as promotion and arguably even termination decisions) traditionally regarded as actionable only when they occur.

This legislation does not appear to be based on evidence that the current statute of limitations principles have caused any systemic prejudice to the interests of employees, but it is reasonable
to expect the bill’s vastly expanded statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:36 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Ledbetter: Scheduling as a Political Tactic

Any doubts as to the political nature of today's Senate debate and cloture vote on H.R. 2831, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, were put to rest when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had the Senate adjourn yesterday until 5 p.m. this evening.

Senator Reid filed a cloture motion on Monday. By Senate rules, this means a vote on cloture would follow an hour after the Senate convened on Wednesday -- i.e., sometime this morning. But because this is a vote meant not to legislate, but rather to demonstrate support for a philosophy of "fairness" and organized labor's political agenda, it's important that Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton be in town to vote yes. With yesterday's primary in Pennsylvania, it will take them until this evening to arrive back in D.C. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are angry because they were being attacked this week for delaying action on a veterans benefits vote.

The Swamp has a good rundown of the machinations, and The Corner relates the Republican grievances.

We won't pretend to be horrified at the politics of this, which seem normal enough for an election year, if a little heavy-handed. But then, inject organized labor into a Capitol Hill debate and heavy-handed is what you get.

Just as long as the legislation goes down. Contrary to what editorialists at The Washington Post ("Fair Pay, Fair Play") and the New York Times ("Pass the Fair Pay Act") claim, this bill does not correct a faulty Supreme Court ruling, this bill simply opens the floodgates to discrimination lawsuits ad infinitum nauseum. As the NAM's Key Vote letter makes clear, statutes of limitations were written into the law for a reason.

Anyway, isn't it funny that legislation that bases its entire existence on "fairness" should elicit such an unfair legislative process?

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:16 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 22, 2008

Ledbetter: Really Helping the Employee

Cross-posted from PointofLaw.com:

In writing about the Ledbetter "fair pay" legislation to be considered in the U.S. Senate tomorrow, we neglected to link to a good analysis of the bill that the AEI's Ted Frank wrote for NPR's "Talking Justice" blog last February. His conclusion:

Employers are not stupid. To the extent every employee is a potential lawsuit, that is a cost of hiring an employee. As those costs go up, employers will hire fewer employees, and charge "insurance" to the employees they do hire by reducing their wages to account for the possibility of a future lawsuit. If the misnamed "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" passes, the vast majority of workers will be worse off, as money that would have gone to pay employees will instead go to pay attorneys. There should be a better reason to pass such harmful legislation than the fact that Ms. Ledbetter's attorney sued under the wrong statute. If Congress really wishes to help workers, they should reject this legislation, and aim a closer eye at the liability system that hurts our economy.

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:02 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Let the Lawsuits Flow, Forever and Ever

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed cloture Monday on H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, which supporters claim restores the ability of employees to sue for pay discrimination, supposedly abrogated by the Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (U.S. Supreme Court 2007).

As the NAM summary of the case explains, what the court actually did was uphold the law that set a 180-day statute of limations for filing employment discrimination actions with the EEOC. Congress knew what it was doing when it wrote the law, the court said: "Congress clearly intended to encourage the prompt processing of all charges of discrimination.” Eliminating a statute of limitations would open up employers to potentially decades of increasingly difficult-to-defend litigation. Memories fade, people die, and yet the lawsuits carry on....and on....

Just as importantly, the 180-day requirement also compels employers and employees both to address real discrimination with a sense of urgency. Sometimes it takes an EEOC complaint to make management aware of a problem.

The legislation goes too far in other ways. The NAM sent a "Key Vote" letter (text here) to the Senate today, which notes, "[The bill] would grant standing for the first time to not just employees but those potentially 'affected by' discrimination. It would also broaden the bill’s reach to cover unintentional (disparate impact) discrimination suits and allow retirees to file claims over actions that took place decades earlier." Wow. "Affected by" discrimination -- bet that would be creatively interpreted.

Expect a vote Wednesday, which allows a full day of rallies and fulminating today, Equal Pay Day -- the day that women supposedly have to work into 2008 to equal men's 2007 pay. Organized labor is observing the day, as are the National Organization for Women and other activists who want government to set wages.

The last time Senator Kennedy orchestrated a big vote to coincide with rallies and other observances was in June, when he brought H.R. 800 to the floor. That was the Employee Free Choice Act, labor's No. 1 priority, which would replace secret ballots in union representation elections with the intimidation-inviting card-check process. No one expected the measure to gain cloture -- and it didn't, falling short by a 51-48 vote -- but the Senator maximized the PR value with his timing. Same thing this week with the Ledbetter legislation.

So consider Senate action on this terrible bill to be the raising of a flag as organized labor and a band of employment lawyers watch, marking off on their checklists who salutes -- and who will be rewarded and punished accordingly.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:48 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 16, 2008

Not a Good Headline for Business Recruiters in NJ

In The Philadelphia Inquirer: "New Jersey is a leading liberal state."

The social issues are beyond our purview, but it does seem safe to say that these two economic measures cited in the Inquirer serve to discourage businesses from expanding in or moving to the Garden State:

Universal health care: A preliminary proposal for a plan that would eventually require everyone in the state to have health insurance has been presented by State Sen. Joseph F. Vitale (D., Middlesex).

Paid family leave: A measure approved by the Legislature awaits Gov. Corzine's signature.

As the New Jersey Business and Industry Association suggests in a message to employers and the public, the new family leave law runs to the economic trends...and good common-sense.

While Governor Corzine has said he is going to sign this bill, let's make sure he knows how much business opposes this and how contrary it is to his stated goal of growing the economy. Corzine is expanding a benefits program even as he is calling for deep spending cuts in every department. Corzine is imposing a huge new mandate on businesses as New Jersey is losing jobs and is on the brink of recession.

Oh, yeah, here's a story, one published yesterday in The Charlotte Observer, "Hickory attracts 820-job factory."

Officials with Sutter Street Manufacturing, a subsidiary of home furnishings retailer Williams-Sonoma, announced plans to hire 820 people over the next five years to design, build and distribute upholstered furniture in Hickory....[snip] The area's skilled furniture workers and a state grant convinced the company to invest $22.5 million here rather than in alternative locations in Mississippi, Virginia and New Jersey, local business leaders said.

Among other things.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:59 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 7, 2008

New Jersey, a Big Vote, a Bad Vote

The New Jersey Senate today passed a paid leave mandate and tax today on a 21-15 vote, sending the bill to Gov. Jon Corzine. With New Jersey's economy sputtering and the state ranked at the bottom in business-friendly tax climates, this is a destructive (self-destructive?) vote.

The Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey issued a press release upon the vote. Excerpts:

“Knowing that New Jersey has lost 10,000 private-sector jobs thus far in 2008, it is remarkable that the legislature would pass a mandate unique to our companies,” said CIANJ President John Galandak. “To do so without a clear understanding of the cost of the program, or the impact on small businesses is irresponsible, and we urge Governor Corzine to veto the bill.”

And...

“The budget season has been full of talk about how to improve New Jersey’s fiscal situation and business climate. The legislature took a step back from that goal today by increasing costs in one of the most expensive states to do business. The disconnect is stunning.” Galandak concluded.

Governor Corzine is a smart man attuned to economic reality and the needs of business. He could break free of the New Jersey partisan dictates that cause so much harm to the state and, at the same time, establish himself as a national leader by vetoing the legislation. It's a tough call politically, sure, but there's a great upside in a veto -- for the state, above all.

More at NJ Business Matters.

Posted by Carter Wood at 4:08 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

New Jersey, a Big Vote

The New Jersey State Senate today holds a special vote on establishing a new government mandate and tax on businesses in the state, paid leave. We commend NJBusinessMatters as the best place to follow the issue from the perspective of business and the taxpayers. Paul Tryhala today notes yet another problem with the bill.

Bill advocates have claim that only about 1% of New Jersey's workforce will utilize the program, and the bill uses these assumptions when setting the tax rate. This is based largely on California's experience with paid leave. What they fail to mention is that because it is so new, only 28% of Golden Staters know about the program. They also do not take into account the increasing number of paid leave applications and the rising costs - an $80 million jump in just two years. Remember, there is no contingency in the bill for what would happen if the $33 per year tax on employees is not enough to cover expenses.

The Tax Foundation reports that New Jersey currently ranks 49 out of 50 states in its business tax climate. They'll get it to 50 soon enough.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:53 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 3, 2008

Making New Jersey Less Attractive for Jobs

New Jersey state Senators are going to gather Monday for a special vote -- it's a term of legislative art in Trenton -- to vote on imposing paid family leave on employers. New Jersey's competitive environment is already sad. Last year the Tax Foundation ranked New Jersey 49th out of 50 states in business tax climate, and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council ranked it dead last in the group's Small Business Survival Index.

And now legislators want to add more to the cost of doing business? As the New Jersey Business Matters blog notes, tax revenues are coming in below expectations, the state lost 10,000 jobs last year, and the unemployment rate has risen .3 percent to 4.8 percent. AND, there's potentially serious risks for small businesses

[The] mandate will harm New Jersey competitiveness, drive costs higher for our companies and put small businesses in the position where they may be violating federal anti-discrimination laws.

We've seen no rising public sentiment for adding expensive new burdens to employers while bringing new national attention to New Jersey as an increasingly unattractive place to do business.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:32 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

April 2, 2008

Visa Lottery, Gambling on Competitiveness

April 1 marked the opening day of the five-day period for submitting applications for 65,000 H-1B visas, which allow foreign nationals with high skills in high-demand jobs to work in the United States.

Houston Chronicle: "High-tech firms playing visa lottery."

Washington Times: "Reforms urged on visa quotas."

NAM release:

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 1, 2008 – On the opening day to submit applications for H-1B visas for highly-educated and skilled employees, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) praised policymakers who support raising the visa cap from its current 65,000 limit along with other more long-term solutions to America’s serious shortage of highly skilled employees.

“We are grateful to those Members of Congress who have acknowledged the significant and growing shortage of highly skilled employees needed to keep America on the leading edge of innovation,” said NAM President and CEO John Engler today. “We thank these leaders for taking steps to remedy this threat to U.S. economic growth and global competitiveness.”

Like last year, the FY 2009 visa cap of 65,000 is expected to be reached on the same day applications are first accepted, April 1. Engler praised Members of Congress who have supported a higher H-1B visa cap through legislative initiatives.

“Manufacturers will continue to push for bipartisan immigration reform that permanently solves the inadequacies of both the H-B visa and employment-based green card systems,” Engler said.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:20 AM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

April 1, 2008

H-1B Visa Application Day: Sorry, All Out!

From The Washington Times:

Technology firms across the nation are crossing their fingers today as the U.S. opens the annual visa application window for skilled workers. Last year, the annual cap of 65,000 was reached on the same day.

Despite industry's efforts to raise the issue with lawmakers and the public, this year's quota of H1-B visas is likely to disappear just as quickly.

"Without adequate access to these types of key employees, a lot of U.S. companies will be forced to cancel U.S. projects or move them offshore, like Bill Gates did," said Ian Macdonald of the law firm Littler Mendelson.

That's the big picture. Here, courtesy The Chicago Tribune, is the microcosm:

Madhura Godbole speaks four languages. Since receiving a second master's degree from Loyola University Chicago last summer, she has been developing software to produce blood thinners for heart patients.

But it's luck, more than her impressive résumé, that the Indian-born engineer needs this week, as she enters a fierce annual competition for a small number of visas given to highly skilled foreign workers.

Isn't Madhura Godbole precisely the kind of highly skilled and U.S.-trained employee that benefits the U.S. economy, not to mention American civil society?

P.S. Another personal account from Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, which concludes: "America continues to maintain an incomprehensible and counter-productive immigration policy, damaging both pocketbooks and heartstrings from Silicon Valley to the Bay of Bengal. Unless Congress and the White House do something to fundamentally reshape immigration rules with respect to skilled workers — setting aside for the moment the gardeners and construction workers who get all the news coverage — things will only get worse."

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:52 AM | 7 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

March 28, 2008

H-1B Visas: 65,000 Heidi Klums

April Fools Day is just around the corner, and with it, the application day for H1-B visas:

WASHINGTON - Oracle, Microsoft and other tech companies, joined by business leaders in New York and Washington, are making a new push for an increase in visas for skilled workers. But they conceded Thursday they face difficult odds in Congress.

Robert Hoffman, an Oracle vice president, predicted that applications for next Tuesday's H-1B visa lottery will quickly exceed the 65,000 available slots, with winners determined by a random process that ignores market needs and economic benefits.

Last year, the 65,000 cap was reached on the first day of applications.

Under this "surreal system," Hoffman said, a fashion model (the next Heidi Klum) will have the same chance at a visa as a tech entrepreneur (the next Andy Grove) who generates jobs.

And remember, putting H-1B visa recipients to work in the United States helps create more jobs for American workers, too.

And if visa reforms mean we have to take a few more Heidi Klums, it's a sacrifice we're willing to make.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:31 AM | 2 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

March 21, 2008

Not to Pick on New Jersey, But ...

From NJBiz.com:

TRENTON—New Jersey’s $1 million national advertising campaign to attract businesses to the state appears to be generating interest, but has not snagged any companies.

“Relocation is a very refined business and there are entities that work with nearly every major company,” says Gary Rose, chief of the state’s Office of Economic Growth. “In that world, we see our job is to get connected with intermediaries and make sure they are aware of our programs and offerings.”

Perhaps the potential Garden Staters start reading the news coverage like this story and then have second thoughts...

New Jersey Senate Health Committee Chair Joseph Vitale (D) on Monday announced a universal health coverage proposal that would require all residents to obtain health coverage within three years, the New York Times reports. About 1.4 million state residents are uninsured (Chen, New York Times, 3/18). ...[snip]According to Vitale, the second phase of the plan would cost an estimated $1 billion and eventually would be funded with savings from a reduction in charity care, as well as premiums from beneficiaries and other sources.

Oh, yeah. Other sources. The same other sources that will pay for this?

New Jersey is likely to soon join California and Washington in approving legislation requiring up to six weeks of leave to care for newborns, adopted children or sick family members. Workers receive a portion of their salary or wages, with coworkers providing the funds through new mandatory payroll deductions.

Posted by Carter Wood at 4:28 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 19, 2008

Whither New Jersey? Or is it Wither New Jersey?

NJ Business Matters has updated developments around the proposed legislation to mandate paid leave, noting Senate President Codey wants a special voting session on the bill by April.

And new unemployment figures show another 1,700 jobs lost in February, including trade, transportation and utilities (-2,800), manufacturing (-1,100), and construction (-500).

In an earlier post, NJ Business Matter also posts a memo on the paid family leave bill from Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce. A good point-by-point primer on the anti-business, anti-jobs nature of the billl. Key facts:

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal on June 20, 2007, the federal Department of Labor estimates that paid family leave programs cost employers an average of $1.76 per hour per full time employee, or 6.8% of total compensation. Using the above hourly estimate, a company with just ten full-time employees would see an increase of approximately $36,608.

What a terrible idea.

Posted by Carter Wood at 1:11 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Adam Smith (D-WA), an Advocate for Trade

A report from Don Brunnell, President of the Association of Washington Business, on an NAM-sponsored dialogue with Rep. Adam Smith, a Democrat whose district covers the southern part of the Puget Sound area.

Congressman Adam Smith (D-Wash-9) told a small group of business leaders at Weyerhauser Co. headquarters that he is an unabashed supporter of free and open trade which often gets him crosswise with some of his Democrat colleagues in Congress. According to Smith, America needs to find its niche and innovate. We have to realize that our competition and markets are global today and we cannot isolate ourselves by throwing up tariff and other barriers.

Likewise, Smith told the group, which included AWB President Don Brunell, that immigration reform is necessary as well. We need to make sure we can fill the positions the private sector needs to compete. Homeland security is important, but we have jobs going begging and too often crops are left to rot in the fields and orchards because we have a shortage of agricultural workers. We need workers to fill jobs that are going begging today.

On energy, Smith said it may be time to look at nuclear energy again. With all of the problems associated with fossil fuels and renewables like wind, solar and biomass, multiple strategies - including energy conservation - are important if the Northwest is to have low cost reliable electricity.

Smith also touched on the need for worker training.

Posted by Carter Wood at 11:12 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

Bill Gates and the WSJ: More Visas, More Jobs

From The Wall Street Journal, "More Visas, More Jobs":

Bill Gates appeared before Congress again last week to make a simple point to simpler pols: The ridiculously low annual cap on H-1B visas for foreign professionals is undermining the ability of U.S. companies to compete in a global marketplace.

"Congress's failure to pass high-skill immigration reform has exacerbated an already grave situation," said the Microsoft chairman. "The current base cap of 65,000 H-1B visas is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to the U.S. economy's demand for skilled workers."

The Journal cites the recent studies by the National Foundation for American Policy which demonstrate the domestic jobs-creating power of employing foreign workers here through visas.

The preponderance of evidence continues to show that businesses are having difficulty filling skilled positions in the U.S. By blocking their access to foreign talent, Congress isn't protecting U.S. jobs but is providing incentives to outsource. If lawmakers can't bring themselves to eliminate the H-1B visa cap, they might at least raise it to a level that doesn't handicap U.S. companies.

Earlier post on the visa studieshere.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:41 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 18, 2008

New Jersey, Too, Harms its Competitiveness

Speaking of the "Rich States, Poor States" economic rankings (see post below), we see that New Jersey comes in 43rd out of the 50 states. And apparently a lot of lawmakers are working to sink the state even lower.

The General Assembly last week passed by a 46-30 vote a bill mandating paid leave for employees, financed by a new payroll tax. The Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey issued a news release in reaction:

Paramus, New Jersey – The Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey (CIANJ) today criticized the New Jersey General Assembly for passing legislation that would make New Jersey only the second state with a paid leave mandate on virtually all companies. If it were to become law, A-873 would allow almost all workers to take up to six weeks of paid time off to care for a newborn or newly-adopted child or a sick family member.

The program would be funded through a tax increase on Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and a diversion of $25 million from that fund.

CIANJ opposes the measure, contending the bill would hamper NJ companies’ ability to compete, and provides another disincentive for organizations to locate to or expand within New Jersey. The Association noted companies will incur additional expense through hiring temporary staff or paying overtime to cover shifts lost while employees are out on leave. Unlike current unpaid leave laws, there is no exemption for small businesses.

“New Jersey’s job growth is the weakest in five years, yet the General Assembly has decided to impose another requirement unique to New Jersey companies,” said CIANJ President John Galandak. “Trenton should be doing all it can to help our state grow itself out of the current slump, not imposing a job-killing mandate.”

Delaware's economic development mavens must be grinning.

A Senate vote is expected soon. New Jersey Business Matters, the Commerce and Industry Association's blog, has been keeping close tabs on the foolhardy legislation.

UPDATE (5:25 p.m.) NJBiz explains the legislative process more fully, saying the inability to move the bill last week means it could be May before a final vote occurs in the Senate. The additional time gives business owners and anyone interested in a strong New Jersey economy an opportunity to derail the legislation, which Gov. Jon Corzine has said he will sign.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:15 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

March 11, 2008

H-1B Visas, Creating More Jobs for Americans

From PC World:

For every H-1B position requested, tech companies listed on the S&P 500 stock index increased their employment by five workers in an analysis of 2002 to 2005, according to astudyby the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP).

For tech firms with fewer than 5,000 employees, each H-1B request corresponded with an average increase of 7.5 workers, the group said.

Few topics on the blog elicit more heated reaction than support for increasing the H-1B visa cap. (It's generally well-spoken reaction, we add.) Employees argue that the visa program is just the way for employers to avoid hiring capable Americans for the jobs and for them to keep their labor costs down.

That may well be true in individual cases. But we've talked to enough manufacturers to know that they'd gladly hire and pay well a qualified, available American first. They'd gladly hire and pay ANYBODY.

Unfortunately, given the growth of their operations -- and the U.S. high-tech economy more broadly -- the demand for skilled employees is outstripping the supply. There just aren't enough of the right people with the right skills available, period. More from the PC World article:

NFAP looked at the number of job openings at tech firms and defense contractors and found 140,000 job openings at S&P 500 firms in January, including more than 4,000 job openings at Microsoft, more than 1,600 openings at both IBM and CSC, and more than 1,500 openings at Cisco Systems. After Microsoft, the company with the most job openings, were defense contractors Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin, each with more than 3,900 job openings, according to a second study by NFAP. More from PC World:

You exhaust the 65,000 cap on H1-B visas pretty quickly given this kind of demand.

These shortages of skilled employees crimp a company's ability to meet the demands of the marketplace. So get the right people by hiring domestically as well through the H1-B visa program, and you can expand your business and spur economic growth. You create more jobs, more good jobs, for everybody.

The larger point is that the United States now competes in a global economy, with its competive advantage resting on innovation -- new products, new processes. Integral to this economy is the global competition for the talented individuals, those who can keep driving innovation, and in great demand are graduates of U.S. universities. Better they contribute to the American economy -- and as aspiring, talented individuals, to American society -- than make our competitors even more successful.

NFAP Policy Brief: H1-B Visas and Job Creation.

NFAP Policy Brief: Talent Search: Job Openings and the Need for Skilled Labor in the U.S. Economy.

Workforce Management: Microsoft’s Canadian Move a Swipe at Stiff U.S. Visa Policies

CNET News: Study: H-1Bs prompt more, not fewer, American hires

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:51 AM | 4 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

February 28, 2008

Marlin Wire's Congressional Show-And-Tell

Congressional hearings can sometimes be snoozefests. But Drew Greenblatt, president of Marlin Steel Wire Products, knows how to add punch to the process.

Greenblatt, whose Baltimore company manufactures made-to-order wire and hook products, testified on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers before the House Small Business Committee.

The hearing was on the need to fix the Paperwork Reduction Act to ease the blizzard of regulatory paperwork businesses have to contend with. The chore of filling out Internal Revenue Service and other documentation is so onerous, Greenblatt and executives at other companies often have to hire outside consultants to do the work.

That money could go to other things, like hiring new workers or research.

Instead of just talking about the problem, Greenblatt showed lawmakers the problem. He displayed a photo of two of his workers standing in front of boxes of all the paperwork he has to fill out in a year.

The stack of boxes was more than six feet high, taller than his employees.

“We have grown 33 percent in the last two years and tripled in the last 10 years,” he said. “We are adding people. We want to keep adding people, not adding paperwork.”

All that paperwork is stifling American competitiveness. According to a NAM report, structural costs for manufacturers in the United States were 31.7% higher in 2006 than for our major trade competitors.

Posted by Greg Wright at 3:52 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

February 21, 2008

Question for Washington Post's Editorial Writers

From the second editorial in today's Washington Post, "A Victory for Workers."

THE SUPREME Court during recent terms has relied on cramped legal analysis to deny fairness to workers and criminal defendants in several notable cases.

Question: Is that what the court is supposed to do, determine and distribute "fairness?"

Silly us. We thought it was to interpret the law.

Posted by Carter Wood at 8:44 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

February 9, 2008

Would These Laws Stimulate the Economy?

Missed this excellent Wall Street Journal column by Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, calling attention to three pieces of legislation that would further regulate the workplace.

Now that the excitement of Super Tuesday has passed, we should remember the kinds of policies and principles at stake. Exhibit A: three pieces of legislation pending in Congress that would dramatically increase the liability of private companies for alleged acts of employment discrimination.

The first would resurrect the discredited idea of "comparable worth." The second would add various sexual orientations to the classifications protected from employment discrimination. The third is a plaintiffs' bar wish list, aimed mostly at overturning cases it lost in the Supreme Court.

Too many politicians, backed by organized labor, are assiduously trying to bring the European labor model here to the United States, where it becomes almost impossible to fire lousy employees. As the French have experienced, this extreme level of workplace regulation discourages employers from hiring new workers, inevitably increasing the number of long-term unemployed, who then demand more and more government, tax-supported services.

Last month, the French labor unions and employer federations signed an agreement that moves away from this failed model. Why are so many American politicians pursuing it?

(Hat tip: Matthew J. Franck.)

Posted by Carter Wood at 4:40 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

February 5, 2008

Improving the Family and Medical Leave Act

The 15th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act is sparking a bit a reasoned re-evaluation of the law, which is popular and certainly faces no effort to roll back its key provisions: unpaid leave for up to 12 weeks for take care of "serious medical conditions" by the employee or a close family member, as well as for birth or adoption of a child.

But the FMLA is not without flaw and recent clarifications and guidance issued by the Department of Labor will go a long way in making the law more effective. The Wall Street Journal had a very good summary of the key issues today in its editorial, "Fixing Family Leave."

[Secretary] Elaine Chao's Labor Department last month issued rules to clear up ambiguities in the law that were being exploited. Take something called "unscheduled intermittent leave." Under current rules, an employee with a medical condition can simply fail to show up for two days before claiming leave. And since leave can be taken a few minutes at a time, employees can show up late, leave early, or disappear for an hour without notice. This is an invitation for misuse, especially at time-sensitive businesses (say, emergency first response or assembly lines) and many employers have lost control of their workforce. Under the proposed changes, employees would generally have to call in to request leave before taking it, which seems fair.

Labor's proposals would also clear up loose requirements for certifying what qualifies as a "serious" medical condition. Under current rules, workers can get an open-ended doctor's certificate for a condition -- asthma, migraines, whatever -- that allows them leave at any point. Under the new rules, companies can require employees to renew that certificate every year.

These points reinforce the NAM's statement issued today to mark the law's anniversary, a release that noted the widespread family and medical leave benefits offered by manufacturers.

The FMLA was never intended to turn full-time jobs into part-time jobs. It was never intended to allow employees to take sporadic leave without any notification to employers. It was never intended to unfairly burden colleagues forced to cover the unpredictable absences of their co-workers.

We can restore the balance intended by Congress between employers’ needs for employees, and employees’ need for time to attend to important family and medical issues. Employees will be able to take time off for the birth or adoption of a child, to take care of a family member with a serious illness, or seek treatment themselves when seriously ill.

The Department of Labor's FMLA page is here.

Posted by Carter Wood at 7:12 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

January 25, 2008

Expanding the Grounds for Employment Lawsuits

Huge day for important committee hearings Thursday in the Senate, so we're playing catchup. Our correspondent reports there was much off-topic political rhetoric at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on S. 1843, the Fair Pay Restoration Act.

The "restoration" part is the proponents' erroneous claim that the bill will restore the ability of discriminated-against employees to sue, rights supposedly taken away by the Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. But the legislation really removes all the limits on suing, even years after the alleged offense, and broadens the potential plaintiffs to include family members -- a radical change to settled employment law. (An NAM's ManuFacts outlines the problems.)

From our man on the ground:

Senators took time to speak about issues that are very important and should receive due consideration from Congress in a thorough debate: equal pay for equal work, equality in the workplace, and sexual harassment. However, as we continue to remind lawmakers, S. 1843 would not address these issues directly, nor would it bring a quick end to any discrimination that may be occurring and prevent future occurrences. Senators also took the time to tout other measures such as the Paycheck Fairness Act, comparable worth; and finally, lifting the damage caps for lawsuits.

Thankfully, Sen. Johnny Isakson tried to keep the focus on the actual legislation. And Eric Dreiband of Akin Gump was the sole balancing witness, explaining how S. 1843 would upend 40 years of civil rights law and stressing how the Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision did not radically alter or change existing protections under civil rights law. Dreiband's testimony is here.

The National Association of Manufacturers joined other business groups this week in writing the HELP Committee to express opposition and detail the bill's many failings. You can read the letter here.

Posted by Carter Wood at 9:40 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

December 12, 2007

Building Walls Against Smart, Talented, Skilled

From Investor's Business Daily:

Europe is rolling out the blue carpet for foreign-born high-tech workers.

The European Union recently proposed a "blue card" for skilled workers around the world.

In the land of opportunity, the U.S. has stiff limits on high-skill workers and is moving toward further restrictions.

That has U.S. business groups worried.

Companies, especially high-tech ones, rely heavily on immigration to bring them the best and brightest talent. They look to immigrants for new ideas and sometimes to start companies. Loss of this source of talent could hurt U.S. industry.

The H-1B visas allow in foreigners who bring skills not readily available domestically, people who often studied in the United States. Right now there's an annual cap of 65,000 H-1B visa workers, although Congress is permitting another 20,000 through a temporary expansion.

The NAM is a member of the Compete America Coalition, formed to encourage the bringing of needed talent into the United States, people who unquestionably contribute to the country's economic growth.

Admittedly, H-1B visas tend to provoke heated discussion, as they're often lumped in indiscriminately with other immigration issues. Some people claim they get replaced by the visa recipients, although the law is written to prevent that.

NAM President John Engler discussed the law at a recent forum on innovation sponsored by the Independent Women's Forum. He noted that the cap on H-1B visas has prompted Microsoft to establish an R&D center in Vancouver, B.C., where foreign talent is more readily available. As Microsoft put it in their July release: “Microsoft is a global company, and our greatest asset is smart, talented, highly skilled people,” said S. Somasegar, corporate vice president of the Developer Division at Microsoft. “Our goal as a company is to attract the next generation of leading software developers from all parts of the world, and this center will be a beacon for some of that talent.”

The reality is, Engler said, 80 percent of manufacturing companies in the United States report difficulties in filling positions requiring technical skills, engineering slots included. The world is rapidly changing and some people's skills have not kept up.

Posted by Carter Wood at 4:48 PM | 2 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

December 6, 2007

NAM to Congress: We Need Regulatory Relief

American companies are snowed under by federal regulations.

Just ask Dyke Messinger, president and chief executive officer at Power Curbers Inc. in Salisbury, N.C.

Messinger, who testified for the National Association of Manufacturers Thursday before the House Small Business Committee, told lawmakers he had to hire an employee just to fill out all the paperwork from EPA, OSHA and other government agencies.

“He’s expensive,” said Messinger, whose company makes equipment that turns concrete into curbs and gutters. “He basically handles all that for us.”

After the hearing Committee Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) told Messinger that lawmakers need to hear more from real companies about how federal regulatory requirements affect them.

Messinger's company has 104 workers in Salisbury, Cedar Falls, Iowa, and White House, Tenn. His regulatory requirements can exceed $10,000 per employee.

If you want to read Messinger's testimony in full, click here.

The House Small Business Committee is mulling draft legislation to improve the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which was first enacted in 1980 to ease the burden of federal rules on businesses, especially smaller ones.

The NAM supports a new-and-improved law. For instance, Messinger told Velazquez, ranking member Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), and other lawmakers the NAM wants to improve a periodic review of regulations impacting small businesses. And the NAM says the indirect cost of regulations on businesses should be weighed before they are put into effect.

American companies shell out $1.1 trillion a year to comply with federal regulations. The NAM's "Escalating Cost Crisis" report released in 2006 said American manufacturers are already saddled with a 31.7 percent cost advantage compared to our nine largest trading partners.

Posted by Greg Wright at 2:02 PM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

November 27, 2007

David Brooks: Lou Dobbs is Winning

"Follow the Fundamentals," Brooks writes in today's New York Times.

So it’s worth pointing out now more than ever that Dobbsianism is fundamentally wrong. It plays on legitimate anxieties, but it rests at heart on a more existential fear — the fear that America is under assault and is fundamentally fragile. It rests on fears that the America we once knew is bleeding away.

And that’s just not true.

Brooks cites the World Economic Forum's recent report that ranked the United States as the most globally competitive country in the world, saying the foundation's of U.S. prosperity are strong.

P.S. Good thing the Times dropped its subscription wall putting Brooks and his editorial page colleagues off-limits to general readers. Hurry up, Wall Street Journal!

Posted by Carter Wood at 3:11 PM | 3 comments; click here to read them or submit your own! | Send to a Friend

October 25, 2007

At a Premium: Europe Wants Skilled Immigrants

The European Union, like most developed regions in the world, is suffering from a shortage of skilled employees, including in the sciences, engineering and other technical professions. More immigration is one response:

THE European Union has unveiled legislation to attract skilled migrant workers from outside Europe in an effort to compete in the contest it is losing with the US, Canada and Australia for the brightest staff in high-tech industries.

"We will have a shortage of labour in the future and this is already true of some sectors," said Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, as he announced plans for a single European work visa in Strasbourg on Tuesday. "At the moment, most highly skilled workers go to Canada, the United States and Australia. Why? Because we have 27 different and conflicting procedures in the EU."

Oh, is that why? Doesn't have anything to do with rigid labor markets and limits on social mobility? With, dare we say, comparative levels of freedom?

On the broader point, it's apparent that advanced industrial economies worldwide are adept at creating more skills-demanding jobs than there are employees to fill them. Being a global problem, this "skills gap" cannot be solved alone by an ever-increasing recruitment and importing of employees from other countries. Yes, the United States benefits by bringing in skilled scientists, engineers, IT workers, researchers and the like, and we should adopt visa policies that encourages such immigration.

But demand outstrips supply, globally. So we better be improving our educational and training capacities to develop our own home-grown talent, rather than solely relying on others.

More ...

Jobs without borders: Nordic nations want Baltic immigrants.

EU job market squeezes Slovakia.

Western nations seeks to plunder Asian graduates

Lyrics to "How to Skin a Cat" by Husker Du. They seemed relevant, somehow.

Posted by Carter Wood at 10:09 AM | Click here to comment | Send to a Friend

October 19, 2007

Private Sector Strives for Family-Work Balance

In her bid for the White House, Senator Hillary Clinton has come up with a government “fix” to fix the unfixable problem of trying to balance, well...life. According to Senator Clinton, a 2002 study found that 45 percent of employees say that work and family responsibilities interfere with one another. (What’s shocking is that the number is so low).

Senator Clinton has a plan to “partner” with the business community to give parents more time with their children. By “partner” she means “regulate.” The Senator's plan calls for passing new laws requiring paid time off for medical emergencies and maternity leave. She’ll also extend those regulations to the smallest businesses who were previously exempt.

What’s often forgotten in these type of debates is that the private sector is leaps and bounds ahead of anything that the government could ever do for working families.

For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers has started the Full Circle program, allowing parents to take up to five years off with their children. While on leave, the company pays for training and certifications, invites them to company events and gives them a mentor who will keep them in the loop at the accounting firm.

More and more businesses are starting these type of programs – and not because the government mandated it but because they need and want to retain their employees.

On the other hand, Senator Clinton is correct on one thing: Regulating businesses to the point that they go out of business will result in a lot more family time for employees…

Posted by Dena Battle at 3:09 PM | 1 comment; click here to read it or submit your own! | Send to a Friend