Single Page
What's at the root of Alaska's employment dilemma?Earlier this month, the Alaska Senate Finance Committee hired a Juneau-based research and consulting firm to examine hiring practices on the North Slope, specifically to learn just how many Alaskans are being hired (or not) for the jobs, and why. It's about time. Alaska, for all it depends on the oil industry, should know as much as possible about it, but it should also know enough about how resource business works by now to at least know that the state's major industries, tied as they are to extreme seasonality, wouldn't work without importing labor. The Senate commissioned the study after Department of Labor and Workforce Development presented it with data suggesting that more than half of new North Slope workers hired in 2010 aren't Alaska residents, or at least weren't qualified for a Permanent Fund dividend check. I actually guffawed when I read about all the concerned murmurs that report set off. Is this really news? It isn't the first time anyone's hearing about this employment possibility. None of the arguments on either side are new. Maybe they're new to the Legislature. Come to think of it, does the Department of Labor know how many members of the Legislature are new-hires from Outside? The Alaska-hire issue has not changed much at all in 30 years, and there has apparently been no progress made toward solving it in all this time. But at least it's back in the news, and at least it’s being researched now. The firm that was awarded the Slope employment research project, Juneau-based McDowell Group, isn't expected to present its research until December. But until then, the lawmakers are holding hearings to learn workforce observations from big and small companies connected to North Slope industry, as well as labor groups, individual workers and members of the public. All the evidence so far is that somewhere between a bunch and a lot of people who work on the Slope aren't Alaska residents, and if the testimony so far is taken at face value, most of the Outside workers are being brought in by subcontractors, not the big producers. Right now, no one knows for certain how many, but it's a large enough group for consternation. Again. Ever since the pipeline days, people have come from all over the U.S. to work in Alaska's oil patch. There was even an "Okie exodus" that happened after the pipeline boom died down, then another exodus during the price crash. But the difference between the two, of course, is that the second out-migration contained quite a few people who, by the state's definition, had become Alaskans. Lowering oil taxes to create jobs for Alaskans is a fallacyThe issue here, it seems to me, is not whether Alaskans are being hired or not, and it isn’t whether oil taxes should be reduced in order to create more jobs many Alaskans might not even want or be qualified for in the first place. Those are points of extreme stasis. And if making sure Alaska’s main industries were staffed by Alaskans was the real issue, something would have been done about it long before now, and not just in the oil industry. It has always been this way when it comes to major industry in Alaska. There simply aren't enough people in the state to satisfy big labor needs. For thousands of years, Alaska's environment has meant that economic activity must go from no- or low-volume to high-volume very quickly. It is no less the case in modern times. And now, with Alaska's current unemployment rate on the low side compared to the rest of the U.S., there may not even be enough Alaskans to be had even if companies did start to hire them alone. We might have to import some new Alaskans. It has never been a secret: Every single major industry in Alaska depends to a great extent on Outside workers. The tourism industry would fall apart without imported college students. Fishing, hunting and adventure lodges operated by people who live Outside during the offseason would be boarded up permanently. Fish processing would halt without workers from Asia, the West Coast and Mexico. The commercial fishing fleet would take a big hit without deckhands and skippers who spend the off-season in Oregon and Washington. Even seasonal government jobs fluctuate widely. AKgasbag wrote: "Scott what evidence do you have that is true??? None! You are just shilling." "You are just shilling." The song of every Alaskan who for some reason thinks that their particular way of life is sacred, unchanging and unyielding to the potential needs of anyone else in the universe who doesn't think just like them. Rudely dismissing the other persons observations and concerns as irrelevant to your own and then insulting them in the bargain - a new noble Alaskan tradition. A few things: 1) "Lowering oil taxes to create jobs for Alaskans is a fallacy." ~Hmm, this is a bit misleading. Revamping oil taxes to better incentivize production will not necessarily create more direct oil service jobs for Alaskans, true. But, revamping oil taxes to better incentivize continued, sustained production will help create/ensure jobs for Alaskans in virtually EVERY OTHER TYPE OF BUSINESS IN THE STATE. Fully one-third of jobs for Alaskans--from hair stylists to veterinarians--can be traced directly back to the impact of oil production dollars in our Great Land. Declining production = declining jobs for Alaskans. Diversification is a great idea. But there is NO way to diversify our economy fast enough to replace the impact of oil revenue. Couple that with declining federal spending, and Alaska's future is even more uncertain. 2) "If it's simply a matter of creating more direct jobs for Alaskans, why is the oil industry the only one up for sustained legislative discussion and analysis?" ~Couldn't possibly agree more. Let's start with a detailed review of our own Legislators' businesses and their business interests. 3) Thanks, Mr. Woodham for your thoughtful & thorough argument. Woodham bought the oil companies story line hook line and sinker. Scott what evidence do you have that is true??? None! You are just shilling. Woodham's argument is essentially the same one the open borders people use in defending illegal aliens: Since there's no such thing as an American, there's no such thing as a foreigner. There's no question as to the residency of Alaska Natives. They've been here 10,000 years. How is their representation in the oil industry? Local hire ... local hire ... local hire - where have I heard that tune played before? Oh, just everywhere I've lived in Alaska over the last thirty odd years, and its a great idea. Too bad it just isn't going to work out the way the folks with the trumpets want it to. A great many Alaskans (born and bred Alaskans, because the rest of us will always be "outsiders" or "imports") don't spend a lot of time outside of Alaska putting in the years developing the depth to their careers that makes them attractive in a world based marketplace. Yet, in order to remain competitive in the world as it is (as opposed to the world as "local hire ... local hire ... local hire ..." wants it to be) private and public sector entities have to hire people with just that depth of experience. Not to say that Alaska can't compete. As amply demonstrated by the extremely bright and capable Alaskan children we seem to be raising these days it surely can. Fortunate for us old folks they aren't quite as frightened of the outside world, or quite as reluctant to accept that good ideas can come from people other than those who basically think just like them. Judging from the halibut quota fights, groundfish season issues, missing age class salmon, recessions and such I suspect there isn't a lot of room left for us all to become fisherman. Neither does there seem to be a large enough call for roustabouts, bartenders, welders and tour bus drivers to pick up the slack year around either. The whole world is "local" any more. If we Alaskans (all of us this time) want "local hire ... local hire ... local hire ..." then we need to stop whining about how unfair and threatening the world is to us personally and seriously get down to the business of developing the industries, the skills and the experience necessary to compete on a global scale. Scott: I can see there are a lot of issues wrapped into the Alaska hire issue. However, there is one that is out there that is never addressed. Do you remember back in the VECO days when some companies were accused of "blacklisting" people? This happened when an employee was considered a "trouble maker". A note was put in thier file so they would not be rehired on another project. If their name came up from a contractor, the company was made aware that hirng this person was not a good idea. This would not have been a problem except people could be branded as "trouble" for raising safety concerns, complianing of discrimiation and other issues. Personnally, I am not sure that practice has stopped. I beleive that there are companies that "blacklist" Alaskans who complian when oil company personnel don't follow the laws. Unfortunately, I don't believe this practice is limited to oil companies. I believe it has been spread to other Alaska employers. So, you have a whole group of Alaska based workers that may be qualified but don't fit the "culture" of the oil patch. Haven't you ever been told "just do your job and keep you head down or you won't be able to get another job in Alaska"? I know people who have heard this several times. I also know of executives who have moved from company to company even though they have a reputation for closing their eyes to unethical business practices. Realistically, this issue will not be addressed in the McDowell report. There is a huge black hole out there when it comes to the hiring pracatices of Alaska companies. No journalist has ever taken on this issue since the blacklisting practice has thought to be erradicated. It would be refreshing to see some influential political figures or journalist take on this issue. Where are the muckrakers in Alaska journalism today? I really miss Tom Snapp! Scott- you are right about this, and no, trying to use Alaska Hire as an excuse to give the oil companies an extra $2 billion in profit via ACES reform ain't gonna sell the cheap seats anytime soon. The problem isn't the people (we are right here with you)---it's the lousy leadership we've got. People like Sean Parnell are in charge---a former Conoco flak. Go figure. Red Boucher started plugging for diversification of our economy and building a real economy for this state before the oil started flowing. Forty years later, we still haven't got the message. Oil is the glamor-puss biz today, but the fisheries put real food on American tables, all across the land, potentially forever. The presence of our boats in the water and pressure on the stocks also help hold maritime interlopers at bay, which is no small thing. "Use it, or lose it". Therefore, "we" the USA want to ensure that the Alaska fishery is fully-developed, not just developed to meet Alaskan food & employment & economic needs. Logging has major 'social infrastructure' similarities & connections to fisheries. Differences are, the wood grows and waits for you, and the politics vary. I see Tanana State Forest reports harvesting at 5% of its sustainable yield (and that's fudging it up). Tongass was heavily curtailed (along with major Pacific Northwest forestries) under environmental arguments, some of which are obvious contrivances. (We wanted to promote 3rd World and Developing Nations forestries ... and vacated the market to encourage them. Later, when forestry-development is a done-deal in those places, and their easy wood is gone, we can move back in ... at higher prices. And our trees have been growing the whole time.) Thousands once migrated in & out of Southeast logging camps ... and might again, someday, as well as new boreal/taiga camps. Mining has evolved a global business model that leaves it more politically backwatered than other major industry sectors, during the present era. But I know a Pacific Northwest tugboat hand who savors his seasonal trips to Red Dog. Will Alaska ever run it's own industries, with Alaskans? Not likely. Only 1% of Alaska land is private-private. 9% is Native Corporation private. The rest is Federal and State. What kind of internal development is going to occur, when the availability of lands is so tight? Not only do some Alaskans question internal social infrastructure expansion ... but the Fed has aided & abetted conditions in the state that work against it, long term. The arguable exception is Anchorage ... but I'm not seeing that it is really on track to become the next Seattle/Puget Sound, Los Angeles/Long Beach. (Which would appear to have been the original Post War aim & intention for it ... and of course still is, for some.) Some Alaskans, and much of the Alaskan Mystique, favors a smaller, less-developed social infrastructure. "The Last Frontier". Or fragments of it, anyway. And the rest of the USA supports that vision, both at high policy levels, and on the popular level (both Red & Blue). Alaska is huge in area, and in natural wealth. Give it the trained populations to internal fill the roles that it is logistically capable of stepping into, and before long it will be The New California. In a couple generations, it could be a real handful for the USA. Many Alaskans feel, "Ya know, if you want California, the real thing is already there, and has lots nicer weather. We don't need another one, up here. Do we?" And the Political Class in the Beltway ... do they want a Texas North on Major Steroids? No, and they've been consistently taking measures for decades to reduce the chances that anything like that will come to pass. I suspect a lot of former Alaska carpetbaggers are now working in North Dakota. Looked at the jobs in Williston, ND and came up with 510 pages of jobs just in Williston. The resource industry plays the world like a piano. Alaska is one of the keys. It looks for every advantage as it chooses which key to press. That is the heart of its "need" for lower taxes in the safest political environment on earth where the only terrorist acts was a drunk who shot at the pipeline.The hire policy is the same. Local hire might disrupt the play of the company. A "one size fits all" policy that imports its team to Alaska the same way it imports the team to Russia and Nigeria is essential to its ability to play one key against the other. Alaska can pretend to influence the tune, but the music never stops. And the multinationals play everybody. Good editorial. Probably your best. It is a sad commentary that people who live in Alaska do not have an advantage when it comes to jobs in its most important industry. To find the blame, look in the mirror. The PFD/Ted Stevens mentality is most of the problem. The other Ted (Roosevelt) once said, "Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." We want dividends and entitlements. There are those who figure, "To hell with the Permanent Fund. Let the politicians have it. They'll blow it, it'll be gone, good riddance. Just draws flies anyway". Some reckon, Alaska can be more the way they prefer it, without the buildup of social infrastructure to internally support large industries. What part of suggesting an income tax reinstatement discussion has anything to do with entitlements? Yes, reinstate the income tax with tax credits for owning Alaska property, licensing a car in Alaska, etc. That way those who don't live up here would pay the taxes and residents would pay less. This would ensure non-residents who work up here would pay their share of road maintenance, airport and transportation facility upkeep, public safety and for other infrastructure they "use" but don't contribute to maintaining. |
Comments