|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Stuart Anderson February 3, 2004 "Call-center bill doesn't protect consumers " A state bill to restrict foreign call centers threatens to undermine international commerce, harm consumers and impose penalties on employers for serving their customers cost-effectively. Described by its chief sponsor, Rep. Zack Hudgins, an unemployed tech worker, as a way to provide more opportunity for people such as himself, in fact, it is more likely to hinder job creation by imposing excessive regulation on legitimate commercial activities. Under the Tukwila Democrat's bill, foreign call center operators must identify their location, cannot receive any individual's information without "affirmative consent" and must switch a Washington state caller back to the United States if the caller requests it. It is misleading that the legislation labels this "consumer protection," when the true intent is to make it economically infeasible for U.S. companies to operate call centers overseas. The bill raises constitutional and other issues. In New Jersey, legislators expressed concerns that a similar bill raised serious constitutional questions, as it appeared to allow that state to regulate interstate and international commerce on behalf of the entire nation. As a result, state lawmakers deleted key portions of the bill, and it later died. There is no evidence that adding this burden on employers would create jobs in Washington. Even in the unlikely event the bill led to additional call center jobs in the United States, there is no reason to think the jobs would end up here. It's ironic that no one heard concern from Hudgins or others when Congress voted for the popular "Do Not Call" legislation that, according to telemarketing industry estimates, could eliminate up to 2 million U.S. call center jobs. This type of selective outrage appears to have more to do with politics than well-reasoned approaches to the global economy. The call center legislation is shortsighted. Washington companies have billions of dollars at stake in international trade and investment that could be subject to retaliatory action by this legislation. It will also harm the state's reputation in attracting foreign investment, threatening jobs for the 4 percent of the state's work force now employed by foreign companies. Imports into Washington state account for more than 160,000 jobs, about 7 percent of total employment, while exports similarly create many jobs, according a study by economist Robert Chase. While it is understandable Americans are anxious about jobs, there is no evidence that trade protection saves jobs or that saving call center jobs makes any more sense than retrieving long-lost keypunch operator positions. At best, trade protection temporarily preserves certain jobs while reducing the money U.S. consumers would use to create or maintain jobs in other, often more promising, industries. The more we try to protect certain jobs, the more we stifle job creation and make U.S. businesses less competitive and less able to be sufficiently profitable to employ individuals in other parts of their companies. One might argue that companies are sufficiently profitable now. However, across America every day, once-profitable companies close their doors or lay off workers because they did not remain efficient in the face of domestic or foreign competition. If an employer pays more for materials or services it can obtain more cost effectively elsewhere, the result eventually will be fewer employees working in core areas of the company. If Hudgins wants to create more high-paying jobs, he should examine the report of the Washington Competitiveness Council, which called for a lower tax and regulatory burden on companies. Hudgins should re-think his job-hindering proposal and phone home. Stuart Anderson is executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, a public policy research organization based in Arlington, Va.
|
