Shopfloor

Developing a Curriculum for Manufacturing Skills

2010-03-17T20:07:40Z

From the University of Phoenix, “University of Phoenix Teams With The Manufacturing Institute to Educate Workforce to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century“:

PHOENIX, March 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, University of Phoenix announced an innovative partnership with The Manufacturing Institute (”Institute”), the non-profit, non-partisan education and research affiliate of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). Through this educational alliance, University of Phoenix will develop curriculum relevant to today’s manufacturing workforce that aligns to the NAM-Endorsed Manufacturing Skills Certification System (SCS). SCS describes the competencies, certifications and educational attainment levels appropriate to manufacturing careers…[snip]

University of Phoenix will offer programs that enable working learners to advance in their careers while acquiring the skills and competencies in the SCS, which were developed by the Institute and endorsed by NAM. These programs are being specifically developed with the working learner in mind, giving students greater access and flexibility to obtain advanced degrees in a convenient manner. With a greater emphasis on strategic planning and new technologies, the curriculum also ensures that the manufacturing sector stays current and competitive in a global market.

“This unique alliance will provide an education with real-world relevancy that meets the needs for high-tech manufacturing – graduates will gain the knowledge and skills most needed in the manufacturing industry, both today and tomorrow,” said Dr. Brian Lindquist, Dean, University of Phoenix School of Business.

Also, Phoenix Business Journal, “University of Phoenix, Manufacturing Institute launch program.”

]]>

NAM’s Engler on Health Care Bill: There’s No Cost Control

2010-03-17T19:50:55Z

John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, spoke via conference call with NAM members Tuesday from small- and medium-sized manufacturers, one of a series of quarterly webinars used to bring folks up to date on Washington activities.

On health care, the boss had lots to say. We’ve transcribed some of his comments, with only light editing:

Our priorities at the NAM are unchanged. We came to the health care debate in good faith, saying, “Look, it’s time we have health care reform because we need to reduce health care costs, and we ought to respect all the employer plans that are out there.”

The NAM membership, mostly everybody, provides health insurance to their employees, so we were in the category of “doing the right thing.” Now we’re in the category of “no good deed goes unpunished.”

Our priorities are the same:

Let’s maximize for manufacturers the widest possible set of opportunities and choices to have different options, some of those very much more affordable than what we have today.

Let’s improve for the entire system and reform the way we deliver health-care services.

Let’s increase the transparency on the costs and the quality of that health care, regardless of who’s providing it.

We’ve long been at the manufacturers part of employer-based coalitions, which have sought to educate members of Congress and the public on what we think are the significant economic consequences of what’s being proposed up on the Hill.

There isn’t a person on this call, there isn’t a person I come across, whose balance sheet wouldn’t look pretty good if they could take 10 years of revenue and set against that only six years of expenses. That’s how this is being handled in the Congress, when they say we’re making money and reducing the deficit.

Who wouldn’t? Ten years of revenue, six years of expenses - of course you look good. But the piper will have to be paid.

So we say, let’s just start over, because we don’t think there’s any cost control here. We think costs will go up, will certainly go up.

The NAM is a member of Employers for a Healthy Economy, and the group’s running mate, the Start Over! coalition.

Drilling into Energy Security

2010-03-17T18:58:40Z

Prominent play on the front of the Metro section in today’s Washington Post, “Virginia leaders express interest in offshore drilling“:

RICHMOND — Never has the political climate in Virginia so favored offshore drilling.

Most Virginia leaders — regardless of their political party — have expressed interest in joining Alaska, Texas, Louisiana and other states in setting up offshore platforms to drill for oil and natural gas.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell and fellow elected Republicans strongly back the proposal, as do most members of the state’s congressional delegation, including both U.S. senators, who are Democrats.

The Tallahassee Democrat reports, “Drilling report’s conclusions disappoint both sides:

With its chief proponent saying he is in no hurry, the push to open Florida waters to oil and gas drilling inched past another milestone Monday when a House panel was briefed on a report by a Florida think tank.

House Speaker-designate Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, said he was pleased with the report, which was prepared by the Collins Center and the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida.

“It was fascinating how much of it jibed with what we’ve been hearing in testimony from the experts,” Cannon said.

Cannon: “I’m pleased with the report.” Newspaper: “Both sides disappointed.”

The report concludes that Gulf of Mexico oil production would produce $80 million to $190 million annually in revenue to the state, creating 2,000 to 5,000 jobs.

A recent article in Newsweek provides the big picture, or deep picture, as the case may be. From “Journey to the Center of the Earth“:

From the window of a helicopter 1,500 feet above the Gulf of Mexico, oil platforms look like Tinkertoys in a swimming pool. Dozens dot the horizon stretching south from New Orleans and continuing out as the water deepens and turns a darker blue. Then, about 50 miles offshore, the platforms stop, and for the next hundred miles there’s nothing. This is the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, where the ocean floor is 8,000 feet down and covered in a heavy layer of muck. Below that is an ancient salt bed several miles thick, and hidden under that, trapped tens of thousands of feet down, there’s oil—billions and billions of barrels of it. And it’s all in U.S. waters.

The article uses Chevron’s Tahiti platform (pictured above) as the base of reporting. Good story, tremendous prospects.

If only …

From The Washington Examiner, “The Obama Moratorium: No offshore drilling while he’s in office”

The Obama administration’s six-month delay in approving new offshore drilling leases in federal waters will become a new three-year ban, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar quietly told reporters last Friday. Which means that no new oil and gas leases will be approved during President Obama’s term even though two –thirds of the American public supports such activity, according to a December 2009 Rasmussen poll.

Sixty percent also believe that gas and oil prices will drop if the government allows offshore drilling, opening up an estimate 14 billion barrels of oil and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

Transportation Parity: The Sun Notes Secretary LaHood’s Remarks

2010-03-17T16:42:39Z

When a Cabinet secretary declares a “sea change” in national transportation and infrastructure policy, raising non-motorized transportation to the same priority level as motorized transportation, you’d expect intense coverage from the media. Right?

But as previously noted, reporting on Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s embrace of transportation equivalency last week has been limited to bicycle advocacy sites. One exception has been Trucker.com, a trade publication/website.

Today, a breakthrough! The Baltimore Sun took note. That is, the Sun’s transportation reporter, Michael Dresser, took note in a post on his “Getting There” blog. The post, “LaHood elevates biking, walking to parity with cars“:

Call it sacrilege. Call it radical. But U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has actually elevated the bicycle and the human foot to parity with the automobile in federal transportation policy.

On Monday, LaHood announced what could be — if it is backed with actual dollars-and-cents policy — a sea change from the auto-centric bias that has prevailed in federal transportation policy since World War II.

“People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” he said. “We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”

Dresser reports that the The WashCycle blog has called LaHood’s statement “simply the strongest statement of support for prioritizing bicycling and walking ever to come from a sitting secretary of transportation.”

We don’t call it sacrilege, but radical is a fair description. It is indeed a sea change in federal transportation policy that could have profound implications for the U.S. economy and the 80 percent of freight that moves by truck. The Sun is the first mainstream media outfit to recognize, however briefly, the potential impact. Hope it’s not the last.

Energy Security Requires Yucca Mountain

2010-03-17T16:20:16Z

The National Association of Manufacturers has joined a broad group of supporters of nuclear power in urging Congress to maintain the Yucca Mountain site as a viable repository for nuclear waste.

From the news release, “Eighteen Organizations Urge Continued Funding for Yucca Mountain; Ask for Release of Documents on Proposed Termination“:

WASHINGTON, March 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – A coalition of leading national and regional organizations — representing energy and individual taxpayers; state elected and regulatory officials; communities and energy-related businesses — expressed vigorous support for the continuation of the Yucca Mountain repository program in letters to key Congressional appropriators. The group urged release of all documents associated with the Obama Administration’s decision to cancel the program while advocating “immediate suspension” of payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund in the event the U.S. Congress agrees to implement the Department’s termination request.

“This proposed action will unnecessarily leave the United States with no path forward or operative ‘Plan B’ for the Nation’s nuclear waste, violate the provisions of the bipartisanly-enacted Nuclear Waste Policy Act, represent unjustified intrusion into an ongoing review by the NRC, contradicting the President’s Memorandum on Scientific Integrity; result in wholly inadequate funding to preserve the integrity of the taxpayers’ $10 billion investment; and continue to siphon approximately $770 million annually from electricity consumers in 41 states,” the organizations said in letters to Senate and House leaders of the energy and water development appropriations subcommittees.

The letter is available here, via the Sustainable Fuel Cycle Task Force.

Burning with Optimism’s Flames, Health Care

2010-03-17T11:26:50Z

A hot, new round-up of health care coverage gleaned from reading The Washington Post on the commute into work.

“House Democrats’ tactic for health bill is debated“: “An obscure parliamentary maneuver favored by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suddenly ignited Tuesday as the latest tinder in the year-long partisan strife over reshaping the nation’s health-care system, triggering debate over the strategy’s legitimacy and political wisdom.” A thorough report, although disappointing that the editors dropped the incendiary language after the first paragraph. No Democrats “burning with a passion” to enact health care, no Republicans “inflamed” by the tactics, no voters doing a “slow burn.” We’ll try to fix the oversight.
“House Democrats scramble to ensure adequate deficit reduction in health bill”: “Congressional Democrats rushing to push President Obama’s health-care initiative to final passage this week hit a new snag Tuesday, as the final piece of the package was held up by concerns that it would do too little to reduce the nation’s budget deficit.” That’s not red ink, those are the rosy red cheeks of the little children, warmed by the fires of reform.
“Republicans criticize Democrats’ plan to overhaul student lending “Republicans assailed a proposed overhaul of student lending Tuesday as a ‘government takeover,’ a ‘job killer’ and an ‘outrage,’ seeking to rally opposition to a Democratic measure that would cut private lenders out of the federal loan market. The measure is expected to be merged this week with a health-care bill and could come to a vote in the House by Saturday.” Feeding the flames of discontent, because the health care bill just didn’t do enough.
“Rushing health reform could be a death wish“: “As Democrats consider shoving health-care reform through the House with a process known as ‘deem and pass,’ it is helpful to return to square one and ask: What, again, is the rush?”

Spring fever?

Taking a Secretary’s Statements Seriously

2010-03-16T21:46:22Z

The Trucker.com trade publication is the only non-advocate website we’ve found that has reported on Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s declaration before bicycle advocates last week of a “sea change” in federal policy: “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.” (See Shopfloor post, “Embracing Bicycles at Expense of Freight, Jobs, Reality.”)

The Trucker report included many details about LaHood’s comments, “LaHood says DOT ending favoring motorized transportation over non-motorized,” starting by setting the scene:

LaHood’s surprise appearance at the bikers summit and his subsequent remarks drew praise from those in attendance, who reportedly swarmed the secretary “like a rock star” when he tried to leave.

To make sure he could be seen, LaHood hopped up on a desk in the Senate hearing room where the group was meeting.

The Trucker also noted the Secretary’s comments on his DOT blog, The Fast Lane.

Included in the report were comments from an unnamed DOT spokesman, who dodged the Trucker’s question (which we’ve bolded):

“Secretary LaHood believes the way we design our communities has a huge impact on our citizens’ economic, physical and social wellbeing,” a DOT spokesman said when asked if LaHood’s new directive meant that much-needed highway infrastructure needs might be sidetracked in favor of bike paths. “Many Americans live in neighborhoods without access to public transportation or sidewalks. By focusing on livability, we can help transform the way transportation serves the American people, and create safer, healthier communities that provide access to economic opportunities.”

The spokesman noted that LaHood presently is presiding over the “most ambitious infrastructure investment program in more than half a century, the Economic Recovery Act.”

So far, the spokesman said, the DOT has obligated $37.8 billion for 14,011 highway, road, transit, bridge and airport construction projects in 53 U.S. states and territories.

“Secretary LaHood has always said that rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure and the job creation that comes with that are among his primary goals,” the spokesman said.

When a Cabinet secretary announces a “sea change” in federal policy that expressly rejects the economic priority of freight transportation — 80 percent of which moves by truck — it warrants wide attention, not just from Congress as we suggested in our earlier post, but also from major, national media outlets.

Manufacturing Innovation, the Science Committee Hearing

2010-03-16T21:01:52Z

The House Science Committee considers an exciting area of policy — many exciting areas — on Wednesday when it convenes a hearing, “The Future of Manufacturing: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting Innovation by U.S. Manufacturers?” The issue at hand, the comittee says, is the need “for U.S. manufacturers to adopt innovative technologies and processes in order to remain globally competitive, and to determine the appropriate role for the Federal Government in supporting efforts by U.S. manufacturers to innovate.”

Witnesses are:

Susan Smyth, Director of Manufacturing, GM R & D, and Chief Scientist for Manufacturing, General Motors Company
Len Sauers, Vice President, Global Sustainability, Procter & Gamble
Debtosh Chakrabarti, President and Chief Operating Officer, PMC Group Inc.
Mark Tuominen, Director, National Nanomanufacturing Network
Wayne Crews, Vice President for Policy and Director of Technology Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute

The hearing charter includes a good discussion of manufacturing’s role in the U.S. economy, the importance of innovation, and federal policies intended to support that innovation.

Moving Toward Federal Regulation of Nanotechnology

2010-03-16T20:40:41Z

Nanotechnology will be on the table when the House Science Committee holds a hearing Wednesday, “The Future of Manufacturing: What is the Role of the Federal Government in Supporting Innovation by U.S. Manufacturers?” Among those testifying is Mark Tuominen, Ph.D., director of the National Manufacturing Network.

The multiagency federal National Nanotechnology Initiative last month released its 2011 budget proposal. In his introductory letter, Presidential Science and Technology Advisor John Holdren, wrote, “Nanotechnology R&D constitutes a core building block of innovation that will ultimately accelerate job creation and transform many sectors of our economy through commercialization.” Can regulation be far behind?

Federal oversight of nanotechnology-containing consumer products was a topic of discussion at the March 4 hearing on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s budget before the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

In her prepared statement, Chairman Inez Tenenbaum noted the CPSC’s FY 2011 budget request called for $2 million to support the federal National Nanotechnology Initiative. She said:

In the last few years, there has been increasing public concern about potential health impacts associated with this technology. Although nanomaterials may have the same chemical composition as non-nanomaterials, at the nanonscale they may demonstrate different physical and chemical properties – and behave diferently in the environment and the human body.

The $2 million proposed will alow the Commission to conduct exposure and risk assessments of nanomaterials, allow for database updates to properly flag reports of nanotechnology incidents with consumer products, and conduct consumer outreach efforts such as public meetings. Perhaps even more importantly, it will allow the Commission to take a very proactive approach to this emerging issue, rather than merely reacting to incident reports after they are received.

In her statement, Commissioner Nancy Nord said, “This is an area where I have an especially strong interest and am pleased to see the agency take a strong role as nanomaterials transition from the research laboratory to the consumer market.”

The technology’s move — already well under way — to the marketplace is certainly welcome. One hopes regulators show restraint as they react so as to not endanger this “core building block of innovation.”

CPSIA Update: Commissioner Nord Says ‘Fix’ Falls Short

2010-03-16T18:47:02Z

Commissioner Nancy Nord of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) writes at her blog, Conversations with Consumers about draft legislation to fix the excesses of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. From the post, “Does the Fix Need a Fix?”:

On February 5, I wrote here that the Congress was considering making changes to the CPSIA. That’s moved to the next step: the five CPSC Commissioners have now been asked to comment on draft legislation to address the unintended consequences of the CPSIA. Because it has not yet been introduced, it is not officially available but you can read the draft bill analyzed in several blogs including Learning Resources and Shopfloor.

For almost two years we have been talking about the problems with this well-intended but flawed legislation. I am so pleased that Congress is now willing to begin the process of fixing some of the problems with this law. While some proposed language is helpful, my reading overall is the fixes do not meet the mark with respect to focusing on the real safety risk.

For more on the draft legislation being circulated by Chairman Waxman’s staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, see our post Monday, “CPSIA Update: House Energy and Commerce Offers Fix.”

Nord raised the many problems with the CPSIA in her prepared testimony at the CPSC’s budget hearing March 4 before the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. In offering a solid list of recommendations to improve the law, Nord reported:

Small businesses have been especially hurt by the sweep of this law. The agency has not done a full economic impact on the effects of CPSIA on small businesses; however anecdotal information puts the impact in the billions of dollars range. We know that many small businesses have been put out of business or have left the children’s products market.

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum was the chief witness at the appropriations hearing, and in her statement restricted her comments on the CPSIA to the costs of implementing the law. Some might argue that an appropriations hearing is not the correct venue to raise policy disputes, but then, Congress has been awfully reluctant to address the manifest excesses and economic harm of the law. Best engage the issue when you can. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act became law on Aug. 14, 2008.

We see that Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) and Rep. Heath Schuler (D-NC) this month introduced H.R.4767 to exempt ordinary books and paper-based printed material from the CPSIA’s lead limit.

That’s a laudable goal, but the problems are too many and too severe for piecemeal solutions. Best that Congress fix the problems through a solid, far-reaching piece of legislation, which we can call the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act Improvement Act. Or, if clarity helps, the Fixing the Mistakes We Made in 2008 in Passing the CPSIA Act.