Globalization may highlight US need for more degreed professionals
Americans need to know that both people and companies in the US are getting left behind by the global economy which seems to me to represent a shift to a much more formalized future for sbusiness of many kinds, leaving behind practitioners who may have self taught themselves a skill and made a career for themselves by doing it, but don’t have a college degree – or have one in a different field. This may be worry for no reason, If I was a business owner, however, I would investigate it. I think its potentially a real enough issue though to require some research.
It seems to me that the various trade deals’ so called “movement of natural persons” sections demand formal certification of knowledge (“reasonable and objective criteria” is one way they put it but I think that means formal degrees required – for workers crossing borders – possibly in both directions, in and out.)
Because the stated purpose of so called “procurement reform” via globalization is represented as striking a blow against nepotism and cronyism, second or third party references about skills don’t travel well over international borders in that context, and so approving bids because of personal recommendations or experience with a vendor may tend to become associated soon here (as has become an issue in some other contexts) with soon to become prohibited discrimination against foreign services firms and their temporary service providers. For that reason informal – even if quite capable practitioners would be well advised to put together strong portfolios documenting their experience as best as they can and I think a market will spring up for schools that can – credibly- award formal credit and degrees that rely on experience learned in real world practice (I think we should have done that more ages ago) Otherwise their star workers may not able to be recognized as legitimately qualified by international trade agreements in the bidding context.
This problem may even bite companies competing within the US for bids that involve government spending because of the Government Procurement Agreement the US recently joined. This is a question which firms should investigate with trade lawyers. (Also, I may be worrying for no reason. Check.)
Regardless of whether I am right right now, here, I think US companies may need to encourage their employees to get more formal documentation of their skills – even if they plan on having the lowest qualified (cheapest) bids (which may be hard if competing against the developing world) and only bid on local (inside the US) work..
I don’t know. Time will tell. But the level of formal education for many jobs outside the US is higher (Because in many other countries the work world is far more competitive than here.)
Its doubtful that in small jobs that bid awarding would be contested, but if so, others might be awarded work that US companies without formally educated staff would then miss out on.
It would be a shock to have a foreign firm contest the awarding of work from their long term customers, claiming that their bid was more competitive, but I definitely could see that happening in some contexts because it happens all the time elsewhere. (such as in the EU for the last 20 years)
Customers might be anguished at having to switch providers because of some virtually unknown deal making the bidding process international, but it might happen.
Where I expect this maybe could happen is in infrastructure spending/engineering. The US became a member of the GPA in 2015 and so people may have to change the tendering and procurement process gradually, state by state, city by city. I don’t know exactly how that works, or if I am completely wrong here. I am not a lawyer and so this is not something I know, just something I am wondering about. As a non-lawyer. They should check with the government- whomever the procurement process normally goes through should know!
(If anybody knows please fill us in.)"Out of many, one"
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.