The largest single local employer (the coal mine) has just announced permanent lay-offs of 2/3rds of its employees (1200 jobs and 10-15% of the Island's GDP). Perhaps this group might be interested in some of the discussion which is currently taking place about the future of one of NS's more significant communities. Contributions to the discussion are welcome... Mike Gurstein ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 06:03:14 -0400 (AST) From: Michael Gurstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Electronic Democracy in Nova Scotia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Business chooses Metro hfx over CB 19-0 About six months ago the President of AT&T Canada came to CB to meet with a group to discuss what would make CB attractive as a call centre location. Call centres are a very specific type of business, but they are highly attractive to places like CB because they employ relatively large numbers of people and don't, for the most part require advanced training or experience. A lot of the discussion around business going to Halifax (or to New Brunswick) appears to be about their relative attractiveness as a call centre location vis-a-vis CB. The AT&T Canada Pres was invited precisely because they had just made their decision to locate in Hfx, so he was fully aware of CB's +/-'s and how it stacked up against Hfx and the issue could be discussed in a non-hyped environment since his decision to locate their call centre in Hfx had already been made. For him, the key reason for their choice of Hfx over Sydney (and Winnipeg and Charlotte NC), was not the political/labour/physical climate. In fact he placed Sydney rather higher on most of these variables than the other locations (physical environment/tar ponds with or without videos was not a consideration), labour environment was an element of doing business and was not seen as distinguishing between Hfx and Sydney, and the "political climate" was not even a consideration. The stable/loyal work force was a big plus for CB. Rather for him/AT&T the first criteria was the size of the population catchment area available to recruit from for their employees. Below about 180,000 they would be unable to recruit the numbers of employees with the skills they needed for their operation. Winnipeg and Charlotte were both eliminated because their call centre recruitment ratios were already fully extended. The second was the availablility of those services (primarily technical) which they would need to support their business. A somewhat distant third (where by the way Sydney came out ahead because of lower rents) was the cost of doing business locally--land/rent, electricity, telephone charges and so on. AT&T's primary reason for choosing Hfx over CB for their 700 seat call centre (and even over "massive government pressure to locate in CB") was the larger population base available as an employee catchment in Hfx and secondly, the unavailability locally of certain specialized services they would need to support their business (he mentioned having access to local technical expertise in repairing the very specialized Nortel switch on which their business relied). I think there are very important lessons to be drawn from this for the future of CB in it's current crisis. IMHO the first priority for CB, if it is to have a viable future is to plug the current and (likely) accelerating population loss as soon as possible and by whatever means are available. CB is currently (1996 figures) losing population at the rate of .5-.7% a year. With the closure of DEVCO that almost certainly will/is accelerating. Without a sufficient population density on the Island, very quickly it will no longer be able to support enterprises like call-centres. In addition there will be a rapid decline in the commercial and in the business service and support sectors. This will be followed very closely by a collapse of the tax base. Without business services even high tech firms will have difficulty staying/locating in CB. This will be followed by an inability to support public amenities such as parks and recreation and Centre 200 (the Screaming Eagles etc.). This will also mean an inability to maintain the school system at a level which will attract any type of family in-migration and put the hospital and UCCB in jeapordy. A lot of the above is already happening just based on the chronic and continuing levels of unemployment. Again IMHO the only possible source of the type of intervention required to stabilize the local population at it's current levels is Government, probably only through the relocation of Federal or Provincial jobs to the region. At this time of crisis, the fact that the transfer of jobs and their incumbents will do nothing for local unemployment is irrelevant because unless something is done to maintain current population levels and everything that these levels support, there isn't going to be a sufficient population/service/institutional base left in CB to be anything other than a retirement home for those who won't or can't leave the region and for outside retirees and one month a year vacationers. regs Mike Gurstein On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, John Shaw wrote: >Jim Peers wrote: > >> The March issue of Atlantic Progess lists the top 40 fastest growing >> businesses in the Region. >> >> Metro have about 19 and CB 0. >> >> Is that pure politics? Or is that where a new business really chooses to >> locate? >> >> Jim > >Probably. Let us not forget what people see of us: The well publicized >"worst toxic site in Canada", entrepreneur burned out on Kings Road, the >highest occupancy taxes in the province, inept political interference in >the economy, and a very poor image of local unions. Contrast that with the >image of Metro. What would be your pick? > >Consider also the spouses of the potential investor. Do they want to move >to an area they perceive as being so unfriendly to business? Do they want >to raise a family in an area where the only hope of a future is seen as >being elsewhere? Do they want to buy food from a store built on "that toxic >site"? > >ECBC, UCCB, TAG, and many others have tried to set the record straight and >have promoted the many positive aspects of locating here. One load of horse >manure on the doorstep of DEVCO headquarters, with coast-to-coast news >coverage, reverses months of good news. > >Perhaps we could start a business in training people to shoot themselves in >the foot. At least the marketers would not have to create an image. This >erroneous image is already well established. > >We need private sector initiative unhindered by politicians and/or >bureaucrats, a decent capital gains break for investors, reasonable taxes >and regulations, political leadership that will tell the truth for a change, >a redirection of the bulk of government funding away from two industries to >infrastructure that supports a variety of endeavors, and a shift of >responsibility for attracting business away from three levels of government >to one local private sector group. Then some new businesses would choose >to locate here. > >John Shaw > Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair in the Management of Technological Change Director: Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN) University College of Cape Breton, POBox 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2 Tel. 902-563-1369 (o) 902-562-1055 (h) 902-562-0119 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca ICQ: 7388855