savingusmanufacturing.com

While the focus of the “Lame Duck” Congress will be to keep us from falling off the cliff of financial ruin from reaching the debt ceiling and sequestration, there are two bills passed by one body of Congress but not the other that should be passed. Both of these bills would be beneficial to America’s manufacturing industry.

The first bill addresses a topic many Americans supported during the latter part of Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign for president ?  he “took a hard line in his campaign, promising to cite China for its currency peg on day one of his presidency. National polling makes clear that the American people overwhelmingly support such action on China’s brazen violations of world trade law, including its currency undervaluation.”

The Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011 (S. 1619) is an international trade bill that would establish US duties on imports from countries with undervalued currencies. The bill was approved by the Senate on October 11, 2011 by a vote of 63-35, but H.R.639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, has not been brought up for a vote yet in the House of Representatives even though it has strong bipartisan, majority support with 234 lawmakers, including 65 Republicans, as cosponsors. U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, D-MI and ranking member on Ways and Means, introduced the legislation. The bill remains in the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has continued to block a vote on the bill despite overwhelming support. Speaker Boehner has said in statements that the United States should not dictate currency policy for another country and that he will oppose attempts to bring this bill to the floor for vote. It is clear that Speaker Boehner is single-handedly thwarting the majority will of both Congress and the American people. It is hard to understand why Boehner would stand in the way of such modest legislation to address China’s mercantilism.

On the Senate website, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said, “China’s currency manipulation has already cost 3 million American jobs–2 million of which came from our manufacturing sector. The bill that passed [Oct. 11] could create 1.6 million American jobs.”

In 2010, the House passed a similar bill, H.R.2378, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, by a strong, bipartisan vote of 348-79, including 99 Republicans, but the Senate failed to pass their version of the bill.

The problem of Chinese currency manipulation has actually gotten worse in the past year since the Senate bill passed. The New York Times’ Keith Bradsher “reports that Beijing has actually depreciated its currency more of late.  The Yuan fell nearly 1 percent against the dollar last month, and Bradsher says this is the “largest drop since Beijing officials unpegged the currency from the dollar in July 2005. The fact that Beijing can adjust its currency so precisely is proof yet again that it deliberately manipulates the Yuan to gain an export advantage.”

We cannot continue to run up a massive trade deficit with China. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services increased from $500 billion in 2010 to $558 billion in 2011, an increase of $58 billion (11.6 percent). The massive sales of Chinese exports to the U.S. is fueled by China’s deliberately undervalued currency. By pegging its currency to the dollar at an artificially low rate, Beijing is making sure that its exports are exceedingly cheap in the U.S. Conversely, U.S. exports are more expensive due to this preferential currency rate.

How would this bill help? The bill calls for the Treasury Department to identify countries whose currencies are undervalued, and then instruct the Commerce Department to impose duties on imports from those aforementioned countries. Key points of the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011 include:

* Improves the oversight of the currency exchange rate by the Treasury.

* Clarifies the countervailing duty law to address currency under-evaluation.

* States that Commerce may not refuse to investigate a subsidy allegation. This clarification is supported by the WTO’s Appellate Body and is a key element in the previous Brown-Snowe currency bill and in HR 2378, which passed in September 2010.

* Triggers a series of consequences, including:  Immediate: “consider designation of a country’s currency as a ‘priority’ currency when determining whether to grant the country ‘market economy’ status for purpose of U.S. antidumping law.”

After 90 days: “forbid federal procurement of goods and services from the designated country unless that country is a member of the WTO Government Procurement Agreement,” and “forbid Overseas Private Investment Corporation financing or insurance for projects in the designated country.”

After 360 days and failure to adopt appropriate policies: “The administration must require the U.S. Trade Representative to request dispute settlement consultations in the World Trade

Organization with the government responsible for the currency,” and “require the Department of Treasury to consult with the Federal Reserve Board and other central banks to consider remedial intervention in currency markets.”

The bill also stipulates that “countries that fail to fix their currencies would be subject to higher anti-dumping duties and other penalties, such as a procurement ban, not receiving financing from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and U.S. opposition to multilateral bank financing for the targeted countries.”

Passage of this bill would be an obvious step forward to provide a level playing field for America’s manufacturers and their workers.

The other important bill, “The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act” (HR-5865), co-sponsored by Illinois Reps. Dan Lipinski (D) and Adam Kinzinger (R), passed the House on September 12, 2012 by a vote of 339-77.

“H.R. 5865 establishes the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Board within the Department of Commerce to advise the President on issues affecting manufacturing in the United States. The board would be required to perform a comprehensive analysis of the nation’s manufacturing sector and, using results from the analysis, develop a strategy to improve the competitiveness of domestic manufacturing efforts. Results from the analysis and strategy would be available to the President to comply with the bill’s requirement to publish a strategy in 2014 and again in 2018 to promote growth in the nation’s manufacturing sector.”

The board would consist of 15 members: five from the public sector appointed by the President, including two governors from different parties; and 10 people from the private sector appointed by the House and the Senate, with the Majority appointing three and the Minority appointing two from each chamber.

In preparing the analysis, the board would be required to study, among other things:

• The current environment for manufacturing, including government policies—at the international, federal, state, tribal, and local levels—that affect the sector;
• Forecasts, both short- and long-term, for domestic and international trends in manufacturing;
• Actions by federal agencies that affect manufacturing; and
• Factors that affect the growth and stability of the sector such as workforce skills;
• Trade, energy, and monetary policies; research and development; and protections for intellectual property.

Using results from the analysis, the board would be required to develop a strategy to improve the competitiveness of the nation’s manufacturing sector. The bill would require the strategy to include recommendations to eliminate or consolidate government programs, improve interaction between the government and the manufacturing sector, and amend any regulations that put the industry at a competitive disadvantage in international markets.

The final report also would be required to include a plan to implement the strategy, including an estimate of the cost to implement it as well as recommendations for ways to cover those costs.

In April 2011, The Information Technology& Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a report, “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” that made a strong case for such a strategy. Authors Stephen Ezell and Robert Atkinson present information on five key reasons why manufacturing is important to the U.S. economy:

1.      It will be extremely difficult for the United States to balance its trade account without a healthy manufacturing sector.

2.      Manufacturing is a key driver of overall job growth and an important source of middle-class jobs for individuals at many skill levels.

3.      Manufacturing is vital to U.S. national security.

4.      Manufacturing is the principal source of R&D and innovation activity.

5.      The manufacturing and services sectors are inseparable and complementary.

The authors also present three primary reasons on why the United States needs a manufacturing strategy:

1.      Other countries have strategies to support their manufacturers and by lacking similar strategies we are therefore forcing our manufacturers to compete at a disadvantage.

2.      Systemic market failures mean that absent manufacturing policies, U.S. manufacturing will underperform in terms of innovation, productivity, job growth, and trade performance.

3.      If a country loses complex, high-value-added manufacturing sectors, it is unlikely to get them back, even if the dollar were to decline dramatically.

While not perfect, this bill would be a good start in developing a national manufacturing strategy. Contact your senator or representative to urge them to vote on these bills.

The recently-released U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report states that is has been ten years since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), and “the concerns that originally surrounded China’s accession to the WTO—that China’s blend of capitalism and state-directed economic control conflict with the organization’s free market principles—have proven to be prophetic.”  What have been the consequences of China’s accession to the WTO and what are the implications for the future?

At that time, China did not meet all of the traditional requirements for accession, but the WTO took a calculated gamble that China could effectuate the reforms necessary to conform to those requirements within a reasonable period of time. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission was established by the United States Congress in part to monitor the outcome of that gamble.

Ten years later, it’s obvious from the reports that the WTO lost the gamble.  The recent Commission reports that China’s state-directed financial system and industrial policy continues to contribute to trade imbalances, asset bubbles, misallocation of capital, and dangerous inflationary pressures…China’s adherence to WTO commitments remains spotty despite the decade that the country’s rulers were given to adjust.”  As a result, these circumstances create an uneven playing field for China’s trading partners and threaten to deprive other WTO signatories of the benefit of their bargain.  This is an understatement of the effect on the economy of China’s main trading partner ? the United States.

Chapter one analyzes these issues, beginning with an examination of U.S.-China trading and financial relations and concluding with an evaluation of China’s role in the WTO.    It also examined the implications of China’s being relieved of its burden of facing an annual review by the WTO of its compliance due to the fact that the ten-year probationary period ends this year

U.S.-China Trading Relations

For the first eight months of 2011, China’s goods exports to the United States were $255.4 billion, while U.S. goods exports to China were $66.1 billion, yielding a U.S. deficit of $189.3 billion.  This represents an increase of nine percent over the same period in 2010 ($119.4 billion). During this period China exported four dollars’ worth of goods to the United States for each dollar in imports China accepted from the United States. In 2010, the United States shipped just seven percent of its total exports of goods to China; China shipped 23 percent of its total goods exports to the United States.

In the ten years since China joined the WTO, the U.S. trade deficit with China has grown by 330 percent.  This trade deficit is not explained by a broader trend of American dependence on imports.  In the first eight months of 2011, Chinese goods accounted for 20 percent of U.S. imports, while U.S. goods accounted for only five percent of Chinese imports.  China’s portion of America’s trade deficit has nearly tripled  ? from 22 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2009 and 55 percent in 2010 – while the overall U.S. trade deficit with the world has grown from $376.7 billion in 2000 to $500 billion in 2010.

China’s Share of the U.S. Global Trade Deficit (by percentage), 2000–2010

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Trade in Goods and Services (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, August 15, 2011).

The Commission states “These data suggest that the growth in the U.S. global trade deficit reflects growth in the U.S. trade deficit with China and that other emerging economies are being replaced by China as a final supplier of finished exports to the United States.”  Of more serious concern is not the size of the U.S. trade deficit with China but the composition of goods.   Chinese manufacturing has undergone a dramatic restructuring during the last ten years, away from labor-intensive goods toward investment-intensive goods.  Production now is driven less by low-cost labor and more by low-cost capital, which is being used to build next-generation manufacturing facilities and to produce advanced technology products for export.  This is demonstrated by the decrease in Chinese exports of labor-intensive products, such as clothing, footwear, furniture, and travel goods as a percentage of total exports.  In 2000, exports of these labor-intensive products constituted 37 percent of all Chinese exports. By 2010, this percentage had fallen to just 14 percent.

It’s apparent that this shift has serious implications for the U.S. economy.  When China joined the WTO, the United States had already lost production of low-value-added, low-wage-producing commodities such as clothing and toys.  But America’s export strength lay in complex capital goods, such as aircraft, electrical machinery, generators, and medical and scientific equipment.   “From 2004 to 2011, U.S. imports of Chinese advanced technology products grew by 16.5 percent on an annualized basis, while U.S. exports of those products to China grew by only 11 percent.6 In August 2011, U.S. exports of advanced technology products to China stood at $1.9 billion, while Chinese exports of advanced technology products to the United States reached $10.9 billion, setting a record one-month deficit of more than $9 billion. On a monthly basis, the United States now imports more than 560 percent more advanced technology products from China than it exports to that country.

U. S. Exports to and Imports from China of Advanced Technology  Products in the Month of June ($ billion) 2004-2011 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Trade in Goods and Services (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, August 15, 2011).

The Commission states that “the weakness in U.S. exports of advanced technology products to China is explained in part by barriers to market access experienced by U.S. companies attempting to sell into the Chinese market.”  Import barriers are part of China’s policy of switching from imports to domestically produced goods.  China’s policy of ‘‘indigenous innovation’’ protects domestically produced goods by discriminating against imports in the government procurement process, particularly at the provincial and local levels of government.

Seventy-one percent of American businesses in China believe that foreign businesses are subject to more onerous licensing procedures than Chinese businesses according to a recent survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China.  A similar 2011 study by the European Chamber of Commerce in China found that inconsistencies in the procurement process employed by the Chinese central government resulted in a lost opportunity for European businesses that is equal in size to the entire economy of South Korea, or one trillion dollars.

China’s Role in the WTO

Since the last Report, the U. S. brought three new, China-related disputes to the WTO.  “On December 22, 2010, the United States requested consultations with China over its subsidies for domestic manufacturers of wind power equipment (DS419).  The European Union (EU) and Japan joined the consultations in January.  The case has not yet advanced to the hearing stage.  In the second case, the U. S. requested consultations with China regarding its imposition of antidumping duties on chickens imported from the United States.   In addition, on October 6, 2011, the U.S. Trade Representative submitted information to the WTO identifying nearly 200 subsidies that China, in contravention of WTO rules, failed to notify to the WTO.  Three previous WTO cases involving U.S.-China trade are both open and active. The Raw Materials case, which resulted in a decision favorable to the United States, is under appeal as of August 31, 2011.  The Flat-rolled Electrical Steel case and the Electronic Payments case have both advanced to formal dispute settlement, though no decision has been reached…The United States has brought a total of seven cases against China at the WTO concerning subsidies or grants. Of the seven, four were settled through consultation, two were decided in favor of the United States, and one remains undecided.”

China’s WTO Probationary Period Ends This Year

During the 15 years of negotiations leading up to China’s accession, the United States and the European Union expressed concern about potential negative consequences that might befall the WTO due to China’s sheer size and lack of a market-based economy and they insisted on a series of China-specific admission requirements.  “The centerpiece of this ‘WTO–Plus’ admission package was the Transitional Review Mechanism, which required China to submit to an annual review for the first eight years of its membership in the organization, as well as a final review in the tenth year.  The Transitional Review Mechanism is in addition to, rather than in lieu of, the normal review procedure, known as the Trade Policy Review Mechanism that all WTO members must undergo every few years in perpetuity.”

The temporary Transitional Review Mechanism appeared to be more stringent than the Trade Policy Review Mechanism.  “However, the procedural aspects of the Transitional Review Mechanism rendered it a paper tiger.  Reports produced by the Transitional Review Mechanism require the unanimous consensus of all members involved, including China.  This puts China in the position of acting as judge in its own trial,” so that the result consistently has been ‘‘light and generally unspecific criticism,” according to trade scholars such as William Steinberg.

The Transitional Review Mechanism provided the United States with a somewhat useful tool for fact-finding and focusing attention on controversies within the U.S.-China trade relationship, but this is the final year of the Transitional Review Mechanism as China’s tenth year of WTO membership.  The consequences of this are:

• The tools available to the United States to carry out fact-finding related to China’s compliance with WTO obligations will now be limited to the Trade Policy Review Mechanism and the various review channels of individual subsidiary bodies.

• China’s membership in the WTO has reached a point of chronological maturity at which China was expected to be in full compliance with its WTO obligations.

China initially “accepted the China-specific rules contained in the protocol of accession, avoided litigation within the WTO, and was quick to comply with all demands of the WTO’s dispute resolution process.”  But after ten years of observing and learning the subtleties of WTO procedural law, “Beijing has become much more aggressive about bringing claims against trading partners, appealing decisions that are rendered against its favor, and pushing the envelope of noncompliance. Additionally, China has grown very savvy about using the dispute settlement process and bilateral free trade agreements to undermine the effectiveness of China-specific rules.”

According to a recent study by international trade law scholars at the University of Hong Kong, of the five WTO cases filed by China between September 2008 and March 2011, four of them were designed to use the dispute settlement process to change or undo rules contained in China’s Accession Protocol and purposely focused on the vague terminology found in the Protocol.

China has exploited the vague terminology by using creative interpretations to render entire provisions inapplicable.  “Since 2002, China has concluded nine free trade agreements and commenced negotiations for five more.  In all 14, a precondition to negotiation has been agreement by the other party to grant China market economy status.  These preconditions are targeted toward eliminating certain restrictions placed upon China during accession to the WTO,”  particularly, “the one in which the instituting party is allowed to use price comparisons from third-party countries in order to show dumping behavior by Chinese companies” when antidumping proceedings are instituted against China.

Also, for purposes of identifying illegal subsidies and calculating countervailing measures, “the instituting party may act with reference to prices and conditions prevailing in third-party countries in lieu of China.”  However, under the terms of the Accession Protocol, “China’s nonmarket-economy status is set to expire in 2016, at which time these provisions will cease to have effect.”

However, “the expiration in 2016 of China’s status as a nonmarket economy under the Accession Protocol does not negate applicable U.S. domestic law, which will continue to have effect beyond 2016.   If enough WTO members accord market economy status prematurely to China, it will diminish support for Washington’s position that China has a long way to go to merit market economy status.  China has more bargaining power in bilateral negotiations with smaller nations than it does in multilateral negotiations at the WTO.”  The Commission concluded that “China hopes gradually to undermine the Washington consensus, strong-arm its way into market economy status, and shake free of restrictive terms and obligations in its accession agreement” by pushing for concessions from a series of bilateral negotiations under the auspices of free trade agreements.  In addition, “China is not willing to comply fully with the decisions of the WTO dispute settlement process and prioritizes the preservation of its own political system above fidelity to WTO commitments.”

Implications for the United States

The Report states, “The U.S. trade deficit with China has ballooned to account for more than half of the total U.S. trade deficit with the world and creates a drag on future growth of the U.S. economy.  This problem has many causes, among which are barriers to U.S. exports and continued undervaluation of the RMB.  The result is lost U.S. jobs. While the exact number of U.S. jobs lost to China trade is hotly disputed—economist C. Fred Bergsten has estimated 600,000 jobs on the low end, while the Economic Policy Institute has estimated 2.4 million jobs on the high end—many parties agree that the costs are staggering.”

While the Chinese RMB has appreciated by roughly six percent over the course of the last year, there is widespread agreement that it remains deeply undervalued (30-40 percent according to some economists). As a result, “U.S. exports to China remain subject to a de facto tariff, Chinese exports to the United States remain artificially discounted, and Chinese household consumption remains suppressed.  The Report states this “contributes to a persistent pattern of massive and dangerous trade distortions, unnatural pools of capital, and dangerous inflationary pressures that threaten the stability of the global economy.”  China is no longer content to be the low-end factory of the world ? the government is intent on moving up the value chain into the realm of advanced technology products, high-end research and development, and next generation production  at the expense of America’s high-technology industries.  The Commission opines that “it no longer seems inconceivable that the RMB could mount a challenge to the dollar, perhaps within the next five to ten years.  Chinese financial authorities are laying the groundwork for these ambitions via a series of bilateral arrangements with foreign companies and financial centers.”

The U. S. and the EU went to considerable lengths during the 15-year negotiation process “to design and negotiate a system of checks and balances that would permit China to accede to the WTO without jeopardizing the smooth functioning of the organization or endangering the position of existing members in the international trading system.”  In less than ten years, “China has learned the nuances of WTO law and has begun to use it systematically to undo the finely wrought balance that U.S. and EU negotiators designed.  At the same time, China has shown that it will subordinate its international commitments to its domestic political preferences and deny to its trading partners the benefit of their bargain.”

This chapter concludes with the comment, “China has grown more assertive and creative in using WTO procedures to alleviate, eliminate, and avoid certain restrictions in the Accession Protocol.  At the same time, the WTO has ruled that China’s existing system of state monopoly over imports of cultural products is inconsistent with WTO obligations.  China has not yet complied fully with the WTO ruling, and the United States has the right to initiate further proceedings to compel China to do so.”  This is an understatement to say the least.

Has President Obama or his staff read any of the last three reports?  Has any Congressional rep, Senator, or their staffs ever read through any of the Commission’s reports during the past ten years?  If they did, why didn’t they insist on the Bush administration and now the Obama administration initiating proceedings to compel China to comply with their WTO obligations?   Why didn’t our government do anything about China’s currency manipulation, product “dumping,” and subsidies to State-owned enterprises before they destroyed many of our domestic industries?   Why is China’s ten year probationary period concluding without anybody doing anything to prevent their becoming a full member of the WTO?  Why hasn’t the news media asked any of these questions of our elected officials?   Americans have been betrayed by their leaders, and we need to hold them accountable.  Every candidate for president and President Obama better read this latest report and tell the American people what they intend to do to address China’s threat to our economy and national security. The question is whether the news media will have the courage to ask these hard questions during the campaign for president.  The future of the United States as a sovereign nation is at stake.

If we want to attract today’s youth to manufacturing careers, we need to change their perceptions about what the manufacturing industry is like and show them what great career opportunities exist in the industry.  If more people would watch TV programs such as “How it’s Made” and “Made in America,” they would soon realize that manufacturing has changed for the better – it’s cleaner and high tech compared to what it was a generation or two ago.

In a blog article, Derek Singleton, ERP Analyst for Software Advice, wrote, “This means reacquainting youth with the process of designing and building products from an early age – and then providing the creative freedom to build those things on their terms.”  He shared two examples from industry and suggested a third:

1. Manufacturing summer camps – A recent New York Times article highlighted an innovative summer camp, called Gadget Camp, where teenagers learn how to build things from concept to creation. Attendees are required to design a product through computer-aided design (CAD) technology and oversee the design to completion.
2. Gamification of manufacturing – Gamification is a hot topic in many aspects of business at the moment – one driven by the idea that adding gaming elements to non-gaming activities encourages action and participation. It’s a movement that seeks to capitalize on our youth’s obsession with video games as well as our competitive nature. According to Diana Miller and Simon Jacobson’s recent Gartner First Thing Monday Morning newsletter, Invensys has been using 3D gaming technology to teach new hires how to operate oil refinery equipment for the past few years. In the same vein, Siemens recently released Plantville, a program designed to teach manufacturing processes and technologies to young people and new hires.
3. Restore shop classes to our high schools – The elimination of these courses from our school systems has inevitably had a negative impact on the way we view making a living with our hands. We can all learn from building something with our hands because it teaches us a different way to think. And more importantly, hands-on learning through shop classes helps young people move an idea from concept to creation – which is useful regardless of one’s future occupation.  (quoted with permission)

The good news is that more than one non-profit organization has recognized the need to introduce the opportunities of engineering and manufacturing careers to middle school age youth because by high school, students may already be on a different career track.  The benefits of summer camps for middle school youth is why the Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, International (FMA) sponsored the Gadget Camp mentioned above.  FMA sponsors the Nuts, Bolts and Thingamajigs Foundation (NBT) whose mission is to nurture the tinkering spirit.

For the past 15 years, manufacturing companies have been focused on training existing employees in the tools and methodologies of lean manufacturing and Six Sigma in order to improve efficiency, productivity, quality, and customer service to be more competitive in the global economy. However, this training doesn’t address the lack of workers trained in the specific skills needed for today’s advanced and higher tech manufacturing.

Mark Tomlinson, CEO of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, sees the skilled worker shortage as an iceberg looming on an uneasy sea.  “We’re just approaching it; we haven’t hit it yet but we know it’s there,” he says. “People are starting to see it. They just don’t know how to deal with it…Now there is an increased need to fill manufacturing jobs associated with aerospace, energy, medical device manufacturing and aspects of transportation,” Tomlinson says.

At the imX event in Las Vegas that I attended September 12-14, 2011, I interviewed Experience Partner companies that are very involved in workforce development and training.  Mark Logan, V. P. Business Development & Marketing, Mag IAS, LLC said that MAG has a very comprehensive training program.  MAG America restarted its apprenticeship program in 2005 in partnership with local community colleges. Students in the program work full-time at MAG while taking college classes, working toward an associate’s degree. MAG invests approximately $200,000, including tuition, salary and benefits, for each apprentice earning a degree. This program gained national attention in an NBC Nightly News report “America at the Crossroads.”

Other internal programs include Future Leaders and the Accelerated Leadership Program (ALP), which are designed to fill the pipeline at the company’s management and executive levels.  Future Leaders participate in a one-year program combining classroom training with developmental assignments and mentoring from senior managers.  Accelerated Leadership candidates are employees who have the potential to assume executive-level positions within MAG, and the program provides a series of high-impact job assignments coupled with advanced educational opportunities.  The company also has co-operative education programs with a number of well-known regional and national engineering schools.  MAG IAS joins manufacturing leaders Boeing, Caterpillar, United Technologies and others as the newest partner in MIT’s prestigious Leaders for Global Operations (LGO) dual-degree graduate program that equips students with master’s degrees in engineering and management.

Another Experience Partner, Sandvik Coromant, provides training for their employees in collaboration with technical schools and colleges in addition to performing internal training utilizing curriculum they have developed, according to Robert Page, Productivity Center and Training Manager.  They also provide training for their customers at Smart events in metal cutting technology ranging from the basics of terms and definitions to specialized metal cutting of “hard” parts in super alloys.

Another imX Experience Partner was Fanuc FA America, one of the world’s leading factory automation companies.  Fanuc has developed simulator software, which is ideal for training.  Mark Brownhill, Program Manager, Machine Tool Distributor/Education, said, “We offer regular training programs for end-users as well as machine tool builders, agents or distributors. The training combines practical lectures with hands-on lab exercises to ensure that you get the value-added skills needed.  Our NCGuide simulates the CNC operator environment featuring, by selection, ISO programming or Fanuc Job Shop Programming Software while our NCGuidePro provides development tools as used by machine builders and OEMs.  Both these products run on standard PC equipment with no need for additional hardware.”  Fanuc also has two training centers, one near Chicago and one that just opened in Cypress, California.

Since its founding in 1932, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) has provided lifelong-learning programs, certification and skills assessment, technical resources, publications and industry expertise through its members.  SME has several certification programs in specialized fields that are used by both industry and academia to develop today’s and tomorrow’s workforce, such as Certified Manufacturing Technologist, Certified Manufacturing Engineer, Lean Certification, and Green Manufacturing Specialist.

In 2010, SME acquired Tooling University LLC (Tooling U) based in Cleveland, Ohio. Tooling U provides online training to more than 1,200 manufacturing companies and 400 educational institutions.  With more than 400 unique titles, Tooling U offers a full range of content to train machine operators, welders, assemblers, inspectors, and maintenance professionals. Tooling U online classes help to round out SME’s current offering of instructor led training, certifications, webinars, books and videos.

A free Workforce 2021 Readiness Assessment was introduced at the Tooling U booth at the imX event.  This customized and targeted workforce assessment program gives manufacturers the opportunity to assess their own capabilities in the face of challenges they will need to solve before they are confronted with the severe skilled workforce shortages predicted by 2021.  The first component of the assessment requires companies to answer questions about how they are preparing to meet the needs of the 2021 workforce.  Tooling U and SME professional development experts were available to explain solutions for readiness deficiencies identified in the assessments.

After the imX event, I interviewed two of Tooling U’s clients.  One client is Midmark Corporation, which brings efficient patient care to millions of people each day in the human and animal healthcare industries around the world. Midmark is committed to providing innovative products and services for the medical, dental and veterinary healthcare equipment industry. Headquartered in Versailles, Ohio, Midmark Corporation maintains four subsidiaries in the United States and has over 1,100 employees worldwide.

Casey Webster, Human Resources Manager, said, “We are experiencing a shortage of skilled machinists.  So far this year, Midmark has hired 7 machinists from the outside.  Finding this talent was a major struggle.  We tried several different recruiting tactics such as advertising in the newspaper, online, offering referral bonuses, radio ads, and professional recruiting services.”  She said, “We chose Tooling U because it was recommended to us by Edison Community College.  After doing some research and course trials, we decided to partner with Tooling U.  The kind of training courses we are utilizing includes 45 online modules and five labs.  It was important that we implement a program that allowed teammates to confirm their learned knowledge.  Once a teammate completes a set of online modules, he attends an eight-hour, hands-on lab at Edison Community College.  Classes range from mathematics, blueprint reading, cutting, lathe, mill, turning, and CNC.   The Tooling U training program has benefited our company by:

1.      Providing development opportunities to current teammates wanting to become machinists

2.      Reducing training time

3.      Verification program that a teammate has the skills to be successful in a machining role

Kellogg Community College, located in Battle Creek, MI, is the other client I interviewed.  Chris Walden, Interim Director, Workforce Services, said, “Manufacturers are coming to us as part of the ‘Michigan Works’ program.  We purchased full-year subscriptions to ToolingU courses in machining and welding because they are the perfect supplement for lab and class work.  The ToolingU courses are a cost-efficient and beneficial tool and have saved taxpayers thousands of dollars by our not having to develop our own curriculum.  The courses are translatable to both certificate programs and associate degrees.”  He added that the current president of the college, Dr. Dennis Bona, started out as a welder in private industry, and then became a part-time welding instructor before going on to higher education so he is very supportive of workforce training programs.

Another trade organization that also provides workforce training is The Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, International (FMA).  The FMA champions the success of the metal processing, forming, and fabricating industry.  FMA educates the industry through the following programs:

FabCast – FMA’s webinar platform to deliver live, interactive technical education programs directly to shops on such topics as laser cutting, roll forming, metal stamping, etc.  Companies can train their whole team at once, even from multiple locations.   Companies can break up full days of instruction into modules and spread out over a period of time. (i.e. two hours four days a week, four hours once a week for a month).

Precision Sheet Metal Operator (PSMO) Certification – FMA’s PSMO Certification is the metal fabricating industry’s only comprehensive exam designed to assess a candidate’s knowledge of fundamental precision sheet metal operations.

On-site – Live training conducted at a company on their equipment. Rather than releasing a limited number of staff to attend an off-site training program, it can be more cost effective to bring the expert into a facility to work with all team members engaged in a particular process.  Training can be offered modularly and when needed (first, second, third shifts or weekends).

FMA’s e-Fab – online training that allows a company to get the training they need, when they need it.  E-Fab courses combine a full day’s worth of instruction by FMA’s leading subject matter experts with the flexibility of online delivery. The training is available 24/7, 365 days a year.

Educating current and future manufacturing workers is critical for the health and growth of the manufacturing industry, and the training programs provided by SME and FMA will aid in addressing the lack of skilled workers.