As the stream of grim economic and job market news continues, let me throw out an idea I’ve been mulling for a while.

Maybe we need a new metaphor for the way we help workers struggling without a job. Instead of calling it a “safety net,” perhaps we should call it a “safety harness.” By harness, I’m thinking specifically of the gear used by rock and mountain climbers—the belt and straps attached to a safety rope that keep you from falling too far in case you lose your footing.

I think the economic safety harness is a better metaphor because it highlights the responsibility of the individual to get to where they’re going financially. Yes, they may fall—because of their own misstep or economic winds beyond their control—and need the steady hand of society to keep them from tumbling to disaster. But the individual will have to return to the mountain face to continue their ascent.

The economic safety net connotes a kind of passivity. It highlights social cushioning and assistance rather than individual initiative. Indeed, the circus imagery conjured up by a safety net suggests the economy amounts to a tightrope or trapeze act fraught with immense risk.

It’s true that economic risk is increasing for workers around the globe. But the safety net metaphor may exaggerate the peril and the role of luck while downplaying people’s power to control their economic destiny. As a result, I suspect, the phrase itself figures into the reluctance of conservatives especially to provide more generous unemployment benefits.

In my view, an economic safety harness would include expanded unemployment benefits as well as sound training programs, health insurance and decent retirement benefits—a combination which would give people the confidence and tools to take risks and keep climbing toward prosperity.

As it stands, leading economists consider our safety system for displaced workers to be skimpy. Fortifying it is an urgent task. Not only is the job market deteriorating for workers, but increases in unemployment benefits appear to be particularly effective at jump-starting the economy.

The U.S. economic stimulus package—centered on tax rebates—did not extend jobless benefits. There’s been talk about taking that step in a second stimulus plan. But the Bush administration has signaled its opposition to an additional package.

In other words, the administration isn’t eager to improve the “safety net” that catches workers. Would things be different if the president were asked to strengthen the “safety harness” that helps workers stick to their economic journey?

Amid all the recent talk about reforming the global financial system to increase its “stability,” there’s been little said about extending the idea of economic security to workers.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development research group came close earlier this month. The OECD’s Financial Markets Committee—made up of officials from central banks, finance ministries and other financial authorities—issued a statement  in response to the subprime mortgage crisis and related financial turbulence of late. It called for “fundamental reform of financial markets” that “enhances stability, whilst retaining efficiency.” And, in a move rare among financial officials and bankers, the OECD acknowledged the way the global economy is becoming more chancy for individuals.

“The OECD also notes that the world is moving to a situation in which individuals bear more and more risks, without being necessarily able to cope with them,” the organization said April 15. “This concerns not only credit, including sub-prime mortgages, but also insurance or pensions.”

A big portion of the world’s individuals are workers and employees. And they also face the risk of sudden job loss, as seen by the thousands of layoffs in recent months in the United States. Unfortunately, the OECD Financial Markets Committee has a tepid solution to people’s economic precariousness: “This situation calls for a new culture of risk awareness and financial education mechanisms that the OECD promotes.”

More recently this month, the OECD proposed a more concrete measure to help with unemployment—giving local agencies and authorities more power and autonomy to adjust employment and training programs to meet local needs.

But such flexibility, while helpful, still isn’t likely to provide a strong enough fix to the problem at hand. That is, to give workers a meaningful measure of economic security while preserving a degree of freedom for businesses. Decent unemployment benefits, smart training programs, health insurance and sound retirement income—along with job opportunities—are the keys to economic security. But in many countries, one or more of these ingredients is missing.

The irony is that economic security for workers can coincide with strong economic growth. Denmark, with its “flexicurity” system, is a case in point.

As the financial crisis and credit crunch of 2007 and 2008 suggest, we have allowed for too much risk-taking on the part of some of our financial institutions. At the same time that we seek to establish a less dicey financial system, we ought to broaden this push for economic security. Including workers in the trenches can help us get to an economy that is both more stable and more prosperous.

There’s an ongoing contest between the U.S. and European economic systems. And one of the key battlegrounds is nowhere near New York, Dallas, Brussels or Berlin. It’s China—that is to say, which side of the Atlantic is best able to work with and take advantage of Asia Pacific’s emerging economic powerhouse?

A recent press release from the other side of the Atlantic pond highlighted one way Europe is sowing the seeds for long-term success in China. It called for European managers to apply to the European Union-China “Managers Exchange and Training Programme,” a 10-month program that includes intercultural training, Chinese-language study, seminars, visits to Chinese companies and a three-month internship at a Chinese or European company in China.

METP is a four-year effort of the European Commission and the Chinese government aiming to serve a total of 200 managers from the European Union and 200 managers from China.

The program is tailored for frontline and midlevel managers. Applicants are supposed to have no or only very limited knowledge of Chinese language; be between 26 and 40 years of age; and have a minimum of five years of work experience.

The U.S., too, has been willing to have government play an active role when it comes to commerce with China. But U.S.-led business exchange efforts, such as the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum seem geared to helping high-level executives make connections with Chinese counterparts.

I’m not aware of any U.S. government program akin to METP—one that encourages managers lower down in organizations to develop expertise and relationships in China. That expertise and those relationships can translate into concrete business deals as METP participants advance in their careers.

METP is of a piece with Europe’s focus on “sustainability” and long-term thinking. Both the U.S. and the European Union face widening trade deficits with China. And both would like to close those gaps by exporting more to China. Will the investment in budding managers in the METP program pay off for Europe down the line?

An advocacy group for U.S. software programmers proposes an intriguing fix for a possible flood of H-1B visa applications.

The Programmers Guild is calling for guest worker visas to be given to companies pledging to pay the highest salary, with salary serving as a proxy for skill level.

“H-1B workers with the highest skills should be given priority,” the guild said in a statement last week. “In no case should a ‘Ph.D. genetic researcher’ lose out to a ‘$16/hour accountant.’ ”

Currently, the government uses a lottery system to decide which petitions will be approved for H-1Bs in the event of high demand for the visas, which allow skilled foreigners to work in the United States. There is an annual limit of 65,000 for most H-1B workers.

The first 20,000 H-1B workers who have a U.S. master’s degree or higher are exempt from the cap. April 1 is the first day employers may file petitions seeking H-1B workers for fiscal year 2009, which begins October 1.

For the last fiscal year, the H-1B cap was reached on April 2—the first day employers could submit petitions.

The guild’s proposal is part of a broader H-1B visa debate, in which some have called for raising the program’s annual cap.

Under the guild plan, the top salaries promised would get the H-1B visas subject to the cap of 65,000.

“Any business with a critical need for an H-1B candidate could be assured of approval by paying a higher wage,” guild president Kim Berry said in a statement. “Since the median H-1B salary is about $55,000, any H-1B paying more than about $65,000 would be approved.”

Making a high wage a factor for getting a visa potentially raises costs for employers. Small businesses in lower-wage markets in particular might be squeezed by such a change.

But the proposal could help make sure the sharpest workers come in under the H-1B program, which is used heavily by the technology industry. It also could help prevent the underpayment of H-1Bs, which undercuts the salaries of U.S. workers and makes it less likely that American workers will enter fields that now rely on foreigners.

A guild report from 2006 concluded the H-1B prevailing wage is substantially below the median wage of U.S. workers.

H-1B wage problems also surfaced in a 2006 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. It found that 3,229 H-1B applications were certified by the U.S. Labor Department, “even though the wage rate on the application was lower than the prevailing wage for that occupation.”

The guild’s alternative to the H-1B lottery includes a second provision that raises tricky questions of national interest and global economics. The guild would give U.S. employers preference over foreign consulting firms. Critics, including the guild, have argued that use of the visas by foreign firms fuels the shift of work abroad.

At least when it comes to the salary piece, the guild’s alternative to the H-1B lottery is on the money, it seems to me. What do you think?

News that HR consulting firm Mercer forged a deal with an executive search firm in Vietnam is a sign of the times.

U.S.-based firms that pitch talent-related services see strong growth in Asia even as evidence keeps pointing toward a downturn in the U.S. economy.

Mercer, a unit of professional services firm Marsh & McClennan Cos., said Thursday, March 14, that it signed an agreement with TalentNet of Vietnam to market and provide Mercer’s proprietary research, HR management tools and survey data.

Guo Xin, deputy region head of Mercer for the Asia-Pacific region, said the agreement with TalentNet further underscores Mercer’s ongoing commitment to expanding in Vietnam.

“With Vietnam experiencing such phenomenal growth in the past years, so too has demand for Mercer’s offerings, particularly with data-driven products and services from our Information Product Solutions (IPS) division,” Guo Xin said in a statement.

I met with Guo Xin last year in Beijing  and heard him say similar things about China’s rapid growth and the accompanying demand for HR-related help.

Mercer is not alone in jumping on the Asia bandwagon. Right Management, the consulting firm that’s a subsidiary of staffing giant Manpower, last month announced new positions for two executives in Asia.

And executive search specialist Korn/Ferry International saw its executive recruitment fees  in the Asia-Pacific region jump 36 percent in the three months ended January 31, to $25.3 million.

That was a much faster clip than the 21 percent growth overall in the firm’s executive recruitment fees. What’s more, those Asia-Pacific placements had a higher profit margin—21.5 percent—than Korn/Ferry’s executive recruiting gigs in North America, Europe and South America.

But how long will Asia be golden? A big question right now is whether China, Vietnam and other Asian countries can avoid catching America’s economic cold. There’s some thinking the slowdown at hand will be fairly global in nature .

If that’s the case, all the diversification in the world may not do much to help U.S.-based talent advisors weather a rough patch.