Word that business leaders are backing a better safety net for U.S. workers displaced by trade is good—if belated—news.

For several years now, it has been clear that the global economy can have frightening effects not only on manufacturing workers but also the services workers who make up the bulk of American jobs these days.

In a study published by the Institute for International Economics in 2005, researchers found that U.S. workers in services industries that can be traded internationally, such as data processing, lose their jobs at a higher rate than workers overall do, and that job loss for them is costly. On average, the study found, full-time workers in tradable services fields who are displaced and then return to full-time work suffer a 21 percent drop in earnings.

Yes, there are many benefits to trade—including lower prices for U.S. consumers and opportunities for workers in less-developed nations. But America often turns a cold shoulder to those of its workers left behind by the global economy. Most glaringly, the U.S. provides skimpy unemployment benefits compared with other developed nations.

There is a program that bolsters the safety net for workers dislocated by trade—providing such benefits as income support, relocation allowances, training and a health coverage tax credit. But the Trade Adjustment Assistance program is of limited help today, because it concentrates on manufacturing industries.

Paltry aid to many of globalization’s “losers” isn’t just callous, it’s counterproductive. Generous benefits and aggressive retraining programs can shore up consumer confidence, stimulate a slumping economy and ramp up workforce skills.

Meanwhile, unemployment jumped dramatically last month, and Americans are reporting significant pocketbook pain. In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans surveyed said their families are worse off financially than they were a year ago—the highest number since Gallup first asked the question in 1976. And with a trade deficit that has topped $700 billion for the last three years, support for trade has dwindled among Americans.

We wrote about the need for business leaders to get off the sidelines in the debate over economic insecurity back in 2006.

The business community took a big step in that direction this week with the launch of a group called the Trade and American Competitiveness Coalition. The group, made up of 26 businesses and trade associations, isn’t endorsing specific legislation, according to my colleague Mark Schoeff Jr. But it wants to see Trade Adjustment Assistance extended to workers in the service sector. It seems the formation of the coalition could help break a logjam over how to renew TAA.

It’s not clear why corporate leaders in the coalition have taken up the cause of displaced workers just now—it may be more out of concern that support for trade deals is faltering than out of genuine empathy for average Americans.

But the exact motivations may not matter. And even if the business community was slow to embrace the issue, it can still do some serious good. Better late than never.

I hope Manpower’s Jeffrey Joerres is a man of his word. Because he’s got power when it comes to China’s workers and labor market.

Joerres, CEO of the Milwaukee-based staffing giant, just told Workforce Management’s Gina Ruiz that his company would stick to high employment standards as it becomes China’s first foreign temporary staffing firm.

“I wouldn’t place anybody in a situation where I wouldn’t want to be in,” Joerres says.

On October 10, Manpower announced that it had gained government approval to become the first non-Chinese temporary staffing agency.

Although China’s capitalistic push over the past three decades has created great wealth in the country, it also has come with widespread labor abuses. Many of these are associated with small factories, which often supply items to major Western corporations in areas such as electronics, apparel and toys.

Even though Western businesses have stepped up efforts to enforce decent labor practices, abuses have continued. Last year, BusinessWeek showed how factories have gotten better at concealing problems, with the help of a new type of consultant that helps plants evade audits.

It strikes me that if Western firms were really serious about curbing abuses in China, they would stop tapping these questionably run suppliers and get more involved—either through joint ventures or by owning their factories outright.

Of course, reining in the outsourcing probably means higher costs and less flexibility. Companies typically hate both of those results.

That’s what makes Manpower’s China news intriguing. Manpower gives organizations—Western or Chinese—the option of outsourcing some of their workforce needs. Manpower’s offer promises companies not only flexibility, but expertise in assessing worker skills for optimal performance.

At the same time, Manpower could be a force against labor abuses. Multinational firms may choose Manpower over a shady domestic supplier to safeguard their reputations. In turn, domestic staffing firms seeking to compete with Manpower could set a higher bar for their labor practices.

Of course, this potential for a virtuous circle turns on the integrity of Joerres and his company.

Joerres told Ruiz that Manpower may turn down business if employers won’t adopt higher standards.

“We understand that our way of doing business is not going to appeal to everybody,” he says. “That’s just part of the territory and we accept it.”

I wish Joerres the best. And I look forward to seeing if he lives up to his promise.

Seven workers died in Dubai this week in what may be a window into the seamy underside of global capitalism.

The workers were killed and 19 others were injured when a wall collapsed on a bridge construction project, according to Gulf News, a publication based in the United Arab Emirates. The U.A.E. is the federal government for Dubai and six other emirates. In an Associated Press story about the accident, the head of safety at a nearby construction site said workers on the bridge project were not properly equipped to ensure their safety because they did not have helmets, gloves, proper shoes or harnesses.

An official with the firm that employed the killed workers, Wade Adams Group, disputed those charges.

But it wouldn’t be surprising if the allegations of inadequate safety equipment are true, given Dubai’s dubious labor rights record.

Labor unions are illegal in Dubai, according to Agence France-Presse. The oil-rich, fast-growing city-state relies heavily on South Asian migrant workers, and advocacy groups have criticized Dubai for its labor rules and practices.

Despite strikes being outlawed, migrant workers at construction sites in Dubai—including the world’s tallest building, Burj Dubai—have been striking for better wages, according to Agence France-Presse. The news service reported on November 7 that the U.A.E. said it would “urgently” review wages of workers in the construction sector following the wave of strikes.

Such government intervention would be something of a reversal for Dubai. The government’s official Web site boasts that “Dubai’s economy has been kept open and free to attract investors and business. Government control and regulation of private sector activities has been kept to a minimum.”

Meanwhile, Gulf News reported that the families of the seven dead workers—all Indians—will get 10 years’ salary in compensation. According to the AP, a Wade Adams Group official estimated the workers each earned an average of $2,615 a year, for a total of $26,142 over 10 years.

I wonder whether the family members consider that “fair trade” in action.

So far in this blog, I’ve both hailed the possibility of better leaders emerging in China and railed against Chinese government repression.

aNow I hope to connect those dots. Namely, up-and-coming business leaders at multinationals in China have the power to reshape China’s social and political landscape in positive ways.

Even as those 20-, 30- and 40-somethings charge ahead with their companies and their careers, they possess—or are gaining—the intelligence, creativity and clout to improve more than just China’s business climate.

I don’t deny that that business climate alone has been good for the Chinese people. The international trade that has accompanied China’s capitalist push over the past quarter-century has led to tangible new freedoms for millions of Chinese.

And I realize China may not ever look exactly like the Western democracies—which have plenty of warts themselves. Maybe free speech and other individual rights I cherish will never be as strong in the more collective Chinese culture as they are in the United States.

Even so, there’s room for business leaders at multinationals to do more to temper the most disturbing aspects of China. These include continued factory worker exploitation, as documented late last year by BusinessWeek. And the jailing of journalists. And the mistreatment of Tibet, as highlighted in a recent Rolling Stone exposé.

That February 8 piece is replete with sickening accounts of torture by Chinese authorities and of the gradual erosion of Tibetan culture. It hit me even harder as I looked at one of the accompanying photos: an image of an Adidas shop in Llasa. As readers of my earlier blog items may know, Adidas HR executive Angel Yu has stood out for me as a prime example of a new generation of Chinese leaders who are working to combine the best of the East and the West—and who eventually may be prepared to tackle tricky global problems as never before.

I don’t know what Angel Yu thinks of the Chinese occupation of Tibet, or exactly how she can influence her country’s actions there. But it strikes me that she and other rising leaders in the business community can, over the long run, make a significant difference there and elsewhere. Perhaps in Tibet, for instance, Adidas can go out of its way to give opportunities to locals when it comes to hiring and distributing franchises. That could help counteract what appears to be a conscious Chinese policy to flood Tibet with non-Tibetans.

One other piece of the puzzle merits mentioning. Young Chinese business leaders are coming into their own just as the country as a whole is broadening its horizons globally. A recent Time magazine story on China cited a 2006 survey showing that 87 percent of Chinese respondents thought their country should take a greater role in world affairs. Most Chinese, the survey found, believed China’s global influence would match that of the U.S. within a decade.

If the 21st century is going to be, to a large extent, “The Chinese Century,” the kind of China that becomes a stronger world power matters immensely. Will it continue what appears to be its current agenda of cozying up to bad-behaving states with natural resources, such as Sudan, without pushing for reforms? Could it instead offer lessons on capitalist development combined with workers’ rights, as well as how to shift from authoritarianism to greater political openness?

I’m not alone in calling for China business leaders and their companies to embrace a kind of social responsibility. In fact, I found in my reporting that the concept of corporate social responsibility has been gathering steam in China. One company that views leadership development in a social context is computer maker Hewlett-Packard. Arthur Wei, general manager of China Hewlett Packard for Northern China, proudly told me that his firm sees itself as an “executive academy.” That is, HP aims to groom effective leaders not just for itself, but for other organizations in China.

HP wants to “grow with China” by contributing developed talent to the country, Wei says. “That’s the return to the society that we’re doing business with.”

That return is potentially powerful. At its best, HP’s corporate culture has a strong egalitarian streak, prizes integrity and, despite the recent boardroom spying flap, respects the individual.

I hope HP graduates many fine China leaders from its “academy.” And that they and other Chinese leaders now coming of age remake the country to bring out its best and jettison its worst. China needs them to do that. The whole world does.