US News items
 |
|
|
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
|
|
Jobs flying faster from U.S.
Estimate for 2006 raised by 40% -- to 800,000
John Shinal, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/18/BUGQ26ND7B1.DTL
[Excerpt]
U.S. corporations are sending work overseas faster than previously thought, according to Forrester Research Inc., whose controversial report 18 months ago helped stoke the national controversy over offshoring American jobs.
In its latest study, Forrester predicts that by the end of next year, U.S. firms will offshore more than 800,000 service jobs, 40 percent more than the firm estimated previously. Forrester's overall estimate remains the same: The firm predicts that about 3.3 million jobs will go overseas by 2015.
The Cambridge, Mass., researcher said the largest U.S. employers are expanding the types of work they send overseas. Where telemarketers and software developers used to bear the brunt of the job loss, bank loan processors, insurance claims adjusters and even legal assistants now share the pain.
Critics of offshoring seized on the original Forrester report as evidence that shipping jobs overseas would devastate service-sector employment and the middle-class workers who fill those occupations. Yet the report itself was criticized by economists, company executives and others who have defended offshoring as a painful but necessary result of a global economy.
The issue has become a political hot button, with some in Congress calling for laws to limit the type of work that can besent abroad and privacy advocates saying the practice puts sensitive data into the hands of overseas firms.
Despite the criticism, the largest U.S. companies are accelerating their offshoring plans, and by 2008, more than half the Fortune 1000 will have overseas operations, according to the report. [Lincoln's IIR Library Weblog]
10:47:13 AM 
|
|
House approves changes to government's work-safety agency
LEIGH STROPE, AP Labor Writer
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
©2004 Associated Press
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/18/national1806EDT0740.DTL
[Excerpt]
The House voted Tuesday to make employer-friendly changes to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, including adding two members to a violations review commission, increasing its power, extending deadlines for companies to challenge citations and allowing more of them to recoup lawyers' fees.
Republicans said the four bills would enhance OSHA's oversight of employers and improve the regulatory process.
Democrats said the legislation was an election-year gift to big business, intended to weaken regulation that ultimately would hurt workers.
"Don't hamstring small businesses' ability to continue to hire new workers and compete in our economy," said GOP Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee. "That's why these bills are important."
Republicans argued the four bills make technical, easily understood changes that remove unnecessary red tape on employers by OSHA, a Labor Department agency.
"I would argue the bills enhance OSHA's ability to work with employers in a voluntary way to increase the health and safety of workers," Boehner said.
Democrats countered that the bills do nothing to improve job protections for workers, and Republicans are looking out only for their employer campaign contributors.
"You never get any bills from them seeking to protect workers," Rep. Major Owens, D-N.Y., said about the Republicans. [Lincoln's IIR Library Weblog]
10:46:48 AM
|
|
In a 2-1 party line vote, the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided an employer may explicitly inform workers who are about to vote on whether to form a union that workers in two other facilities lost their jobs after they formed a union.
The case involves security guards at a New York City hotel who were seeking to form a union with the Brotherhood of Security Personnel Officers and Guards Union. Eight days before the election, management circulated a memo saying security guards had been fired after voting for the union at two of the company's other hotels. The memo said, "So, in the final analysis, the majority who voted for this union (as well as the minority who voted against it) gained NOTHING, and LOST EVERYTHING! They lost all of their medical benefits, their 401K plans, and most importantly, they lost their jobs!"
The regional NLRB director ruled the memo "clearly implied" the union was responsible for the firings at the other two hotels and insinuated similar firings could happen if the workers voted for the union. The two Bush NLRB appointees overruled the regional director's decision and claimed the memo "did not exceed the bounds of permissible campaign statements."
In his dissent, the lone Democratic appointee said the memo "was a clear attempt to communicate the message that unionization at the other two hotels caused those employees to lose their jobs and benefits, and that unionization would likewise cause the employees to lose their jobs and benefits."
[Lincoln's IIR Library Weblog]
10:46:31 AM
|
|
Jobs going offshore faster than estimated. New figures on offshore outsourcing suggest that American companies are sending even more white-collar jobs to low-wage countries such as India, China and Russia than researchers originally estimated. Roughly 830,000 U.S. service-sector jobs — ranging from telemarketers and accountants to software engineers and chief technology officers — will move abroad by the end of 2005, according to a report released Monday by Forrester Research Inc. The Cambridge, Mass.-based firm projected in 2002 that 588,000 jobs would move overseas by the end of next year. Pioneer Planet May 18 2004 2:10PM GMT [Janice Kimball's Radio Weblog]
10:45:43 AM
|
|
Oakland's unemployment rate drops. OAKLAND -- The city's unemployment rate fell to 9 percent in April from 9.9 percent in March, the largest single monthly decline in at least 14 years. Oakland's jobless rate was 10.7 percent last April and peaked at 11.6 percent in July, according to the state Employment Development Department. Oakland Tribune May 18 2004 12:18PM GMT [Janice Kimball's Radio Weblog]
10:45:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer
Links on these pages to commercial sites do not represent
endorsement by the University of California or its affiliates. The
opinions expressed on this Weblog are the responsibility of the
contributing authors and do not reflect the opinion of the Institute
of Industrial Relations, The University of California, or the Regents
of the University of California
|
