Unions want share of green tech 'stimulus' jobs
WASHINGTON--The massive "stimulus" bill that's careening through the U.S. Congress spends billions of dollars in areas including green technology, energy research, and rural broadband.
Congressional leaders have made sure it comes with some strings attached. A "Buy American" requirement remains after the Senate failed to remove it by a 31-65 vote. Net neutrality rules for broadband spending is another condition that's been imposed.
But strikingly absent is one provision that unions would seem to naturally prefer: requirements that spending be directed at unionized firms, or at least focused on jobs with minimum hourly wages.
A report (PDF) released Thursday by labor groups called for any stimulus subsidies to include "wage requirements" and a "prevailing wage policy" as well as an end to the practice of giving contracts to the lowest bidder.
The report, commissioned by the the Sierra Club, Change to Win, the Laborers International Union of North America, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said that new jobs created through spending on "green" technology wouldn't meet their standards. It argues that wages at some renewable energy facilities don't compare to those at other durable goods manufacturing facilities.
A representative of the United Steelworkers of America told CNET News: "The stimulus need not necessarily have any 'mandatory' labor requirements, per se. That said, we believe the Buy American provisions are the absolute cornerstone of revitalizing American manufacturing."
Technology industry representatives expressed skepticism on Wednesday that union-backed demands like the "Buy American" requirements were wise. In addition, AT&T, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, and others sent a letter to the Senate saying--in no uncertain terms--that the idea "will harm American workers."
Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's economic policy adviser, said at a conference called Good Jobs Green Jobs that the economic package includes funding for the Green Jobs Act, which passed in 2007 without any appropriations, to provide "green" job training and apprenticeship programs. He said that such measures would "create a regime shift in the demand for jobs...potentially good jobs, union jobs, living wage employment."
However, while the House version of the "stimulus" bill included $500 million for the Green Jobs Act, the Senate version currently only includes $250 million.
"And it's probably under attack," said Chris Chafe, executive director of Change to Win, a coalition of various unions.
"To cut back on that means you're going to put taxpayer dollars into projects that will not create the best jobs for workers," he said. "It's great for the people in it for a couple years, but at the end of the day, if we don't have a career path attached to these jobs, we lose."
Chafe argued that training programs would not only give workers more stability but also make it easier for private firms to take over the "green" industry.
Some union leaders and venture capitalists said they'd like to find ways to work together. One benefit, according to two VCs on a panel, is that a well-trained, well-treated workforce creates a more authentically "green" company--and, subsequently, a better investment.
In labor-intensive infrastructure projects--which the VC firms said most of the green economy will consist of--"the cost of talent, the availability of talent is one of the unknowns," said Jeffrey King, the director of new product development for Pacific Crest Securities. "Investors, what they want more than anything else is information and predictability. Clearly, labor is one of the best sources of information."
"There's also a growing understanding of the power labor brings to the conversation," King said. "There are investors out there who do understand being at the table with labor in the policy conversation is going to be a lot more proactive than just complaining."
Innovation-based industries have not worked well with unions in the past. Of the brightest stars in the high-tech firmament--Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo--not one is unionized.
CNET's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.
Stephanie Condon is a staff writer for CNET News focused on the intersection of technology and politics. She is based in Washington, D.C. E-mail Stephanie. 
Yes, there has to be regulation, laws, and ensured fair treatment of workers... but unions (at least in their present form) are not the answer.
As far as preventing innovation, you must be talking about 25+ years ago. Every one of my union contracts have included wording to allow the use of new technology.
I agree with at least putting some 'buy American' incentives in place, as long as they keep business reasonable. If you artificially prop American business up too much, it will eventually crash big time in the world market. What we need to do, probably, is just put huge taxes or other disincentives on imported goods which can't show they are using fair labor practices in other countries.
My future is 'bright' partly because I've changed jobs as industries and market needs have changed. I've worked really hard to train myself in various areas so that I'm in demand. I've made everything from barely enough to eat to 6 figures at points and everything in-between. One of my main issues with the large US labor unions, is that they DISCOURAGE cross-job training. About 10 years ago, I part of quite a bit of work and negotiation with a couple of the major unions on a project that retired workers from each. The unions were totally against their workers learning any of the skills of the other trade. That's where I went from slightly unhappy with unions, to REALLY unhappy with them. They were just looking out for themselves and could care less if the workers have a future... outside collecting the huge dues. Also, when I saw how much the employees would make if it were not for all the union dues... I was really shocked! I think most workers don't realize how much of a % they are sending to the union of what they could be putting in their pockets.
Fortunately, I live in reality. The contrived system most companies and unions are operating in is la-la-land.
@ DJFrankNJ - Yes, the unions played a large role in ruining the US auto industry... at least leading up to the last 5 to 10 years... where I'd then place most of the blame on management for not doing more to react to a market that any person on the street saw coming (of course, their hands were somewhat tied by unions... but they could have at least shifted their product lines properly). Due to the current economy, many companies are shutting down plants... but Toyota is still doing well as a company... GM, etc. are pretty dead unless they make MAJOR changes in just about every way. See my above points regarding innovation. When unions don't want cross-training or training outside their realm to protect their own interests... that stifles innovation... and hurts the workers. When unions take away the goal of workers building the best products they can... it stifles innovation. The designers have to spend way too much time trying to stupid-proof the assembly and construction.
I am stuck with a union that does nothing for me.
The wages are less than other companies in the industry, they have never sent me anything, and I do not even know how to contact them. OK, I could probably find them if I bothered looking.
What the USA needs is an easy way to bow out of scam unions.
Corporations know that a union is a step for workers to increase their lot in life, to share the billions in profits that they produce for "the company" and to insure a better future for their children.
The instant commentors who quickly bash any mention of union efforts are highly supect and are part of the anti union consultant industry we know is out there.
People like SteveW928 are paid professional liars.
Beware of instant nasty postings from his type of paid fear generator.
Gosh, I wish I was getting paid by someone... sorry, just life experience here. I'm not bashing any union activity (though I do think the major unions are too powerful and outdated)... but I don't want to see a new emerging industry ruined before it even gets going. IF the green industry turns out to be exploiting workers terribly, then I'll be the first one to help you advocate getting a union in there, OK?
As to my validity.... just click on my name and check out the wide range of posts I've made since 2002. Then click on 'eeee's link and see what you think.
Come late to work .. the managment gives you a warning --- file a grievance with the Union
Call in sick too many days .. the managment gives you a warning -- file a grievance with the union
and the list goes on....
Or... stuff like workers making full wages while laid-off with school paid for, etc. Sure, that is really nice... except for pretty much no one else in the country working in other professions has perks like that. Sure it's great till the job is gone. Unions need to realize a union isn't much good if the job is gone.
Or... even on a very basic level.... stuff like protecting bad and unproductive workers.
While unions might often disagree on issues... they MUST be pro-company. I think too often that is forgotten and the company is just seen as a magic money tree.
I agree with you on the types of jobs which need to be created.... I'm just not sure having the large national unions involved is a good thing (especially not forcing them to be involved).... and especially not in brand new industries. There are plenty of laws in place in this country to protect workers from your $2/day scenario, union or not.
my 2 cents
Green jobs are a whole 'nother story. How is that that we will spend more for less and it ends up being green? WInd and solar a 3x+ more expensive than nuclear and impractical in many cas
We need some kind of balance between the radical environmentalists who are freaking out and thinking stupidly... and the people with their heads in the sand or just being belligerent and resting change. While it isn't what it will be some day... there is good, reasonably priced green technology available to us RIGHT NOW!
If US tech companies are so great why do we have a $53 billion global trade deficit in advanced technology products?
- by gggg sssss February 6, 2009 5:24 PM PST
- Unions were once a good idea. So was slavery and barbers with leeches Times have changed.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(29 Comments)