Parcon Research Survey Results "Should the moving of US jobs to overseas locations be regulated?" A brief comment about virus writers. We find it unfathomable that the German authorities have released the 18 year old who admitted to writing the Sasser worm that ripped across the Internet last week. Although, at some point in the future, the offender will probably be charged with "computer sabotage" we think that ANYBODY that negatively disrupts the activities of millions of people around the world should be kept behind bars until they are put in prison along with other criminals. My previous comment on this was last September. Here's a Summary: Virus writing is a form of large scale grand theft and needs to be treated as such. Period. --TN When I mentioned to our group of advisors (e-mail me below if you want to be in this esteemed group) that I was thinking about doing a survey around whether or not the government should get involved in regulating the off-shoring of US jobs the response was, basically, "Nobody in this group will say yes. Nobody!" Given my curious nature I decided to put it out there anyway knowing the comments, one way or another, would illuminate all facets of the issue which might prove useful to the readers, and not just the ones in public office. Everybody benefits when they are exposed to a variety of opinions. Well, in fact, 23% did say it was OK to regulate the exporting of jobs. And yes, that is a bit of a surprise! Voter count: 1,221 Hopefully you can take something away from the reader comments below. Many are quite insightful. Feel free to forward this along. And, as always, keep us in mind for your executive search needs. We have a modern, fixed price approach. [To view or download the comments as a single Acrobat file click here.] Tal Newhart Parcon Research Modern, efficient, executive search

Feel free to suggest a survey topic.

Reader Comments

Name_Initials: Jack Kelly Title: President and CEO Comment_No Global competition is a reality that must be embraced - not encumbered by government policy. A very real part of global competition is labor quality and costs - and not just manual labor. Professional and management talent are not the exclusive domain of the US or US companies. All companies must be watchful for the best talent, locations and value they can provide their customers. The ultimate price of not embracing global economic realities could extend much further than short term if US companies become less competitive and are unable to offer the best value to customers and markets. Such situations could lead to permanent losses of business and jobs with major impacts to the US economy including a loss of tax revenues, higher unemployment, and even bankruptcies. AND, we should not ignore the short term effects to those who lose their jobs as a result of management's decision to move resources and work overseas. Companies should accept the responsibility of providing adequate notice of this to those affected, provide training and outplacement help for ALL affected (not just white collar workers). They should re-invest part of their reduced long term costs to help those who have served the company make appropriate adjustments. Name_Initials: Robert Prieto Title: Senior Vice President Company: Fluor Corporation Comment_No The premise of the government "regulating" free trade is silly at best. The common pattern of economies which successfully integrate into today's global economy is their ability to participate in the increasing fragmentation of production chains across borders. This requires improvements in trade facilitation, lowering of trade protectionism and removal of non tariff barriers including corruption and jobs regulation. Foreign direct investment, including that financing our current levels of deficit spending, flows to economies with increasing participation in global production networks, not those raising new non-tariff barriers. Name_Initials: AES Title: President Company: MRT Comment_No The fact that few American companies have employed TRUE Lean Principles within their operations; many would find relative few jobs would need to be "exported". The marketplace can (and should) do the job of regulation - not the gov't. Name_Initials: MSH  Comment_Yes Good morning. I hope that your day is going well. I think that the movement of jobs to off shore locations should be regulated because there is too much evasion of US taxes by corporations which in turn places a greater burden on individual US tax payers as it is. Corporations are seemingly doing more to avoid taxes (recently a report showed that 60% of major corporations did not pay taxes), while placing greater demands on US resources by avoiding environmental regulations. By this I mean, there is seemingly more damage to the waters, forests, etc. by companies that are not strictly adhering to environmental regulations. Thus, they are not helping to pay for the clean up of the pollution that they cause, and are not contributing to society as much as they could. This is like eating one's cake and having it too. They skirt regulations, enter into deals that allow them to avoid taxes, move jobs overseas, and then expect the economy to rebound in America. The question becomes, how can the economy rebound if persons are unable to find work to earn enough money to buy products? There is seemingly not enough concern or forethought about the future of the US economy or societal issues due to a focus on the immediate bottom line by too many US corporations. Special interest groups have made the government more beholden to corporations and less so to the US population as a whole. This will lead to a long period of decline in our way of life if not restrained in some way. One way is to stem the tide of transferring jobs to off shore locations. Alternatively, we could ensure that US corporations pay taxes and use some of those proceeds to rebuild the infrastructure of America, i.e. its roads, railways, bridges, etc. Doing this would create good jobs in America that cannot be outsourced. Thank you for allowing me to make a comment. Name_Initials: ADM Title: VP Finance Comment_Yes We are not only losing jobs, but eventually taking away the incentives of our youth to study certain careers that bring the brain power to the country and an eventual competitive advantage. Many are in Engineering and Development as well as professional work which is essential for the US to maintain a leadership role. This along with the loss of production jobs will damage the economy and the country long term as we will not be competitive and will eventually affect the GDP and country growth. High unemployment rates will become a norm in high paying jobs with a very detrimental effect for the country. The US has been a world leader given the strength and size of its middle class which has created the greatest consumption society in the world and losing jobs will markedly affect this. Name_Initials: RKK Title: Pharmaceutical Consultant Comment_No Ned Ludd and his cause does not merit 21st century support. Note: You may need to review exactly who Ned Ludd was. For that please go here. Name_Initials: AXA Title: CEO Comment_No Long term this will make us uncompetitive in the marketplace. Other countries/companies will take advantage of cost disparities and end up winning business at our expense Name_Initials: Jim Boone Title: Managing Partner Company:  Windship Partners Comment_No This is no different than the manufacturing exodus of past years--if we regulate anything I suggest it would be parity of imports/exports and reciprocity of trade barriers. Note: Like us, Jim is a modern, forward thinking search consultant but he focuses on senior positions where we are more middle market. He is the former President of the Americas for Korn/Ferry International and possesses a tenacity when executing a search you rarely see. Also, having been the chairman of a public company he has a unique insight into what big companies really need. His company is in Atlanta. Name_Initials: DU Title: Pres Comment_No Regulation of "offshoring of jobs" will make the situation worse. Looking at current proposals, we would face the creation of artificial markets for service and technology contracts, escalation of vendor pricing for government contracts, and competitive threats to America's great global corporations. In a sense, we are re-branding global business activities (centuries in the making) as "offshoring". Long-term, we need to focus on investment in public education, curricula, teacher training, and anticipating new business opportunities. We need to place more emphasis on helping big ideas accelerate into real markets; and build on our capabilities in retraining. Instead of regulation of "offshoring", let's be sure small businesses have access to capital, let's wage war on the high drop-out rates, and make a national commitment to having our kids ready to learn at age 6. Name_Initials: DDG Title: CFO Comment_No Job movement should not be the jurisdiction of governments. If governments want to retain jobs they need to make the USA work force more competitive in the global labor market. Name_Initials: Al Gaston Title: self employed Comment_No We use a lot of political rhetoric about free market economies, and I think correctly so. But we do not need to be seen as hypocritical by protecting jobs from inefficient businesses or industries. Additionally, protecting such inefficient producers will only serve to weaken OUR economy in the long run. Name_Initials: JMF Title: President Company: Strategic Distribution Group, LLC Comment_No The government should stay out of the role of "taking care of us"...and let the economy flourish with no protectionist policies. We will never be strong unless we are free from intervention...and the economy will never work with the government's "hand" in it... Name_Initials: JH Title: President Comment_No Can we outsource Lou Dobbs' job overseas? I'm sick of hearing him whine about this issue EVERY single night on CNN! Name_Initials: BSB Title: VP/General Manager Comment_No If US companies are not allowed to take advantage of lower cost options around the world, non-US companies can and will displace the US companies in the global and eventually US market place. In this scenario, both US companies and US workers lose. This is not that complicated. We have a mostly capitalistic global economy. Who ever provides the most value at the lowest costs will win. US workers have to find ways to add more value than unskilled offshore labor. This is the challenge that the US governments should focus on; upgrading US workers not destroying US companies' competitiveness. BSB Name_Initials: JAD Title: COO Comment_Yes We cannot condemn the "bottom half" of our population to 3rd world wages. The unions have to wake up (never thought I would say that!) Name_Initials: Larry Laurich Title: CEO Company: Virtual Computers Comment_No The reason for the competitiveness of the US technology companies is the ability to drive value and price performance. If you limit the best value you will ultimately limit being competitive. More design wins by a company will provide more domestic jobs even if some of those jobs are overseas. High tech companies need to move fast and will keep the most strategic, inventive, and competitive jobs close to management in the US. If they are allowed at their discretion to optimize the balance of resources they will find a more optimum point faster and much more effectively than any regulation could ever consider. Regulation will in the long run be the ruin of our competitive industries. Name_Initials: ejn Title: ceo Comment_No The government already intrudes extensively through a variety of tax and other regulations. Nothing further is required Name_Initials: Lewis C. Bryan Title: President Company: Postal Connections Comment_No I believe that exporting jobs is good for the developing countries in the world and encourages countries to be more efficient and productive, decreasing prices and cost of living. The principle of demand and supply really plays well in the context the world economy. Exporting jobs goes two ways which means that all countries are candidates to import jobs to the extent that countries have something to offer, i.e. talent, language, technology, etc. In the long run the world becomes a better place due to exporting jobs and the customers ultimately win. Name_Initials: RWM Title: SR VP Comment_No This would be an endorsement of discrimination. The economy is global and exclusionary regulation is unacceptable. Name_Initials: Lauch Hines Title: Consultant Company: LH Consulting Comment_No I just don't see the movement of jobs overseas as that big of an issue. The global economy and that of the US has a much bigger impact on jobs than the relatively minor overseas movement. Are we also going to regulate overseas jobs that come here (which are usually much higher pay)? I just don't see any way that regulation can help. Name_Initials: Bill C Title: Vice President Company: Maxiom Group Comment_Yes Current tax code does not address this trend appropriately, and companies should be held accountable for working conditions and employment practices as much as possible. Name_Initials: STM Title: VP Operations Comment_No The movement of work / jobs to drive competitive improvement will happen regardless of governmental intervention. Regulation by our government has not proven to be an effective tool ... can you say "energy policy". Government policy and spending that fosters redeployment of domestic resources (people who want jobs) would shorten the dislocation period. Name_Initials: reh Title: CEO Comment_Yes any regulations that are adopted should only relate to the concept of the organizations existence as an "American held company" that is actively traded in America.. Name_Initials: Paul Meshanko Title: President Company: Edge Learning of Ohio Comment_Yes At question is not just short-term corporate profits, but the long-term viability of the U.S. workforce (and educational institutions that support it). But that said, the government could really screw things up by over-complicating related rules. I believe any "regulation" of moving U.S. jobs off-shore should be vis-a-vis the IRS tax code. I'm not a tax expert, but my suggestion would be some sort of mechanism that either rewards the retention of jobs domestically or penalizes the most blatant demonstrations of off-sourcing. Name_Initials: JEH Title: SR VP Comment_No We live and work in a 'free market' economy. History has repeated over and over that 'protectionism' simply adds cost by building artificial inefficiency into the system, and is not sustainable. Election years bring out the worst in our politicians. They demonstrate their ignorance of business and the economy in general. Focus should be on making America more competitive - get rid of tort law, get more cooperative on environmental regs and find a mutual solution to health care - without input of the drug companies. Name_Initials: BK Title: Director Comment_No While the loss of jobs is troubling, its part of a natural economic cycle. We should not attempt to fight global economic forces with legislation. Global competition, while disruptive, forces our economy to re-create itself, and ultimately will result in a stronger position. Name_Initials: RG Title: President Comment_No economics and darwinism are potent forces in our universe. regulation for short term benefits are long-term downers. Name_Initials: HWP Title: Partner Comment_No While I hate to see good jobs go overseas, if we want to continue to buy $100 players DVDs at Wal-Mart, we have to send jobs overseas to be competitive in a world market. Name_Initials: RAS Title: VP IT Infrastructure Services Comment_No Protectionism is myopic. Name_Initials: dkh Title: ceo Comment_No Moving jobs to places where there is qualified labor at reasonable rates makes good economic sense. Most of the unemployed in our country are not qualified to do these jobs anyway. The only way to solve the problem in the States is to better educate our unemployed to make them more relevant. Name_Initials: JEG Title: CEO Comment_No the point of a free market is to allow the market to drive success. To regulate the scope of market, redefines our capitalist society. Name_Initials: Mike Fifer Title: EVP Company: Mueller Industries, Inc. Comment_No No, because jobs moving offshore are only a symptom and not the root cause. We need to insure a "level playing field" with our international competitors in terms of environmental, health, safety and other "overhead" costs if we are to save American jobs. Jobs legislation will not stop imports. Name_Initials: Mike Title: Sales VP Comment_No Historically in the United States we have seen an exodus of jobs to less costly foreign markets. This has not made the US less competitive over time. It does more to stimulate our initiatives in finding new business opportunities in our home marketplace. American ingenuity has always been a stronghold of our success in the US. When the auto industry was losing jobs to foreign competitors it did not cause the downfall of our US auto manufacturers in fact it caused the US manufacturers to become much more competitive and build better vehicles. Name_Initials: VCB Title: Director, Engineering Comment_No No but moving corporate HQ offshore to skirt taxes, jurisdiction and liabilities should be. Name_Initials: KAW Title: Director-Corporate Finance Comment_No Global economic forces are much stronger than individual national needs Name_Initials: Michiel Kruyt Title: VP Global Marketing Comment_No I believe that the principle of democracy should be applied to business as well as politics. This means that labor will go where the best capabilities are. It will create a world where people are stimulated to develop their potential and compete in the global market place. It will enhance understanding of each other around the world and it will make people focus on where their added value is. Protection will lead to sub optimization. It might maximize a country's short term labor market but in the long run it will not be sustainable. Name_Initials: JPS Title: President Comment_No Jobs are not "US jobs", capitalism knows no borders. Still, off-shoring jobs costs the US. I believe that an "employment fee" should be levied by the Federal government on companies going offshore - to recoup the lost tax revenues and support retraining efforts. Name_Initials: SA Title: VP Strat Mkting Comment_No The issue is complex in that it centers on market forces and efficiency, but at the expense of the general good. Companies are obligated to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders. This is exacerbated by the market forces that are created by a market share leader or low cost producer placing additional pressure by starting the process and moving off shore a portion of their manufacturing and service components. To assist in leveling the playing field government should remove tax incentives or eliminate tax deductions for US based companies when they move overseas. Further for companies that are overseas that exploit their low wage rates Tariffs can support leveling the playing field. Although my comments are simplified and not complete, some form of regulation to level the playing field for companies or the competitive forces will be to great. Name_Initials: Bruce Title: VP-CFO Comment_No Ultimately, competition and our customers' demands will determine sourcing decisions which includes off-shore resources. Gov't. is not nimble enough to be involved in such decisions. Name_Initials: DWS Title: CEO Company: INTECH Comment_Yes Jobs should only be exported if new jobs are being created in the US at the same rate. The number of new jobs required in the US should include enough for college grads, etc. Full employment is critical for economic and military strength. Name_Initials: David Green Title: President Comment_No If the US regulates this, but other countries like Canada and Britain do not, it will make US companies less globally competitive and that will ultimately lead to whole companies going bust - and all the jobs being lost - rather than just some jobs moving overseas. Large scale job losses are undoubtedly painful but the better way to address this is job re-training programmers, not regulation. Name_Initials: Kim Anderson Title: President Company: Longitude Partners, Inc. Comment_No The re-engineering and off-shoring of repetitive, often paper-based, manually intensive back office or call center functions is not a causal factor in the US economy, but symptomatic of the continued globalization of capital and labor, a key trend in the next stage development of the capitalist system. Like the kung fu fighter, America should embrace this trend, moving with the flow, not against it, finding new ways to redeploy the available labor and apply the operational savings to expand, invent and grow. In the end, it's not always cost savings which justifies off-shoring, but improvements in quality, service, responsiveness and speed to market of innovations and customer options which justifies off-shoring. Off-shoring is simply the latest wake up call for America to invest in the societal infrastructures like education which will keep us globally competitive. American business has led the world for so long we tend to forget that the better you are, the better you'd better get. Name_Initials: Dave Title: Consultant Company: Talent Strategy Consultants Comment_No In a global economy labor should be free to move around the world. The US must compete on its technological advantage, not on its low cost labor. Government funded spending should be limited exclusively to jobs the US Name_Initials: JC Title: Principal Comment_Yes The exporting of jobs should not be the only criterion. If the top levels of the organization were more reasonable in terms of costs, perhaps not as many jobs would have to be exported. Name_Initials: WHM Title: CEO Comment_No Offer incentives for our businesses to keep jobs in the U.S., not more federal regulation. Name_Initials: MSM Title: President Comment_No Gee, the government has better things to do than to regulate where we build or support our products. However, I would like to see a statement from all companies that defines where their products are built and supported. Thus, potential clients can vote with their pocketbook, and their conscience. Name_Initials: CW Title: VP Marketing Comment_No If the US prohibits US companies from outsourcing jobs overseas won't other countries impose the same or other restrictions on the US? It's a global economy and we need to compete. Name_Initials: DJW Title: Pres/COO Comment_No Government regulation is not a solution to a business problem. The uninformed, unmotivated public who fail to understand the most basic of economic fundamentals are those who tout additional regulation. Lets eliminate governmental regulation in areas which will affect positive change, such as the tax code, which will result in further investment in the US. Name_Initials: KRS Title: Sr VP Comment_No US companies must be able to compete with foreign-owned companies. The government has no role in regulating procurement of resources as long as transactions are legal. If it wants to provide incentives for hiring US labor, that's OK but would smack a bit of protectionism. Name_Initials: MB Title: CEO Comment_No Giving such a control to the government will only result in more unnecessary bureaucracy for businesses based in the US, and will provide too many opportunities to the politicians to abuse such a system. Let's for a change place the regulations and bureaucracy on the shoulder of countries and businesses who import goods into the US without reciprocating the same free trade spirit that we maintain towards them, or violate our IP rights, ... I am tired of solutions that end up making life and business more miserable for the US companies as opposed to unfair trading partners. Name_Initials: cid Title: vp & general manager Comment_No I believe this should be part of the political discourse as it is today, but that companies should be free to make those decisions. Establishing offshore operations often has many motivations, including better access to offshore markets, that are difficult to allow for in a regulated environment. Name_Initials: Mike Williams Title: SVP Human Resources Comment_No It is hypocritical to use globalization as a marketing tool to further US business interests internationally, and not accept the inevitable globalization of jobs as a consequence. Name_Initials: Charles Bruce Title: SVP Marketing Comment_No The United States benefits tremendously from the outsourcing of jobs and is the destination of far more outsourced jobs from around the world than the jobs we outsource to other countries. The politicians need to stay out of this arena and let the open market determine where the best opportunities are for job creation. Obviously the world (rightfully, so far) thinks our country is a great place to invest, but that could easily change if the politicians get involved and end up convoluting a process that's currently working very well in our favor. Name_Initials: GAF Title: Director Comment_No Healthy, profitable U.S. Corporations, ultimately contribute more to the U.S. economy with profits that are taxed in the U.S. and well-paying head office jobs created in the U.S. It's a small price to pay to have normally low value labor exported in return for high value returns in the U.S. The alternative is bankrupt companies and no benefits to the U.S. Name_Initials: SM Title: Partner Comment_Yes American companies for years have cried about having to compete in the world market with one arm tied behind their backs, due to US regulations/costs. They have lobbied for years for tax breaks, insurance reductions, lower capital costs, environmental deregulation and on and on. Now these same companies think nothing of putting American workers in the same situation without the lobbying power Name_Initials: marty Title: CEO Comment_No The issue of offshoring is painful in terms of its impact on the US job base but there can be no doubt that many companies are doing it as a part of a strategy to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their operations. Sadly, while this has a salutary short-term positive effect for shareholders, customers and former employees often suffer in the transition. Unmentioned in much of the press, however, is the sad fact that much offshoring is the result of bad management. In most of these cases, offshoring is seen as "easier" than taking the hard management choices that would allow the work and most of the jobs to stay here. Unfortunately, those companies that offshore for these reasons are not often aware that they are in this situation and soon find themselves with a "bad" offshore solution as the alternative to their "bad" US-based solution. Given this Hobbesian choice -- bad here or bad there -- and this choice alone, it does not really matter which is elected because, in the long run, employees, customers and shareholders will all "take it in the neck." On the bright side, if we do what is necessary to spur and support innovation in this country, we will always have a leg up on the future jobs creation engine we know so well how to manage. Again, the downside is that we need to plan to support the reskilling of a population that is about 2 or 3 innovation generations behind already. As we look forward, we cannot afford to completely take our eyes off the rear-view mirror as it depicts the societal problems that we must deal with as the collateral damage of innovation and offshoring or it will truly consume us in a bifurcated society with overwhelming poverty, welfare, crime and other costs. Where we need the government is to help sort out how we stay societally balanced and able to make the most of the innovation streams -- by helping people to adjust, cope, retrain and remain productive citizens, not in stopping offshoring. That is an unwinnable battle that will consume critical resources and polarize our friends in the broader global marketplace. Name_Initials: JR Title: CEO Company: Public Oil & Gas Co. Comment_Yes The regulating of exporting jobs should relate to the business ethics and practices of the corporate entities involved, however it should not relate to whether or not companies are allowed to move jobs off shore. Companies should not be allowed access to domestic capital markets if they do not comply with domestic business ethics and practices. Name_Initials: fred pounds Title: ceo Comment_No We gain more with leaving the matter to open competition. Name_Initials: Catherine Conroy Title: President Company: Conroy Communications, LLC Comment_No Ultimately, the marketplace -- whether it be Wall Street or consumer sentiment -- will determine whether or not 'outsourcing' is in any company's best interests. Consumers are already complaining about the difficulty of dealing with off-shore service representatives, who well trained as they presently may be, are clearly struggling with the English language, not to mention upset U.S. consumers. Either companies will 'get it right' and their success will be reflected in the higher quality of their finished product, or they will follow a short-term strategy of focusing solely on cost reductions only to suffer the longer-term damage to their reputations, sales and stock prices. Name_Initials: J. Roser Title: Senior Partner Comment_No Let free enterprise and the market system work. Everyone benefits eventually. Name_Initials: PJM Title: CEO Comment_No Seems like only yesterday we were having these same discussions about Japanese manufacturing in the auto and steel industries. Every decade, it's a new threat but that's no reason for government to get involved. The human side of these things are always tough to manage and political dynamite but our economy and our companies always benefit more in the long-run from increased competition. It forces a focus on building better products faster and lower cost services. Effectively implemented, outsourcing can actually significantly accelerate growth as it decreases redundancy and inefficiencies that slow down innovation. Governments should never be in the middle of making these kinds of decisions. Name_Initials: W.D. Title: President Company: Saxo Energy Services Comment_No Labour in NA does not want most of these jobs and labour is too expensive. Name_Initials: MPH Title: Managing Partner & Director Company: DII Comment_Yes The country has to figure out what businesses they want to maintain and nurture and protect those. Just like any U.S. Corporation would do. Name_Initials: Dave Bleakney Title: CEO Company: ADMC Comment_No Governmental intervention no matter how well intentioned will usually have the opposite effect with corporations usually moving offshore entirely. Name_Initials: Allen Hagerman Title: CFO Company: Canadian Oil Sands Comment_No It only make US companies non-competitive. Free trade benefits all. Name_Initials: EZ Title: Chairman Comment_No According to a recent Business Week article, two-thirds or more of the explanation of our "jobless recovery" is due to improvements in US productivity, and one-third or less to overseas outsourcing. Regulation is seldom a good answer, and it seems especially bad in these circumstances. Enhanced capital spending incentives would do the most to spur job gains. Name_Initials: DAA Title: President Comment_No We cannot regulate world-wide competition - We just have to compete! Name_Initials: SS Title: CEO Comment_No A free market economy is about free flow of capital, labor, goods and services. Off-shore outsourcing is good for shareholders, long-term competitiveness, productivity, and ultimately, our economy. The short-term dislocation is painful. Government intervention should be focused on re-training, and encouraging more students to go into science/math programs. Name_Initials: FAL Title: President Company: Agawam Partners LLC Comment_No If offshore sources are cheaper than US sources, it is every CEO's duty to his shareholders to use those sources. If a sector of the US economy cannot compete effectively on an international level, its resources should be reallocated to sectors where the US CAN compete. Forcing US companies to pay higher prices for US services HURTS the US economy in the long run. Name_Initials: Bill Peck Title: Founder Company: W. Peck Associates Comment_No The notion that "jobs" are moving offshore is nonsensical. Enterprises secure factors of production from the most effective and efficient sources, in order to maximize the economic outcome. Regulation aimed at restricting the choices available can only serve to lower the enterprise value. At its core, this is a form of government seizure of property. Name_Initials: Jeannette Title: Author Comment_Yes Enough is enough. Challenge the CEOs to innovate new human solutions (whole systems of work process as well as the way they are treated). Really demonstrate authentic respect and tools to innovate! We have been forcing a generation of people to work in fear, not joy, they work in Industrial age situations, with infrastructure that supports the top tiers. Integrity is lacking and then we wonder why global workers are more productive? Put in trade barriers that remove CEO pay for every % of work that has to be sent overseas due to the lack of 21st Century Leadership! Create incentives for small business leaders to form powerful consortiums to outsmart the problems possibly through their associations. Every Industry has professional associations--put them to powerful work! America needs to step into its workers' power and stop sending it away! Name_Initials: rjk Title: CEO Comment_No In your company, or your industry, outsourcing may seem personal. But any attempt by government to implement protectionist regulations is not good for the economy as a whole. How can we truly be proponents of a "free internet" world and its benefits ... then lament the result that was intended? Name_Initials: mb Title: president Comment_No The root cause of outsourcing jobs overseas is an increasingly uncompetitive market in the US. The lack of competitiveness in itself is caused by regulations related to union labor, the high cost of health benefits, and the relentless pursuit in America of a free ride thru frivolous yet expensive lawsuits. We expect to pay the cheapest price for goods and services yet provide the highest standard of living to the greatest number of people and the highest return on investment to shareholders. Something has to give! Name_Initials: WG Title: VP Sales and Marketing Comment_No If traditional U.S. based jobs are being outsourced, it means that the U.S. employees are not providing sufficient value-add to keep the jobs on-shore. We need a national focus on improving the impact and appropriateness of our educational system to make our workers the most valuable in the world. Name_Initials: WA Title: HR Comment_No We are a global society, like it or not. To the degree that the government artificially holds labor supply and cost at levels that are not competitive, our product costs and therefore prices will not be competitive against imports. And, the government will have to step in again to tax imports, therefore increasing their costs and keeping our products competitive. Once this starts, there is no way to control cost, since every poorly performing operation will be subsidized instead of just going out of business. It is a free market economy or it isn't. The government's focus should not be on subsidizing labor/jobs, but on encouraging innovation and change, training those that are displaced encouraging new and "high value" opportunities for work here in the states. I have lost my job before to foreign workers. But, I would rather be looking for work, than to know that the only reason I have a job is because the government is making work for me to do!! This sounds like another type of economy that was strong only as long as the wall was up!!! Name_Initials: Carl Wilcox Title: CEO Comment_Yes For this complex issue, there are many ways to regulate; tax laws can and should be used to incentivize companies to minimize what gets shipped overseas and to eliminate off-shore tax havens for US companies. All businesses should pay their fair share of income tax in order for tax incentives to be meaningful. Name_Initials: Stuart Keck Title: Vice President Mergers & Acquisitions Comment_No Why would anyone want to restrict a job candidate (or company) from allowing him/her to leave U.S. soil to better themselves, the company (and of course) the shareholders and hopefully the client? Sounds like everyone wins (or at least that would be the original intent in the transfer of talent). Last I checked the U.S. was a "FREE" country; regulating Human Resource moves off of U.S. soil doesn't sound "FREE" to me. Name_Initials: GNB Title: Supreme Commander Comment_No Productivity has caused more job displacement than outsourcing. Name_Initials: Marty Dorio Title: Former CEO Company: CLARK Material Handling Company Comment_No As former CEO of a Fortune 250 privately held company, I speak with some experience. Moving jobs overseas is not about taxes corporations pay, but the TOTAL cost of production, which in our case was 25-30% cheaper than the US production. There are things Americans cannot be competitive in, and we should recognize that and allow it to happen. There are things we are better at, like technology, and we should allow Americans to do those things. This entire debate is being held by people who do not have a clue how business runs, or how decisions are made. Name_Initials: RP Title: VP/HR Comment_No Trying to stop the flow of jobs to where labor costs are the least expensive is as futile as trying to keep water from flowing to the lowest point available. Name_Initials: BP Title: Principal Comment_Yes I believe that the US should identify certain industries as crucial or strategic to our long term economic success as a nation. These industries should have integrated plans supporting them that include, but are not limited to, the strategic regulation of the outsourcing of idea/product/technology development, manufacturing or support. Industries or businesses outside this crucial list of "protected" technologies or businesses should be free to make the appropriate company specific financial decision re outsourcing, unencumbered by legislative restriction. Name_Initials: G. Rogers Title: CEO Comment_No Consumers demand the lowest possible price for the highest possible value. High wages works against this demand principle - overseas manufacturing becomes inevitable. In human terms, this formula works to spread the wealth across a host of developing nations. Developing higher standards of living and developing markets for US export. Name_Initials: APD Title: VIce President, Controller Comment_Yes The U.S. government should provide tax incentives to companies that create local jobs as opposed to outsourcing them to other countries. in addition, outsourcing high-paying technology related jobs would accelerate the transfer of knowledge to other countries. Name_Initials: HW Title: senior movie studio executive Comment_No Good picture. Stupid reality. Name_Initials: MJ Title: CFO Comment_No Interfering with the free flow of goods and services (labor) creates an inefficient economy in the long run and is therefore against everyone's best interests - short term pain for long term gain Name_Initials: bk Title: vp Comment_No Regulating jobs will only cause inflation and drive up costs and expenses. The economy is always evolving and the people who work in a changing economy must change/develop, too. Name_Initials: Kay Meggers Title: VP Strategic Planning Comment_No Businesses need to improve their factor cost, thus productivity, and process quality in order to survive and to remain competitive. This is not a (federal) governance issue, but an education / qualification issue: as long as kids in India, etc. are willing to study harder & deliver higher quality results than US kids, they'll get the jobs! It's as easy as that. Pain drives change and will in this case also. The US has to adapt to this situation: protective measures are dead wrong - a reform of the education system is the answer! Name_Initials: dvt Title: Dir, Exec Comp Comment_No By limiting jobs to US base locations, the competitiveness of US companies versus foreign companies would be compromised & further US jobs would be lost. For example, if Citigroup could not export jobs but European banks could, business would shift to European banks. Then other Citigroup jobs (e.g. headquarters management) would be lost. Name_Initials: John Herda Title: CFO Comment_No Anything that impedes the flow of capital, monetary or human, impedes the operation of free markets. Name_Initials: DCF Title: CFO Comment_No The US needs to continue to innovate and continue to create higher quality jobs. Name_Initials: pq Title: ceo Comment_No Putting a cork in a boiling kettle will not stop it from boiling. Identify the root causes of job migration (acquire understanding) and THEN discuss options. Name_Initials: Kislay Kanth Title: Director Company: 2i Capital Group Comment_No I believe US GNP improves in qualitative and quantitative terms if jobs are relocated to more efficient locations. Improved GNP results in relatively better and higher numbers of jobs created for the US citizens. Hence the whole outsourcing problem is not a problem but a solution to the slow growing US economy. Name_Initials: MB Title: HR Director Comment_No I believe in free markets. I also believe that companies will find the right balance, over time, regarding which jobs to move offshore and which to retain in the states. There are problems beyond language - call it life experience - with offshore service centers. The highly qualified call center technician I reached when calling a long distance phone carrier with questions about my bill could not pronounce "Quicken Bill Pay", much less understand that there are so many options available for paying bills in the US. In the short term, there will be disruptions, and I believe it is appropriate for our government to provide training and or placement assistance for those whose jobs have gone overseas, but regulation is not warranted. Name_Initials: Jay Foersterling Title: Director Comment_No This issue is 90% political hype. We've been offshoring for decades. One particular example is software development and maintenance. That doesn't seem to have hurt the IS infrastructure of the US. Ultimately, this issue will find it's own level. Companies will ultimately decide which functions represent mission critical activities and won't outsource them. It's folly to regulate the outsourcing of those functions that, in a lot of cases, companies can't find people to do economically domestically. On a personal level, however, I never, ever want to talk to a mindless automaton in Bangalore again about my cell phone problems. Maybe companies should take a good hard look at what represents "mission critical"? Name_Initials: DPF Title: President Comment_No If competition dictates then we have to make change. We also need to work at educating our work force for the jobs that won't go off shore and for those positions to manage the off shore people and practices Name_Initials: WM Title: COO Comment_No No. The government could provide some sort of incentives to encourage retention of jobs here, but the unfortunate result is likely to be just more mind-boggling bureaucracy. Name_Initials: DC Title: Managing Director Comment_No The "outsourcing" of lower value added (and presumably lower paying) jobs is the outcome of a properly functioning market. It ultimately results in an efficient allocation of resources and regulation will only serve to prevent the market from acting efficiently. The loss of lower value added jobs should not be of concern. The goal should be the replacement of these jobs with higher paying, higher value added jobs. Name_Initials: JG Title: President Comment_No Basically, I see this as a free trade issue. If you are for barriers against foreign competition, then be all for more regulation. If you have an enlightened sense of the world, then trust our country's sense of entrepreneurship and ability to evolve. If we are to win the competitive war globally, this is one of the weapons that we must have in our arsenal. Name_Initials: KK Title: CEO Comment_No Regulating US companies' ability to export jobs puts them at a competitive disadvantage globally Name_Initials: JTK Title: Principal Comment_No I am opposed to intervention in the economic process in general. However, government, the private sector and the educational sector need to collaborate more closely to identify where the country should position itself to compete and develop the skills needed for the future. This goes far beyond the social anthropologists and academics hypothesizing about changing management structures. I would like to see real, honest collaboration to define the strategies and structures of US based business in the future. Name_Initials: R.Dea Title: Consultant Comment_No The movement is a natural one due to market forces. It is not possible to select just the market trends that suit our individual purposes. We should learn to live abroad or learn new industry skills. Name_Initials: Matthew B. Coffey Title: President Company: National Tooling and Machining Association Comment_Yes We are in a vicious, not virtuous cycle where financial community pressures ceo's of public companies to produce short term profits so stock prices will rise, ceo's know if they fail they will be gone, ceo's then search for ways to cut costs engaging in not only outsourcing of jobs but also squeezing domestic suppliers and engaging in unethical business practices (like not paying suppliers for 120 days) suppliers being small do not have the capital to support the financing of the customer and cut costs by laying off people. Three million layoffs in manufacturing in three years. Foreign governments impose offsets when they purchase and constrict access to their markets while controlling their currencies relationship to the dollar creating a price advantage for their domestic competitors. The US government does not enforce trade laws and the small and medium sized manufacturer is squeezed out of business. The wealth generating effect of manufacturing is lost to the US and is gained by the foreign competitors. We either have to regulate the shipping of work off shore for reimportation to the US or lower the US standard of living. We are doing the latter. Name_Initials: PDM Title: President Comment_No Why put another barrier to true capitalism...America needs to export more, especially in high technology! Name_Initials: DHC Title: VP M&S Comment_Yes The regulation should be in the form of tax penalties. Obviously there are business benefits from this action. However, the US worker will be adversely affected short and long term. The results will be higher unemployment and other costs to taxpayers. Therefore, while this is typically a good business move, it can't be FREE to the company as it is not free to society. Name_Initials: Peter Benton Title: Vice President Comment_No We complained that the Japanese were taking our auto jobs in the 70's, we complained that the Chinese were taking mfg jobs in the 80's and now it's the IT jobs. And it all did come true. We all drive better cars, both domestic and foreign (better quality, better features although more expensive) the numerous goods we buy from overseas are not "junk" like we thought and our standard of living is soooooo much better than it was years ago! We did not run out of jobs, whole new industries and companies have been created and the same will continue to occur. Oh, yeah... We also complained that the skills of the people in those other countries weren't good enough, but how many of you think the quality is inferior in Japanese cars? These employees offshore are well trained, well educated and they will be successful. So let it happen, get creative and create new industries, new companies and new career options for our kids. Stop the Whining!!! Name_Initials: M.T.L Title: CIO & SVP Comment_No Today's world is a global village, and free trade is essential to competition. Each country and each business must succeed on it's own merits, and cost structure. As uncomfortable as it is for some businesses, this environment should not (in my opinion) be restricted. Name_Initials: gh Title: President Comment_No We need to make sure the trade is truly fair. the jobs that move off shore should not get tax breaks etc. Companies will still do it for the cost savings. they have to do this to stay competitive. More jobs will eventually be created. We need to focus as a country on training and redirecting people vs. regulating what may turn out to benefit all of us Name_Initials: jjm Title: evp Comment_No Regulation of something as difficult to assess as whether a job moved to a new location is new or a transfer of an existing job could become a bureaucratic mess likely yielding less benefit than the market working will. Name_Initials: Andy Hieke Title: Senior VP/GM Comment_No One cannot stall the inevitable. Let's not look at the wake behind us, let's continue to look forward and innovate for our future. Name_Initials: BGW Title: CFO Comment_No Regulating business options distorts economic reality and compromises the ability of companies to optimize their profitability and therefore in the long term is a negative for the regulating jurisdiction because it reduces the competitiveness of its business sector. Compromising the ability of American companies to reduce costs does not enhance the strength of American business, and in the long term threatens employment. It is also unrealistic for any Government to assume that it can regulate a new economic reality, the macro economic environment is too powerful, so all it can do is take action to redress the economic disadvantage, through workforce training initiatives, tax policy, etc