Left In Lowell

Via Blue Mass Group’s sharonmg, Lowell is listed as one of the top 5 metro areas in the nation slated to lose in this report, The Implications of Service Offshoring for Metropolitan Economies (PDF) from the Brookings Institute. Ouch. The report finds:

Twenty-eight metropolitan areas, with 13.5 percent of the nation’s population, are likely to lose between 2.6 and 4.3 percent of their jobs to service offshoring, higher than the average loss among the metropolitan areas studied. Five metropolitan areas—Boulder, CO; Lowell, MA; San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; and Stamford, CT—are likely to lose between 3.1 and 4.3 percent of their jobs to service offshoring between 2004 and 2015, while 23 others are likely to lose between 2.6 and 3 percent of their jobs. However, 158 metropolitan areas are likely to lose no more than 2 percent of their jobs as a result of service offshoring.
[…]
At least 17 percent of computer programming, software engineering, and data entry jobs are likely to be offshored in particular metropolitan areas.

Those numbers don’t seem too alarming, until you realize these are the jobs which employ the high-tech middle class. You can’t outsource cashering at Wal-Mart; but you can outsource your help desk, computer programming, and financial analyists. Shift the proportions of the job market from those that pay well to ones that do not, and you definitely have a recipe for hurt - not just for those unlucky 4.3 percent.

The answer lies somewhere between protectionism, and letting corporations do whatever they please. We have heavily leaned towards the latter in the last couple of decades of trade negotiations. As this trend worsens, I’ve watched the right wing decry Mexicans crossing the border and Lou Dobbs berate corporate outsourcing. Our trade policies have greatly contributed to both the illegal immigration and the outsourcing problems, and until we have leadership that is not bought and paid for by large conglomerates, that will not change.

It seems to me that promised policies to develop Massachusett’s renewable energy and biotech economy can’t come soon enough.

The report goes into federal and state policy decisions that might offset some of the negative impact, and is worth a read. As sharonmg says, it specifically calls for reform in health care to fix our broken, expensive private insurance system.

Last night the Lowell City Council adopted Chapter 32B, Section 16, of Massachusetts state law allowing the City to offer HMO to City Employees. The Councilors voted 8-0 (one absent) to adopt this provision; something that should have been done over a decade ago when the City began to offer HMO as an option in the healthcare benefits to its employees.

This in itself is not a major issue but the City is currently involved in prolonged contract negotiations (now in arbitration) with the school employees’ union, including the United Teachers of Lowell, led by ubiquitous, vocal, opinionated Paul Georges.

Mr. Georges is currently not teaching but serving as President of the Merrimack Central Labor Council as well as President of UTL. He has taken the issue public and has on numerous occasions and in a number of different forums expressed his opposition to the vote. In a letter he wrote to the Sun, which was published yesterday, Mr. Georges lays out his concerns:

The United Teachers of Lowell have never taken the position against adoption of that law, which allows communities to offer HMOs in addition to the traditional Master Medical health plan. We do, however, oppose the way City Manager Bernard Lynch has chosen to interpret that law in terms of collective bargaining, which constitutes a radical departure from the interpretation taken by every city manager since 1996 when the first city unions, through collective bargaining, accepted the HMO and other health-insurance plans for their members.

In other words they want to bargain this benefit; they will allow the city to offer this option but the City needs to give something back in return. Well, it may be a “radical departure” but these are radical times.

We, like every other cities and towns in Massachusetts, cannot continue to pay the ever rising costs of municipal government. As it was pointed out, in 2000 the cost of healthcare for the city was $ 13M; now 7 years later, the cost is $ 28M. Additionally, our health insurance trust funds have been depleted and new legislation requires us to fully fund it. Where are we going to get all this money? Let them negotiate for other types of benefits, please. Also, as it was stated last night the unions still can bargain the parameters of the implementation, can’t they?

One of Mr. Georges’ complaints about CM Bernie Lynch is that he “hired outside lawyers” to render the opinion CM Lynch was seeking. I found that to be disingenuous on Mr. Georges’ part. Guess what last night most of the people who spoke against the measure were “hired outside union business agents.” That is how negotiations take place, you have professionals handle the discussion. (more…)