Fertilizer for job growth?

A few days ago, my fellow blogger, Eric Lundin, wrote a post entitled " Too little, too late," in which he discussed U.S. pipe producers asking the U.S. Department of Commerce to impose duties on steel pipe imported from China.

Eric shed light on the snail's pace at which the legal process moves to address serious issues— a pace that often leads to feeble attempts to close the barn door long after the horses have trampled and chewed through many, many fields in their escape. In this case, think of each blade of grass as a job lost or domestic pipe facility closed. At least the horses deposit fertilizer to help re-grow the mangled grass.

This topic also was featured in the September issue of "Tube Talk," and subscribers shared their thoughts about recent related DOC rulings and tariffs in general. What do they think should be done?

In a preliminary decision released Sept. 9, the Department of Commerce agreed with American steel pipe producers that Chinese imports are supported by unfair subsidies and should be subject to tariffs. (No & really?)

Under the ruling, the average duties on $2.8 billion in annual imports of the pipe, used in oil and gas wells, will be 21.3 percent (much less than the 90 percent duties Eric wrote about).

The pipe case, the largest so-called countervailing duty complaint filed against Chinese-made products, was brought by the United Steelworkers union; U.S. Steel; U.S. operations of Evraz Group SA, Russia"s second-largest mill; and Pennsylvania-based Wheatland Tube Co.

After the ruling is published in the Federal Register, importers of the product—known as oil country tubular goods (OCTG)—will have to deposit duties of the assigned amount, pending a final ruling later this year by the Commerce Department and a separate decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

We asked Tube Talk readers: "What do you think about the steel pipe decision? Is it a long-overdue action to help level the playing field for domestic industry, the beginning of a move toward protectionism, or both?"

A reader who works for a company that provides stainless steel tubing wrote: "Rulings like this are long overdue in my opinion. Protectionism is not necessarily a good thing, but a government has a duty to protect its people. And since our government also negotiates trade agreements, things like this should be scrutinized and ironed out beforehand. There should be no favored trade status or trade agreements with countries that look to undermine the manufacturing base of countries they deal with and do not protect the environment and the safety of their work force."

A reader from a company that makes tube fabricating machinery said, "My thoughts & what would happen if there were no countries subsidizing any products? Would that allow anyone to compare prices for the same product produced regardless of country of origin? I would like to believe it would. That is where we globally need to be in products produced for a true global economy.

"We hear [from others] that for my country to produce the same product, we need support to get 'up to speed.' If you need to get up to speed,' then you need to; however, when the other producers entered into that product market, they took the 'up to speed' on their shoulders and didn"t depend upon their government to back them to get up to production over the years.

"If a company needs government support, perhaps they need to keep production local, or within their country till they are up to world production capacity. Then enter the world market. Any other method, i.e., government support, is not allowing a product to compete within the global fair market trade.

"Being subsidized can be considered 'dumping.' Not knowing to what percentage the subsidies are for the tubing (or tires) that China is subsidizing, it is difficult to determine to what point the product is considered to be at a very low price point or is being dumped into markets outside their own country. Regardless, dumping products should not be tolerated in any product area. It is unacceptable to producers of any origin. With no subsidies, we will get to a true global economy, where certain products can be produced within certain countries at a better price point, and trade is close to being level for all products for all countries."

A mechanical engineer who works for a copper tubing supplier wrote, "This is only part of a typical practice that the Chinese do for their own gain. If they are not dumping products into this country, they are purchasing products from our country, copying them, and selling them as their own. My experience has been with tube and pipe mill for 20 years. I have heard from many field engineers of equipment how [the Chinese] have purchased from the U.S. and Europe, reversed engineered, manufactured, and tried to market the equipment as their own."

And finally this from a reader who works for a company that stamps tubular products in a variety of metals: "How long have we been complaining of this? As I have said many times, when the U.S. manufacturing base is on a level playing field, there are very few who can compete. Quality, on-time products are less expensive. When will we get bonus points for the environmental compliance that is already in place here in the States? If we have jobs here, we do not need the government to run health care. Keep America strong; keep the heat on the government."

Who knows? Maybe that heat will generate some much-needed fertilizer for job growth.

Follow Vicki Bell, fabcomlady, on Twitter.