“Tell you the truth, I don’t like either [the American or European] option,” said Robert Reich, the secretary of labor, sitting in his office last week. Reich, of course, wants the best of both worlds, an economy that creates more jobs at higher wages. Fat chance, but the secretary does have a theory: a better-educated work force is the one true path to the economy of his dreams. And he has some statistics to back up his theory: wages in America have declined primarily for the undereducated, especially those with only a high-school diploma. And he has a plan: the Re-employment Act of 1994, soon to be announced by the president. What he needs is a metaphor. “We’ve got to do better than a social safety net,” be says. “We need a trampoline.” Yes, but doesn’t that imply a work force bouncing up and down (which may be accurate, given the volatility of the global economy, but not very reassuring)? “Maybe a springboard,” suggests Reich’s assistant, Mary Meagher. The search for a compelling metaphor will, no doubt, continue.
Meanwhile, Reich’s Labor Department seems to have done a rare and unlikely-for government-good thing. It has spent the past year trying to figure out how to help the 2 million workers who are “displaced” each year by our buoyant, vibrant, flexible economy. It began by recognizing that the existing programs-the oxymoronic Employment Service (where very few ever find employment), the welter of job-training and retraining programs-aren’t very effective. A new system was needed. Reich asked David Osborne, coauthor of “Reinventing Government,” to be a consultant, and one of Osborne’s intellectual soul mates, Doug Ross, to be assistant secretary for employment and training. The Labor Department then took a truly radical step: it went out and asked unemployed workers what kinds of services they needed.
The answers were not surprising: they wanted help finding good jobs or, failing that, training that might lead to a good job. They didn’t think government could ever provide it (an image that always came up: long lines at the employment office and a bored bureaucrat saying, “Next”); real help was more likely to come from the private sector. Indeed, many workers said they’d be willing to pay-the same sort of fee executive-search firms charge-for a service that actually found them a good job. The Labor Department responded with a plan to replace the current system with one-stop employment offices, where laid-off workers-or dissatisfied workers or students about to join the work force-could find out what jobs and job training were available (and especially, which training programs actually got results). The new system would be more user-friendly, provide career counseling and let workers know if they were eligible for job training or educational aid.
But the Labor Department also proposed one other, rather controversial, step: to ensure that employment offices remained user-friendly, the system had to be open for competition-private companies would be free to compete against the Employment Service. The government would pay whoever got results. Osborne and Ross were hoping the Employment Service would respond the same way the Postal Service did when it faced competition from Federal Express: its “next-day delivery” services improved dramatically. But even if it didn’t, unemployed workers would have the choice of going elsewhere if they got lousy service-and bureaucrats would know their jobs depended on making their customers happy.
That plan is now in danger. The unions oppose it, especially the public-employees unions. They fear their members, currently chanting “Next!” in employment offices across America, will be supplanted if they are forced to compete. But they don’t say that. Don Wasserman of the State, County and Municipal Employees says competition is depressing: “It’ll only confuse the poor, goddamned unemployed worker.” Gerald McEntee, who is Wasserman’s boss, takes a more subtle line: the Employment Service would be happy to compete against private firms if the government put a lot more money into the current system.
Those who wonder about the topography of postmodern politics need look no further. There are Old Democrats-who want to pump more money into a failed system. There are Republicans-who don’t want to spend the $13 billion Reich needs to create the new system (and doubt, with some good evidence, that any of this retraining stuff can work). And there are New Democrats-who think government should do more to ease the anxiety of the millions who lose their jobs each year, but that it can best be done by mobilizing the private sector. Bill Clinton, an intermittent New Democrat, has a dilemma here. He offended the union bosses when he supported free trade with Mexico. He needs their support now to pass his health-care plan. No doubt the president will try to negotiate a middle course-but any re-employment system that doesn’t include real private-sector competition should be considered a capitulation, not a compromise, and a craven one at that.
title: “Bob Reich S Job Market” ShowToc: true date: “2023-01-02” author: “Joan Watford”
“Tell you the truth, I don’t like either [the American or European] option,” said Robert Reich, the secretary of labor, sitting in his office last week. Reich, of course, wants the best of both worlds, an economy that creates more jobs at higher wages. Fat chance, but the secretary does have a theory: a better-educated work force is the one true path to the economy of his dreams. And he has some statistics to back up his theory: wages in America have declined primarily for the undereducated, especially those with only a high-school diploma. And he has a plan: the Re-employment Act of 1994, soon to be announced by the president. What he needs is a metaphor. “We’ve got to do better than a social safety net,” be says. “We need a trampoline.” Yes, but doesn’t that imply a work force bouncing up and down (which may be accurate, given the volatility of the global economy, but not very reassuring)? “Maybe a springboard,” suggests Reich’s assistant, Mary Meagher. The search for a compelling metaphor will, no doubt, continue.
Meanwhile, Reich’s Labor Department seems to have done a rare and unlikely-for government-good thing. It has spent the past year trying to figure out how to help the 2 million workers who are “displaced” each year by our buoyant, vibrant, flexible economy. It began by recognizing that the existing programs-the oxymoronic Employment Service (where very few ever find employment), the welter of job-training and retraining programs-aren’t very effective. A new system was needed. Reich asked David Osborne, coauthor of “Reinventing Government,” to be a consultant, and one of Osborne’s intellectual soul mates, Doug Ross, to be assistant secretary for employment and training. The Labor Department then took a truly radical step: it went out and asked unemployed workers what kinds of services they needed.
The answers were not surprising: they wanted help finding good jobs or, failing that, training that might lead to a good job. They didn’t think government could ever provide it (an image that always came up: long lines at the employment office and a bored bureaucrat saying, “Next”); real help was more likely to come from the private sector. Indeed, many workers said they’d be willing to pay-the same sort of fee executive-search firms charge-for a service that actually found them a good job. The Labor Department responded with a plan to replace the current system with one-stop employment offices, where laid-off workers-or dissatisfied workers or students about to join the work force-could find out what jobs and job training were available (and especially, which training programs actually got results). The new system would be more user-friendly, provide career counseling and let workers know if they were eligible for job training or educational aid.
But the Labor Department also proposed one other, rather controversial, step: to ensure that employment offices remained user-friendly, the system had to be open for competition-private companies would be free to compete against the Employment Service. The government would pay whoever got results. Osborne and Ross were hoping the Employment Service would respond the same way the Postal Service did when it faced competition from Federal Express: its “next-day delivery” services improved dramatically. But even if it didn’t, unemployed workers would have the choice of going elsewhere if they got lousy service-and bureaucrats would know their jobs depended on making their customers happy.
That plan is now in danger. The unions oppose it, especially the public-employees unions. They fear their members, currently chanting “Next!” in employment offices across America, will be supplanted if they are forced to compete. But they don’t say that. Don Wasserman of the State, County and Municipal Employees says competition is depressing: “It’ll only confuse the poor, goddamned unemployed worker.” Gerald McEntee, who is Wasserman’s boss, takes a more subtle line: the Employment Service would be happy to compete against private firms if the government put a lot more money into the current system.
Those who wonder about the topography of postmodern politics need look no further. There are Old Democrats-who want to pump more money into a failed system. There are Republicans-who don’t want to spend the $13 billion Reich needs to create the new system (and doubt, with some good evidence, that any of this retraining stuff can work). And there are New Democrats-who think government should do more to ease the anxiety of the millions who lose their jobs each year, but that it can best be done by mobilizing the private sector. Bill Clinton, an intermittent New Democrat, has a dilemma here. He offended the union bosses when he supported free trade with Mexico. He needs their support now to pass his health-care plan. No doubt the president will try to negotiate a middle course-but any re-employment system that doesn’t include real private-sector competition should be considered a capitulation, not a compromise, and a craven one at that.
