Business has an obligation to be strategic and ensure their organization is as efficient and profitable as possible. I get that. However, at the same time, they must weigh impacts to their brand and reputation.
I remember the old days of Provident and Blue Cross being local and hometown employers. I believe that Provident became Unum. These insurance companies are entrenched as hometown Chattanooga based companies with wonderful standing and a long history.
It is more than annoying to call American companies and be challenged or unable to communicate with customer service agents that barely speak English from overseas. Call me a protectionist or whatever desired label, I want to speak to an American when communicating with an American company.
While Unum may become more profitable signing onto overseas outsourcing, they will damage their brand and reputation. I will no longer feel any loyalty to Unum as a hometown company, if they defy their American brand and send more services overseas.
Unum should weigh their loyalty to America and consider how sending services overseas will damage their brand and reputation. Unum’s proposed actions certainly feel like betrayal to me.
My preliminary research indicates that Unum has received two PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreements, meaning they received a property tax exemption from the city of Chattanooga and Hamilton County for job creation. Is it appropriate for a local company sending jobs overseas to continue to receive a PILOT? Unum’s PILOT agreements need to be examined for claw back provisions, if Unum jobs are being sent overseas they should pay property taxes.
I hope the local PILOT hawks review these agreements.
Perhaps 2017 will bring tangible federal sanctions for companies that seek to access our consumer base while sending American jobs overseas.
Bah humbug to Unum.
April Eidson
aprile@epbfi.com
* * *
Unum's reported plans to outsource jobs is yet another reminder that our current and future elected officials need to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Provident/Unum received two generous tax breaks (2003-2017 and 2011-2025). The company has been allowed to pay a small percentage of the taxes they would have paid without the PILOTs, including for schools. One estimate for the amount of taxes waived is $4.7 million.
And what did we the public get in return in the way of jobs? Nothing. The two PILOT agreements were for their two parking structures.
Accountability for Taxpayer Money, a public interest advocacy group, has worked for several years to try to persuade the City Council and County Commission to adopt policies about the vetting, monitoring, and enforcing of PILOTs.
ATM believes any project approved for a PILOT must provide significant public benefit and meet the "but/for" test to demonstrate that the project would likely not happen without the incentive.
The Unum PILOTs flunk both tests. It is hard to see the public benefit and impossible to imagine a project that does worse with "but/for." Did the elected officials believe that UNUM would have built the parking structures for their Chattanooga employees in some other city? Or did they think that Unum might have relocated altogether, perhaps putting their imposing building on a flatbed truck and hauling it off? This is what can happen when there are no policies in place.
The Unum agreements contain no clawback language. The company has not violated any commitment because they were not required to commit to anything. But Mayors Berke and Coppinger could approach Unum to see if they would be willing to demonstrate good corporate citizenship and, at a minimum, repay the school taxes that have been abated.
ATM is looking forward to more discussion about tax breaks in the upcoming city elections.
Helen Burns Sharp, Founder
Accountability for Taxpayer Money, Chattanooga