workforce

Calling All Petroleum Engineers: Your College Major Is More Important Than Degree Itself

by on May 24, 2011

Huffington Post…

With student indebtedness rising and a dearth of decent-paying jobs for recent graduates, many are asking whether a college degree is still worth the sticker price. According to a new report , a college degree is well worth it in terms of lifetime earnings. But, the study’s authors noted, not all degrees are worth the same amount: A student’s chosen major has critical, far-reaching consequences. “The core finding here is that going to college and getting a degree is important, but what you major in can be three or four times more important.” said Anthony P. Carnevale, who co-authored the study and directs Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “The difference in earnings is more than 300 percent.” Utilizing previously unreported data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2009 American Community Survey, the study authors sampled 3 million college graduates between 25 and 64 who had reported their undergraduate major and subsequent salary to arrive at their findings. “There’s this tendency in this country to say, ‘I’m going to college. I made it,’” said Carnevale. “Well, yes, you’ve made it to a point. But the most important decision to come is what to major in.” Titled “ What’s It Worth? The Economic Value of College Majors ,” the study indicates that the earnings disparity between different college majors is substantial. In terms of yearly earnings, petroleum engineers reported making $120,000, while college counselors and psychologists earned an average of $29,000. Over the course of a lifetime, this translated into petroleum engineers making $5 million, while counselors and psychologists earned approximately $2 million. Of the 171 majors included in the report, engineering, computer science and business reported the highest salaries. Lower earnings were reported in fields such as education, social work and counseling — though they all made about 75 to 85 percent more than individuals with only a high school degree. The study also found a significant earnings gap by gender, race and ethnicity. “In the case of African Americans, in not one of the 171 majors were they making as much or more than white people,” said Carnevale. “For women, in only three of the included majors — physiology, computer science and pharmacology — did they out-earn their male counterparts.” While the ultimate value of college may well be worth it for degree-holders, the majority of Americans now bristle at the increasing cost . Last week, the Pew Research Center released a survey that asked whether or not college was worth it . Of the more than 2,000 people surveyed, 57 percent claim that higher education fails to provide adequate value in return for increasingly high costs. Further, 75 percent said that college is too costly for the average citizen to afford. Despite its high cost, Carnevale still believes a college degree is unequivocally worth it. “A college degree is still the threshold requirement for access to the middle and upper middle class,” said Carnevale. “But access to the upper class now depends on your major.” Both Carnevale and his colleague, Carl Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University, caution current college students with giving the choice of major careful consideration. Specifically, he advises students to be better informed about the future weight of the decision they’re about to make. “Rather than following the whimsy of what their friends are doing or what their parents want them to do, they need to understand the choice they’re making,” said Van Horn, who also directs Rutgers’ John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. “Pre-school teachers don’t make $150,000, investment bankers do. The choice of major is especially critical now when the labor market is so very competitive.”

The rest is here:
Calling All Petroleum Engineers: Your College Major Is More Important Than Degree Itself

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

John M. Eger: Business and Education Need to Talk

by on May 12, 2011

Huffington Post…

More than two years ago, The Conference Board, a major international business research organization, issued a report called “Ready To Innovate: Are Educators and Executives Aligned on the Creative Readiness of the U.S. Workforce?” The report was the first time that the vital link to a creative and innovative economy was made clear, and the road to America’s success and survival was spelled out for all to see — particularly in the business community. In summary, the report asked three questions: “Are U.S. businesses and K-12 school systems making the link between creative skill sets in the workforce and innovation? Are businesses finding the creative talent they need to generate the innovative solutions and products demanded by the marketplace? And what efforts are both of these groups making to train employees in the needed creative skills?” The survey revealed that “both the superintendents who educate future workers and the employers who hire them agree that creativity is increasingly important in U.S. workplaces (99 percent and 97 percent, respectively), and that arts-training — and, to a lesser degree, communications studies — are crucial to developing creativity. Yet, there is a gap between understanding this truth and putting it into meaningful practice. Our findings indicate that most high schools and employers provide such training and studies only on an elective or ‘as needed’ basis.” It also found that “when the discussion turns to instilling creativity in the workforce, the conversation often begins and ends with education…new curricular and teaching approaches are needed…(and) the results from our survey suggest that this responsibility should in fact be shared broadly — by educators, employers, and other interested individuals.” Because of the worldwide spread of technology — particularly the Internet — and the globalization of markets, it is a new ballgame. As Business Week Magazine said almost six years ago: “The game is changing. It isn’t just about math and science anymore. It’s about creativity, imagination, and, above all, innovation.” The fact is, most of the manufacturing jobs were lost over the last 20 years. Now with globalization in full bloom, America is beginning to see the outlines of yet another out-migration of American jobs. Unlike the earlier shift of manufacturing jobs to less developed East Asian countries, the loss of the latest round of high-tech software and service jobs will have dramatic, some say devastating, impacts on America’s economic wealth and well-being. Twenty years ago, it was fashionable to blame foreign competition and cheap labor markets abroad for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States, but the pain of the loss was softened by the emergence of a new services industry. Now, it is the service sector jobs that are being lost. This shift of high tech service jobs will be a permanent feature of economic life in the 21st century. Today, the demand for creativity has outpaced our nation’s ability to create enough workers simply to meet our needs. Our schools and our businesses need to rethink the needs of the nation, and rethink the important roles of creativity and innovation. Are we ready to innovate as the Conference Board asks? Frankly, I have been following these issues for several years — more acutely lately. I have seen some action and heard some concerns but, as they say, the jury is still out. I guess I am one of those “glass-is-half-full” guys and am guardedly optimistic.

Read more:
John M. Eger: Business and Education Need to Talk

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Arianna Huffington: If "America Can Do Whatever We Set Our Mind To," How Come Our Leaders Won’t Set Their Minds on Jobs?

May 10, 2011

“We do big things,” President Obama said during his State of the Union speech in January. And, in fact, we do. Sometimes. Finding and dispatching Osama bin Laden certainly qualifies. “We are once again reminded,” the president said after announcing the terrorist’s death, “that America can do whatever we set our mind to.” But if that’s true, why are our leaders so accepting of a stagnant economy? If they really focused on the havoc it is wreaking on the lives of tens of millions of Americans, they would, in the memorable words of Richard Clarke, be running around with their hair on fire. But they’re not. Instead, they express concern but resign themselves to the fact that, as White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee put it in an interview with HuffPost, the economy has “a long way to go.” Meanwhile, we’re being asked to accept years of underemployment, low growth and draconian cuts to America’s social safety nets as the “new normal.” Or, as Bill Clinton put it in a different context, the “tyranny of low expectations.” It’s a testament to these low expectations of our leaders that we’re supposed to take recent economic figures as some kind of good news. In March, the economy added 216,000 jobs and the unemployment rate fell from 8.9 percent to 8.8 percent. Not bad. But not good, either. And if you take a closer look at the numbers, you’ll want to keep that celebratory champagne on ice. Because while adding jobs is obviously better than shedding them, even if we continue to add 200,000 jobs a month, it would take until 2019 to achieve the employment level we had when the recession started. “There are still five unemployed workers per job opening,” Heidi Shierholz, economist with the Economic Policy Institute, told HuffPost, “far worse than the worst month of the early-2000s recession.” What’s more, much of the downturn in the unemployment rate was actually caused by people giving up and leaving the workforce. As the New York Times noted , participation in the workforce fell to 64.2 percent, the lowest mark in 25 years. If you were to factor those who have stopped looking for work into the official unemployment rate, it would be 9.8 percent. If you were to include those working part-time who would rather be working full-time, it would be 15.7 percent. “Being happy with the falling unemployment rate right now,” said Wells Fargo’s Jeremy Ryan, “would be like being happy that your team won because the other team’s bus broke down on the way to the field.” April’s numbers were equally disconcerting: even though the economy added 244,000 jobs, the unemployment rate rose from 8.8 percent to 9 percent. Even worse, the unemployment rate for African-Americans jumped to 16.1 percent. And for those over the age of 55, the average length of time spent looking for a job is now over a year. Add to that an anemic GDP growth rate of 1.8 percent for January through March, down from 3.1 percent for the last quarter of 2010, and the fact that, according to U.S. Census numbers released last week, the percentage of young adults living with their parents has jumped to a staggering 34 percent, largely because of their limited job possibilities. Then there is the chilling reality that more than 28 percent of U.S. homes were underwater in the first quarter of the year, and foreclosures are expected to rise 20 percent this year. “We get tired of telling such a grim story,” Zillow economist Stan Humphries told Bloomberg News, “but unfortunately this is the story that needs to be told.” Told, but apparently not listened to. At least not in Washington. It’s no wonder then that, according to a recent Gallup poll, over half the country currently believes we’re in a recession or a depression. Or that a New York Times /CBS poll shows that 80 percent say the economy is in fairly bad or very bad shape. How are these not hair on fire numbers? Yet our leaders, who are supposed to be doing big things, seem instead to have made their peace with “the new normal.” Take the Fed: it could be doing a lot more to create jobs, but instead it’s guarding against the phantom bogeyman of inflation. “Why has Mr. Bernanke decided to accept widespread unemployment for years on end, even though he believes he has the power to reduce it?” asked David Leonhardt. “After all, does the economy feel as if it’s on the verge of overheating?” Hardly. At the New America Foundation’s conference about the Federal Reserve, the Peterson Institute’s Joe Gagnon said that the Fed’s timidity is responsible for the loss of 1 million jobs. “Apparently,” writes Brad Delong, “the millions and millions of people who are unemployed, some of whom won’t be reemployed until years from now if we do nothing to help, are supposed to be patient because people with power over policy are worried about inflation and higher interest rates.” Our elected leaders aren’t any better — less focused on the job crisis than on arguing about how to best divvy up harsh cuts to the social safety net and programs that benefit the middle class. Meanwhile, profits for the Fortune 500 jumped by 81 percent in 2010, to $318 billion. Clearly big things aren’t out of reach for everybody. It’s not that we can’t do something big about the economy — it’s that our leaders choose not to. Or, as Mark Thoma puts it : “We can’t help to stimulate job growth if we don’t try, and so far we aren’t trying anywhere near hard enough.” President Obama himself connected the economy to his can-do speech about Osama. Immediately after declaring that “America can do whatever we set our mind to,” he said, “That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggles for equality for all our citizens.” But, at the moment, that doesn’t seem to be the story of our country. We are dangerously close to accepting a bifurcated economy as the new status quo. Yes, there are political realities. Yes, the parties are hugely divided. But if it’s true we can do “whatever we set our mind to,” then how about we set our mind to reigniting the American Dream for everybody, and not just those few for whom the recession is an out-of-sight-out-of-mind reality? There is no bigger Big Thing we can do as a country right now.

Read the full article →

Brink Lindsey: Why Growth Is Getting Harder — And What To Do About It

April 25, 2011

The worst of the Great Recession is apparently over. The economy is growing again, and the unemployment rate is down to 8.8 percent from its peak of 10.1 percent. Yet even if the acute crisis is abating, the grim fact is that the U.S. economy still faces chronic health problems. Even before the recession hit, back in 2007, real income for the median American household was lower than it had been in 2000. So too was total employment as a percentage of the population. Here’s the fundamental problem. Economic growth is harder than it used to be. This is the argument made by the economist Tyler Cowen in his provocative new e-book The Great Stagnation . Even if you don’t buy all his analysis (and I don’t ), he’s right that the American economy will have to contend with some pretty stiff headwinds over the next couple of decades. Let me mention here one of the main challenges that confronts us: increasingly unfavorable demographics. If you want to increase GDP per person — the main yardstick for economic growth — one of the best ways is getting an ever-higher percentage of the population into the business of producing GDP. And that’s exactly what happened over the course of the 20th century with the rise of women in the work force. In 1900, only 20 percent of women sought work outside the home; in 2000, the female labor force participation rate hit an all-time high of 60 percent. As a result, the overall employment-to-population ratio climbed steady, and this progressive mobilization of Americans into the money economy helped to propel growth and prosperity. But now demographics are pushing in the opposite direction. Female participation in the labor force started falling after 2000, well before the Great Recession. Meanwhile, the percentage of adult men in the workforce has been slowly declining for decades, thanks to later entry due to more schooling and more years in retirement. And looking ahead, the aging of the population will put further downward pressure on labor force participation. The switch from a rising to a falling employment-to-population ratio matters a great deal. A recent report by the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that growth in the workforce (due to increasing population) will add only 0.5 percentage points to the average annual growth rate between 2010 and 2020. By contrast, the expanding workforce added 2.0 percentage points to growth back in the 1970s. If we’re going to avoid a historically unprecedented slowdown in the long-term growth rate, something has to make up the difference. That something is productivity. Economic growth can be seen as having two basic sources: (1) increases in working hours per person, and (2) increases in output per working hour. Since the first has tailed off, the second — otherwise known as productivity growth — needs to pick up the slack for growth to stay on course. According to McKinsey , we will need to boost productivity growth by roughly 25 percent above present levels to keep economic growth from falling below the long-term historical trend line. Welcome to the era of “frontier economics.” That’s the term I used to describe our situation in a recently released study for the Kauffman Foundation. In that study I argue that growth comes in two basic forms: imitation, or expansion based on the application of existing knowledge; and innovation, or the development of new ideas at the technological frontier. Because of shifting demographics and other factors as well, the sources of imitative growth are being exhausted. As a result, we are now increasingly reliant on innovation to keep prosperity alive. The only alternative to Cowen’s “great stagnation” is to push back the frontier of our knowledge and know-how. Once the challenge that confronts us is understood, the implications for economic policy become clear. If we are to pull out of the current slump and launch a 21st-century boom that rivals the growth record of decades past, it will be through unleashing the power of competitive markets to spur innovation. I’m not talking about laissez-faire here, or the absolute minimum of regulations and taxes. Competitive markets don’t exist in a vacuum: They are the product of a highly developed and sophisticated regulatory structure. And the example of the Nordic countries shows that robust competition is possible even with much bigger government than I would personally prefer. Rather, I’m talking about an economic environment in which new businesses are free to enter the market, struggling businesses are free to exit, prices move freely in response to supply and demand and product offerings change freely in response to consumer preferences. Both empirical researchers and theorists of economic growth agree: Competitive intensity is the key to spurring progress at the technological frontier. Existing firms pressed by their rivals have sharper incentives to innovate. Meanwhile, a competitive business environment open to entrepreneurial upstarts creates opportunities for those new firms with new ideas that are so frequently the agents of disruptive, discontinuous innovation. That’s the big picture, but what are the specific steps we need to take to make America a more competitive, innovative economy? To answer that question, the Kauffman Foundation launched the Law, Innovation, and Growth initiative to explore how to reform the country’s laws and regulations to promote long-term growth. The early fruits of this project were published this year in a new book by the Kauffman Foundation titled Rules for Growth , which contains specific policy recommendations from some of the nation’s top legal experts. We still have much work to do. But here in the era of frontier economics, the choice is clear: innovation or stagnation. To keep the American dream of widely shared prosperity alive, we need to choose entrepreneurship and competition over the vested interests of the status quo.

Read the full article →

Deborah Frett: On Equal Pay Day, Step Up or Step Out of the Way

April 11, 2011

According to the last study by the National Center for Educational Statistics : Female high school graduates are more likely than male graduates to have taken geometry, algebra II, pre-calculus, biology, and chemistry. Females are more likely than their male classmates to participate in music or performing arts, belong to academic clubs, work on the school yearbook or newspaper, or participate in student government. Last month, T he White House’s Women in America Report noted that those trends continue in college: Greater percentages of females attend college. Females are more likely to attend and graduate from college without dropping out. Females are more likely to earn a graduate school degree. And the 2010 “Women in the Labor Force: A Databook,” compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reflects similar developments in the workforce: Women account for 51 percent of all people employed in management, professional, and related occupations, somewhat more than their share of total employment (47 percent). The increase in female managers coming to the table with undergraduate and graduate degrees is greater than the increases in male managers. So, are you ready for reality? Women earn 77 percent of what men earn. Equal Pay Day, which signifies the point into the year that a woman must work to earn what a man made, falls on Tuesday, April 12 this year. Wait, what? That’s right; and it’s not what you were expecting, is it? Truth be told, we should expect more for our working women, and they get more. Nearly 50 years ago, when the Equal Pay Act of 1963 brought pay parity for women to the national forefront, critics argued that women simply did not have the same educational background as men, and therefore did not merit the same wages. Well, instead of coming a long way, baby, it seems we have come full circle. Today’s critics of equal pay argue that men as a group earn higher wages in part because men dominate blue collar jobs , which are more likely to require payments for overtime work. In contrast, women comprise more of the salaried white collar management workforce that is often exempted from overtime laws. We were told that we didn’t have enough education to merit equal pay then, and now our educational achievements are the cause of the disparity. Corporate America wants it both ways. Last December, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have toughened legal action against discriminating employers, narrowly failed to pass Congress. With few exceptions, business opposed it, citing that new legislation is unnecessary, redundant, and would simply lead to unfair lawsuits against employers. In a June 21, 2010 letter to U.S. Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, the Business Roundtable wrote, “The Paycheck Fairness Act … would open companies to potentially crippling employment litigation without adding significant benefit to workers, since current law already addresses the discrimination issue.” Then why, nearly 50 years later, has the wage gap only improved by only half a cent per year? In 1963, according to the National Committee on Pay Equity, “women working full-time and year-round earned on average 59 cents for every dollar earned by men. A woman now earns 77 cents for every man’s dollar.” At that rate, it will take nearly another half-century for women to earn a fair wage. In that same time frame, women have made tremendous strides and are more likely than males to enter the workforce with degrees from high school, college, and graduate school. It makes good financial sense for businesses to invest in attracting and retaining the best talent by offering equal and fair compensation and benefits. It’s time for America’s business community to step up with fair pay, or step out of the way of legislation like the just re-introduced Paycheck Fairness Act that will help ensure pay equity. I urge you, on Equal Pay Day this year, to review your compensation packages and address the inequality. We can help. BPW Foundation encourages employers to recognize and reward the skills and contributions of working women. The Employer Pay Equity Self-Audit was developed to assist employers in analyzing their own wage-setting policies and establishing consistent and fair pay practices for all. It can be found on the BPW Foundation website : It’s the right thing to do for your employees. It’s the smart thing to do for your business. Don’t let another year go by for working women — and their families — who are doing more for less. We held up our end of the bargain and came to the workforce better prepared and more skilled. Now it’s your turn: make sure you offer equal pay for equal work.

Read the full article →

Michael Thornton: Unemployed 99er Population Rises Dramatically by 127,000. The "Real" Long-term Unemployment Report

April 7, 2011

The March Employment Report was again pumped as another victory in the war against unemployment. But for millions of long-term unemployed, it’s still a brutal battle to find work. That’s why it’s unfortunate that most main stream media outlets and politicos seem incapable of understanding, or chose to ignore the “real” unemployment numbers. The BLS reported that unemployment (U3) for March was 8.8%, which is a slight improvement from February’s 8.9%. 216,000 jobs were created, but that’s a relatively small monthly number of jobs for what is supposedly a strong economic recovery from the Great Recession. In comparison, during the 2004 economic recovery, 338,000 jobs were created in March. The Obama administration and media mouthpieces seem preoccupied with the U3, 8.8% measure of unemployment, but you need to dig into the numbers to reveal the “real” state of unemployment. A disconnected news media conveniently forgets to mention that the US needs to create about 125,000 jobs a month to simply keep up with new entrants to the workforce. If you subtract 125,000 from 216,000 jobs created in March, you end up with 91,000 “extra” jobs for 13.5 million unemployed. Underemployment remained quite high at 15.7%, or 8.2 million workers who want full-time work, but are forced to work part-time jobs of 34 hours a week or less. Yes, full-time work is considered 35 hours or more per week, although many “real world” workers consider jobs of less than 40 hours a week as part-time. But what was most striking about the March jobs report was the continuing increase in the number of long-term unemployed. According to the BLS, March showed 1,899,000 workers who have been out of work for 99 weeks or more, an increase of 127,000 from February. The real 99er population is growing quickly and shows no signs of abating. NELP estimates ( PDF ) that “throughout 2010, 3.9 million unemployed workers exhausted all of their unemployment benefits without finding new work.” Exhausting unemployment benefits also includes those unemployed that exhausted benefits after 60, 73, 79, or 93 weeks, so NELP’s estimate is larger than the BLS estimate for those out of work 99 weeks or more. Not only are more unemployed out of work 99 weeks or longer, but those out of work 52 and 27 weeks or more are increasing as well. Those out of work 27 weeks or more now accounts for a record 45.5% (6.14 million) of all unemployed, while for those out of work 52 weeks or more the rate is 31.5% (4.25 million) of all unemployed; again a record high. The participation rate is another employment issue rarely discussed on the national media stage. According to the BLS , “the participation rate is the share of the population 16 years and older working or seeking work.” The labor force participation rate was unchanged, 64.2%, the same as the previous two months. This is the lowest labor participation rate since March 1984. The March Employment Report showed some job gains, but not nearly enough jobs were created to put a dent in the long-term unemployment problem. Media talking heads and politicians looking for 2012 votes touted the March jobs report as a winner, but it was a loser for millions of increasingly desperate long-term unemployed who are struggling without jobs or unemployment benefits. Let’s not hang those “Mission Accomplished” banners just yet…

Read the full article →

Vishakha N. Desai: Asia Needs More Women Leaders

April 1, 2011

As the center of gravity of the global economy moves east, Asia needs to recruit more women for leadership positions across the public and private sectors. But how can they break through more glass ceilings and climb corporate ladders? And, once there, what will they bring to the table? Some of the region’s most influential women are confronting these challenges as they share their experiences and wisdom at Asia Society’s “Women Leaders of New Asia” summit in Singapore this week. There are real moral imperatives for making sure more women reach the very top. But there is also a bottom line: It’s simply makes good business sense. Women often make the majority of financial and consumer decisions in Asian families. They work out what to buy for the home, what school to send their children to, where to go for vacation and so on. This alone behooves companies to have women in senior positions to understand better the purchasing habits and financial power of women. But there are deeper reasons for women to assume more leadership responsibilities. And, much of it comes from unexpected quarters, namely culture and tradition. The Western concept that reason should operate above all else dates back to the Age of the Enlightenment. Now some modern research suggests that this runs counter to how our brains actually function. For instance, in his new book, the New York Times ‘ David Brooks points to the importance of emotions, intuitions, perceptions, genetic dispositions and unconscious longings in all sorts of decision-making — momentous, inconsequential and in between. I contend that the holistic traditions of Asia — from India to Indonesia and China to Korea — are based on strong mind/body and reason/intuition relationships. We can thank those deep cultural values for much of the success Asian societies have had building their economies and chasing the materialistic dream of wealth and better lifestyles. This is where Asian women can do more. They are, more often than not, the keepers of age-old traditions in families and communities. So, now is the time for more women to take on the mantle of leadership and infuse these cultural nuances into the broader narrative of the geo-economic power shift to Asia. To do so would build a valuable legacy for future generations. It must be said that there has been much progress in the advancement of women. The female talent pool is growing fast as women graduate from universities in large numbers in many Asian countries. Singapore has an impressive record. Elsewhere, around 47% of graduates in China are women and the figure is 50% in India. Of those female graduates in China, 65% say they have high ambitions and expect to follow professional careers. In India the figure is 85%. It would be an enormous waste of human talent if one-half of the population was under-utilized, particularly as governments and businesses try to modernize and boost their competitiveness. But, alas, women are still a rarity on corporate boards, in senior management teams and top government positions in Asia. While more well-educated women are entering the workforce than ever before, social taboos and family pressures mean many are leaving in droves after reaching mid-level management positions. There are many other hurdles to female advancement. Younger women have few opportunities to be mentored by senior women in a strategic way. And, it’s also hard for some to get back into the workforce after a hiatus during their childbearing years. It’s no surprise, for instance, that some women in Singapore and elsewhere are delaying marriage and even opting not to have children. We hope to bridge some of these gaps at this week’s summit. We are building a strong network of women leaders and learning about best practices in the public and private sectors. This is not simply a nice idea whose time has come. This is something we can ill-afford to ignore.

Read the full article →

BJ Gallagher: Wal-Mart: What Do Women Want?

March 30, 2011

Judging by allegations in the class action suit being brought by their female employees, Wal-Mart executives and managers seem to have dog ears. You know how dogs’ hearing is attuned to certain frequencies? Well, Wal-Mart leaders have their own selective hearing: they can hear only voices in the lower register — male voices. But it’s not just a Wal-Mart problem. Countless women in businesses and organizations across the country report a common experience: Often when a woman in a business meeting suggests an idea, she is ignored. Ten minutes later, a male colleague suggests a remarkably similar idea and everyone jumps on board with a hearty chorus of “atta boy” and “great idea!” The woman feels confused, hurt, and angry. “What’s with that?” she fumes as she leaves the meeting. And it’s not just her spoken word that goes unheard in the world of business. Women fare no better with the written word. For the past five years I’ve been studying the Wall Street Journal business best-seller list. Among the top 15 titles every week, almost 100% are written by men. (Suze Orman is the notable exception). It’s disheartening to think that only men are seen experts in leadership, teamwork, customer service, motivation, communication, innovation, sales and marketing, finance, change management, career skills, project management and time management. The dearth of women business authors is especially startling in light of the fact that more new businesses formed were started by women than women in the last twenty-five years … and women business owners employ 35% more people than the Fortune 500 combined! I could put a positive spin on these book statistics and say that women are so busy DOING business that they don’t have time to write about it. But I don’t buy it … and neither do you. The real reason that business books by women never become best-sellers is the “dog ears” problem. No matter how the Wal-Mart women’s class action suit turns out, this historic legal action is already making waves throughout Corporate America. These women, whose voices were not acknowledged by their bosses, are now making their voices heard in the courts – as well as in the court of public opinion. If the women succeed in their suit, there may be many more corporate women with their own grievances waiting in the wings to file their own suits. And even if Wal-Mart management prevails, their margin of victory will probably be narrow. Businesses both large and small are nervously watching as the drama unfolds, wondering if this could happen to them. Business leaders need to take a good, hard look at how they treat these women who make up more than half their workforce. Can they really afford to ignore and overlook achievements and ambitions of women who aspire to climb the corporate ladder of success? In today’s hyper-competitive global business environment, can any organization afford to suppress the creativity and ideas of bright, talented, energetic females? Executives and managers who want their corporations to be profitable need to do right by the women who contribute to that profitability. Women are still paid less than 80% of what men in comparable jobs are paid . Women managers still have a better chance of being kidnapped by terrorists than of making to the executive suite. Working women still struggle with walking the tightrope of narrowly defined acceptable behavior for their gender – not too feminine, lest she be judged as “too soft,” and not too masculine, or she’s labeled a “bitch” (or worse). What do the women of Wal-Mart want? They want what working women everywhere want: to be heard, to have their talents and skills acknowledged, to be appreciated for their creativity and contributions, and to be rewarded for their results. Nothing says, “You’re valued,” like a paycheck. Corporate platitudes like “Our people are our most important resource” ring hollow in the face of inequitable pay, curtailed promotions, and dead-end careers. Talk is cheap. Show us the money! Listen up, guys! Are there any business leaders out there who don’t have dog ears? BJ Gallagher is coauthor of “A Peacock in the Land of Penguins: A Fable About Creativity and Courage,” about getting your voice heard by those who sing in a different key.

Read the full article →

Dean Baker: The Deficit Hawks Target Nurses and Firefighters

March 29, 2011

Many people might think that the country’s problems stem from the fact that too much money has been going to the very rich. Over the last three decades, the richest one percent of the population has increased its share of national income by almost 10 percentage points (Excel spreadsheet). This comes to $1.5 trillion a year, or as the deficit hawks are fond of saying, $90 trillion over the next 75 years. To put this in context, the size of this upward redistribution to the richest one percent over the last three decades is roughly large enough to double the income of all the households in the bottom half of the income distribution. The upward redistribution amounts to an average of more than 1.2 million dollars a year for each of the families in the richest one percent of the population. And this upward redistribution was brought about by deliberate policy. We pursued a trade and high dollar policy that was intended to put downward pressure on the wages of manufacturing workers. The Federal Reserve Board deliberately kept unemployment higher than necessary in order to weaken workers bargaining power. We extended patent monopolies to allow drug companies to jack up prices, raking in hundreds of billions a year. And, we gave the Wall Street banks the benefit of “too big to fail” status so they can borrow with a government subsidy. These policies and others fueled this enormous upward redistribution. But the deficit hawks don’t want us talking about any of these things. The deficit hawks insist that we have to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits now! They are busy hyperventilating over the enormous deficits, the result of the economic collapse, which was in turn the result of their economic mismanagement. (Wait, we are not supposed to talk about that.) And the deficit hawks have clear ideas on how they want to deal with the costs of Social Security and Medicare over coming decades. And, it does not involve taking money from the tiny group of wealthy people who have profited enormously at the expense of the middle class over the last three decades? Nor are the deficit hawks interested in reining in the drug companies, the insurance companies or the doctors. The bloated prices and exorbitant pay of these actors is the main reason that U.S. health care costs are so wildly out of line with health care costs in other wealthy countries. But deficit hawks don’t get paid to go after rich people or the health care industry. Deficit hawks get paid to go after the benefits of middle-income people. This is why we were treated to a Washington Post column by finance industry executive Robert Pozen telling liberals that they should support his plan for raising the retirement age and cutting Social Security benefits for higher-income earners. When Pozen talks about cutting benefits for higher-income earners he is not thinking of people like Peter Peterson or Robert Rubin. He has his gun sights on people earning $40,000 to $80,000 a year. In other words, Pozen wants to cut benefits for workers like schoolteachers, firefighters and nurses. These are workers that definitely enjoy somewhat higher pay and a higher standard of living than most of the workforce, but only in Washington deficit hawks’ circles are these people living lavish lifestyles that need to be cut back. These workers are quite explicitly the target of the Washington deficit hawk gang. The deficit hawk crew will even shed some crocodile tears for the poor who earn near the minimum wage and live near the poverty level. They would raise their benefits if not for those greedy plumbers and mechanics who insist on getting the Social Security benefits that they paid for. In the next few weeks we will be treated to an endless parade of budget experts who will be yapping about “entitlements” and insisting that middle-income workers are living too lavishly. While all these experts have really impressive credentials it is important to remember that these credentials did not prevent this highly paid crew from overlooking the largest asset bubble in the history of the world. If this group had paid a tenth as much attention to the housing bubble as they are now paying to the deficit projections, we would not be sitting around with 25 million who are unemployed, under-employed or out of the workforce altogether. The deficit hawks are very good when it comes to whining about the deficit and demanding sacrifices from middle-class workers. They just aren’t very good when it comes to understanding the economy.

Read the full article →

Video: Walshok Says Schools Should Teach More Technical Skills

March 4, 2011

March 4 (Bloomberg) — Mary Walshok, a professor at the University of California, San Diego, talks about U.S. schools’ preparation of students for the workforce. Walshok speaks with Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Rob Johnson: Who Is Influencing Obama’s Budget Proposal? Follow the Funders

February 15, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . President Obama is a smart man. When Gallup surveys suggest that unemployment is around 10 percent — and that unemployment plus underemployment is 19 percent of the workforce — then it’s clear that the best way to raise revenues and close the deficit is to put people back to work. President Obama surely knows this. But his actions don’t seem to follow this obvious logic. Why is that? Part of the reason lies in a group of people who pour money into our political system but don’t necessarily want the same things that ordinary Americans want. In fact, these people benefit from municipal crises, breaking teachers unions, and increasing the fear of the workforce. They fall disproportionately into the group that Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig identified as “the funders” in his recent TedX Talk in San Antonio, Texas. The increasing power of this group produces political contortions by buying results in Congress that do nothing for regular folks. Their influence also steers President Obama to focus on his reelection rather than trying to change the climate of opinion and become America’s Great Persuader. The public has now heard the conservative mantra that government is the problem and not the solution for 40 years. Couple that with the experience of valid rage following the bank bailouts, and it’s not surprising that the public overwhelmingly feels that the government has become an instrument of the wealthy and powerful. Strong leadership is needed to challenge this narrative. But the President seems content to conform to the prevailing suspicion of government. He fails to convince the public that the government can have an active response to the jobs crisis that benefits them. And that suits many funders in the top 3 percent of the wealth distribution just fine. With profits so high and so many slack resources, it is sad that President Obama continues on the path of “triangulation” and chooses to “pre-concede” so much to the Republicans. In electoral terms, the breaking of all of the unions at the state and local level will serve to benefit the Republican party in many regions and exacerbate inequality. It is surprising the the President does not resist this for the benefit of his own party’s future. But Presidents often fly solo rather than represent their party when reelection looms — especially in a post- Citizens United world that will be influenced by unprecedented rivers of money. Looking forward, we can see that our infrastructure is worn out in many, many places. We can also see that a dearth of public goods, education, basic science and infrastructure portend a weakening of the living standard of our nation. President Obama seemed to acknowledge this in his State of the Union address vision. But his budget strategy does not. The current budgets, both Democrat and Republican, appear to be imposing cuts on the lower middle class and poor. We are, as Paul Krugman said in The New York Times on Monday , are eating our future. Unfortunately, the proposed budget appears more likely to contribute to the ongoing widening of wealth and income inequality. And it seems more likely to increase, rather than reduce, the idle resources in our society. This budget logic makes little sense, and the human costs are dreadful. Only the logic of power sheds light on our path of dysfunction in the USA. Andrew Mellon must be smiling.

Read the full article →

Donna Flagg: Five Things They Don’t Teach You in Business School

February 9, 2011

People pay an awful lot of money for an education that is supposed to prepare them for the workforce, which in turn is presumably intended to help them create some degree of career success for themselves. But if that plan is to work, then a course needs to be added called “What NOT To Do, if You Want To Get Ahead.” The following would be my top 5 picks for the syllabus: 5. Don’t yell at people. Flying off the handle does little to affect the other person(s) in anything other than a negative way, but instead, it makes you look crazy and unable to handle pressure. 4. Don’t lie in the presence of others. They will figure out that you either do not tell the truth, or selectively tell the truth when it suits you and they will doubt your authenticity as a result. You will end up with people who don’t take you seriously and keep you at arm’s length because you make them feel unsafe and uncomfortable. 3. Don’t tell someone something “in confidence” that you swore to someone else you would keep under wraps. All it does is show firsthand that you can’t be trusted with confidential information, which is definitely not a promotable quality. 2. Don’t be negative and lower yourself to childish, irrelevant, gossipy games. Rise above it and stay focused on the business, not the bulls**t. 1. Don’t ignore people who need a response. It’s like playing a game of catch; if you don’t throw the ball back to the person who threw it, everyone just stands around waiting. Not a good business model. Not a good reputation builder. Not a good choice. Image: iStockphoto Find Donna on Facebook and Krysalis.com

Read the full article →

60% Of New Jobs Were In Low-Paying Areas

January 13, 2011

Following last week’s disappointing job report , investment research group TrimTabs brings us an even sharper picture of an economy not on the verge of an economic recovery. (Hat tip to Zero Hedge .) TrimTabs drills into the Labor Bureau’s data for new jobs added in last year, to reveal some unsetting details: “Of the 1.1 million private jobs gained in the last year, 650,000 or 60% are jobs that have absolutely no real wealth creation capacity, nor do they provide any real benefits.” 60% of new jobs went to Temporary Help, Leisure & Hospitality and Retail trade. Leisure and hospitality pays an average hourly wage of $13.14, while a retail salesperson brings in an average of $11.84 an hour, according to the BLS’ database. Temporary help services can be slightly more lucrative at the higher end (Registered Nurses earn $32.77 an hour), but packers and packagers only earn an average of $8.62 per hour. As TrimTabs puts it :

 These jobs are certainly better than no jobs. But for the economy to grow sustainably — without the crutches of $1+ trillion per year in federal deficit spending, zero percent dictated interest rates, and tens of billions per month in central bank debt monetization — American companies need to start generating more higher-paying jobs at home. Last December, the New York Times reviewed a grim reality for Americans returning to the workforce after a layoff. All too often, new job means a lower standard of living and less satisfying work. The effects are emotional as well as economic: “In many cases, these people are not very happy,” said Cliff Zukin, professor of public policy and political science at Rutgers University and one of the authors of the study. “They’re the winners who got new jobs, but they’re not really what they want, and not where they want to be.” Check out Zero Hedge for more information .

Read the full article →

Susan N. Labin, Ph.D.: Reducing Unemployment in the New Year

January 3, 2011

As the New Year begins, Congress and the administration will renew their focus on jobs. From Main Street to Wall Street there is agreement that America needs more of them. Near double digit unemployment is painful and discouraging to unemployed and employed Americans. There is bipartisan agreement that employment is a critically important priority. Yet there have been inadequate bipartisan solutions to directly address joblessness to date. One direct solution to putting more Americans to work that should be considered is expanding workplace flexibility to reduce unemployment by reducing working hours. Reducing the workweek to 30 hours from 40 hours would increase the number of employed by 30 percent. That is 30 percent more jobs. Modification of the existing business tax credit for hiring new employees could include incentives for reduced hours. Tax credits could apply to companies that would hire the currently unemployed and those with employees at risk of being laid-off or who prefer a reduced workweek. A reduction in working hours can be prorated across the number of hours in a week or days worked in a year. Tax credits to companies that participate would offset increased employer costs from a larger workforce. These credits could vary by target populations such as the recently unemployed, parents of young children, the chronically unemployed, and older workers. Collateral benefits would accrue to individuals, companies, and society in the areas of improved health, less stress, increased time for children and family, more employee engagement and productivity at work, less crime, more sustainable environmental lifestyles, and reduced government social expenditures. The economic insecurity of the middle class has been increasing in recent years and is expected to continue to spiral downward unless effective changes are made. One consequence of the widening economic gaps between Americans is increased pressures on both those who have jobs and those who do not. Those who have jobs encounter an ever increasing demand to work more hours with the associated health risks of less sleep, more stress, more work-family conflict, and less time to exercise and engage in other healthy habits. Up to two-thirds of current health care costs can be directly associated with preventable ailments related to lifestyle habits — sleep, exercise, and diet. The economic pressures for those without employment also bring associated physical and psycho-social stresses, not to mention the societal consequences of increased drug use, crime, and social estrangement. Negative fiscal consequences to society of these collateral damages are manifested in high health care costs, expanding entitlements — social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits — and ever increasing prison and enforcement expenses. The proposed solution — incentives for reduced working hours — has a demonstrated successful track record both here in the U.S. and internationally. There are various forms of these solutions. In the U.S. we have seen the spontaneous response of private companies and state and local governments reducing the hours of employees in lieu of lay-offs. The advantages to individuals include the retention of income, jobs, and benefits. Advantages to companies include increased morale and job engagement as well as cost-savings associated with retention of employees and avoidance of future expenses for rehiring and retraining. A specific form of incentives includes “work sharing” or “short-time compensation” where reductions in working hours and associated reduced wages are supplemented by prorated unemployment benefits. Seventeen states have such work-sharing programs in place and usage has increased substantially in recent years. Federal legislation has been proposed and has received some bipartisan support. Such legislative proposals would establish national standards and funding to supplement state unemployment expenditures. These work-sharing programs are all directed at short-term, temporary fluctuations in employment. Countries across the world — from Europe, Asia, to South America — have been using work sharing to lower unemployment. Particularly noteworthy is the success with work sharing and other incentives for reducing work hours in Germany and the Netherlands. Germany’s economic robustness has been credited in part to these practices that have been possible by mutual agreement from management and labor. Incentives for reduced hours can take various forms. One effective option would be tax credits for businesses targeted to various populations. The simplest mechanism is to modify existing jobs legislation that already creates tax incentives for new hires. Dean Baker from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) has been at the forefront of proposals for reduced hours. He has suggested several options including tax credits for companies with reduced hours calculated annually to address the need for sick, family, and vacation leave. John Conyers, congressman from Michigan, has proposed the Share Credit Act of 2009 to provide tax incentives to reduce working hours for the currently employed. Senator Reed from Rhode Island has introduced work-sharing legislation to support state unemployment benefits. Incentives for reducing working hours would address unemployment and its collateral problems. These incentives could be an effective means of reducing unemployment. Some will see additional advantages for particular populations. For example, there is a trend for older workers to remain in the workforce, which can benefit individuals and society. However, full-time work has particular disadvantages for older workers and thus, we see more “phased retirement” — older workers working reduced hours rather than leaving the work force or continuing full time. Later retirements may postpone social security expenditures and may result in more gradual and thus, more fiscally manageable, effects of aging baby boomers retiring. Reduced hours as compared to full-time work will likely have health benefits to seniors which could translate into lower Medicare expenditures. Targeting the recently unemployed will appeal to the middle class and the country as whole, which in large part recognizes that current layoffs are caused by domestic and global factors beyond the control of the laid-off workers. Advocates of workplace flexibility may see the advantages for families and companies. Those concerned with the chronically unemployed, poverty rates, and the costs for entitlements may see this as a viable path to increase employment and economic self-sufficiency. The result of all this would be more people working through tax credits to businesses. Some people will be concerned that reduced hours will follow the path of current part-time workers whereby women and low wage earners are disproportionally represented compared to men and higher salaried workers. Some view reduced working hours in the form of sick, personal, and vacation leave to be the responsibility of the employer and prefer mandates for leave and protections to full-time work. Others will be concerned that more workers means more fiscal burden for companies to provide benefits and may be reluctant to provide any government funding, even in the form of tax credits. These concerns are all important and safeguards and evaluation should be written into the legislation to ensure equity and prevent undesired consequences. However, high unemployment has its own more pernicious consequences. A cost-benefit comparison of tax credits versus the drain on the economy, individuals, and the government from high unemployment could help overcome such opposition. In the spirit of reaching feasible solutions that truly alleviate the unemployment crises for Americans, it is time to set-aside our past pre-conceptions and usual ways of proceeding and find compromises for a new vision. Encouraging reduced working hours can reduce unemployment and its ubiquitous collateral damage. Reduced working hours can provide jobs that meet the needs of 21st century Americans. Susan N. Labin, Ph.D. is consultant in the Washington, D.C. area. She has worked at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), USDHHS, Corporation for National and Community Service, and university research institutes. David Gray is the Director of the Workforce and Family Program at the New America Foundation.

Read the full article →

Alexandra Levit: The Corporate Freshman: If Something Is Needed, Create It

November 10, 2010

Some of you may recall that I was a complete dud in my first corporate PR job. My boss despised me, my colleagues thought I was overeager, and it took me two years to get a promotion that people with half my work ethic achieved in six months. The second company that employed me kindly spent a few thousand dollars sending me to a professional development course that changed my career and my life. I like to think that everything that the course taught me about developing a strong reputation at work, being diplomatic with colleagues, and driving my career forward was a good investment, because I was much more effective after that. The truth is, though, that not every college graduate has access to training like I had, and some really gifted people spend their post-college careers floundering because they aren’t given the chance to learn the skills and strategies that will meet with success. I got tired of waiting for someone else to fix this problem, so I worked with the Business Roundtable , the HR Policy Association , and Accenture to create JobSTART 101 , a free online course that prepares college students to meet and exceed employer expectations when they enter the workforce. It includes video and workbook components covering topics like how to establish your e-brand and how to problem-solve on the job — basically, all the information I wish I’d had in my back pocket when I was just starting out. If you’re a student or recent grad, I hope you’ll check it out for some decent advice, but more importantly, I hope each of you goes into work today and thinks about what’s sorely needed in your company and industry. And then if you can create it, go for it. The world — and your career – will thank you for it.

Read the full article →

Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, Ph.D.: As Skilled Workforce Ages, Flexibility is Key to Business Success

October 8, 2010

During National Work & Family Month this October, many employers will be tempted to ask, ‘why now?’ With unemployment near record highs and even successful companies struggling to keep workers on the payroll, it’s natural to think this is not the right time to focus on the added benefits of workplace flexibility. But for older workers–and for their employers–there is no other time but now. The aging of the baby boomer population is poised to reshape the workforce in ways not seen since the widespread inclusion of women in the workforce in the latter half of the 20th century. Older workers now make up a larger part of the workforce than ever before (31.2 percent of working Americans are over the age of 55), and more and more people are working past the traditional retirement age. Personal economic hardships caused by the recession will almost certainly ensure this trend continues over the next few years. But just as older workers have become more dependent on continued employment than in the past, employees have become dependent on the skills of these older workers. A new series of reports from the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College examines the implications of the aging workforce across a broad range of industries. What we found in every case is that despite high unemployment, companies are more dependent than ever on their aging, experienced workers. There is, of course, no labor shortage at the moment, but many industries report a shortage of skilled labor. Employers don’t hire ‘just anyone’ to fill skilled positions; they rely on people with the requisite experience and competencies. In many cases these skilled workers are older workers, and as the economy recovers in coming years, employers will only grow more reliant on their existing, experienced workers. For example, manufacturing and health care are two fields dominated by older workers who possess very specific skill sets. Because many jobs in these sectors simply cannot be filled by workers without the proper skills and training, companies are dependent on keeping many of these aging employees past traditional retirement age. And as the economy picks up and demand for skilled workers grows, employers will be scrambling to stem turnover, attract replacement workers with the necessary competencies, and facilitate knowledge transfer from one generation to the next. So keeping many of these skilled employees in the workforce will be crucial, not only to workers and their families, but to employers, too. In order to retain these workers longer and to recruit adequate replacements, employers have to start thinking beyond compensation. Workers at all career stages report they want increased flexibility, but this desire is especially strong among older workers, who are particularly attracted to jobs that allow for flexible work arrangements and time off for family commitments. In rigidly organized industries such as manufacturing, embracing changes like flexible work arrangements will be crucial if companies hope to recruit and retain the best employees in coming years. And because there is no one-size-fits-all solution, companies need to start experimenting and see what works today. However, this looming crisis is not limited to fields dominated by older workers. Sectors currently staffed predominately by younger workers–such as retail and accommodations/food services –will see a change in the demographics of their workforce as the population ages in coming years. These fields are currently marked by high turnover and high rates of job dissatisfaction. Employees already experience challenges recruiting and retaining workers with the skills and commitments needed to perform their jobs effectively. As the workforce ages and demands for flexibility grow, it will get even more difficult for companies in these fields to retain good workers. The jobs as structured today are simply not tenable to many older workers. Employers who respond to their workers’ desires–not just for increased compensation, but for more flexible workplaces, too–are the companies that will succeed in the 21st-century economy. While the state of the economy today makes it somewhat difficult to imagine, in the very near future companies will have to do more than provide substantial compensation and benefits to keep skilled workers. By considering flexible work arrangements, expanding talent management strategies, and involving employees in decision making now, companies can prepare to meet the needs of tomorrow’s workforce. But we have to start today.

Read the full article →

Avanade, an Accenture and Microsoft Venture, to Launch New Brasil Operation

September 10, 2010

Avanade to Support Growing Demand for Microsoft Technologies in Large Organizations; Appoints Country Manager; Aims to Grow Workforce to 250 in 12 Months

Read the full article →

SAVA Solutions Announces Senior Leadership Changes

September 8, 2010

HERNDON, VA–(Marketwire – September 8, 2010) – SAVA Workforce Solutions, LLC, a leading provider of enterprise IT and mission support services for the Defense, Law Enforcement and Intelligence communities, today announced a new senior management team responsible for all aspects of client delivery, business development and customer relationships.

Read the full article →

Why Women Are Fleeing Wall Street

September 3, 2010

Economists are struggling to explain an exodus of women from Wall Street, but one is not the least bit surprised by the data: Sylvia Ann Hewlett, founding president and chairman of the Center for Work-Life Policy, a nonprofit think tank based in New York. FINS.com reporter Kyle Stock sat down with Hewlett to discuss how Wall Street’s tarnished reputation has changed its demographics, the challenges of reentering the workforce and why the industry still isn’t doing enough to woo women.

Read the full article →

John F. Wasik: You Can Still Retire, Really!

September 2, 2010

By John F. Wasik Could you read another report that shows how little Americans have saved for retirement in these troubled times? I know it’s difficult, so I came up with a simple formula for figuring out how much you need. Pencil in how much money it would take for you to live comfortably for 25 years. Include items that are not covered by insurance – deductibles, travel, home maintenance, taxes. Then project how much Social Security and retirement income you will have by the age in which you cast that not-so-longing last glance at your office door. The difference between your comfort zone amount and your retirement kitty is the worry gap. That’s the amount you need to make up by working longer, saving aggressively or downsizing your lifestyle. For millions, the worry gap is a pretty deep crevasse. It’s hard to fill it up with money when your 401(k) is underfunded and the bills keep arriving. In a job-losing, no-raise economy, it looks like a bottomless pit. A recent survey – one that I always take note of – showed that some two-thirds of those polled in the two lowest pre-retirement income levels will be running short only 10 years into retirement. These folks, as monitored by the annual Employee Benefit Research Institute’s (www.ebri.org) “Retirement Readiness” study, are saving the least for retirement. Yet even those in the highest-income groups are still going to be facing problems paying for basic expenses and uninsured medical bills. Remember that Medicare has co-pays for hospital and medical services and is in severe fiscal trouble. The EBRI study also broke down who was most at risk. “Early” boomers (those aged 56-62) had a 47 percent chance of running out of retirement funds. Their younger peers (ages 46-55) and “Generation Xers” (ages 36-45) are about 44 percent at risk. Where do you stand? If you are going to come up short, there are myriad ways of conquering the worry gap. Here are some options: • Downsize. Do you expect to live in the same space when you’re older? Can you live in half the square footage? A smaller home or apartment lowers your living costs. A move from a single-family home to a condo, co-op or townhouse can mean lower property taxes, maintenance and financing costs. This makes most sense for empty nesters. The key theme is that the American Dream shouldn’t be tied into the size of your shelter — it should revolve around what you can afford and how much you save. • Rethink Retirement. For many, completely retreating from the workforce completely is a bad idea. It may lead to poorer health, early death and annoying one’s spouse/partner full time. Being in the workforce longer means continued benefits and the ability to save. You may also get a free match in an employer savings plan. If you suffer from a disabling condition or chronic illness, this is not an option, so look at how you will cover medical expenses. • Automate Savings. If you’re in a 401(k), sign up for automatic enrollment and increases. If you don’t have to think about contributions, you’ll save more. Even if you don’t have an employer plan, you can set up auto-debits into Individual Retirement Accounts. • Fund Your Roth. Roth IRAs and 401(k)s are looking good right now. While your contributions are taxed, your withdrawals are not (subject to a few rules). Most retirement plan withdrawals are taxed at full marginal rates. I think income taxes are going up to cover Medicare’s shortfalls, so Roths rule. The best thing you can do is survey yourself, your family/spouse/partner and take a hard look at your comfort zone. You may have to throw out some preconceptions about retirement, but don’t ignore the possibility that some adjustments may be needed. John F. Wasik is the author of The Cul-de-Sac Syndrome: Turning Around the Unsustainable American Dream (www.culdesacsyndrome.com. From my column on reuters.com)

Read the full article →

Dov Seidman: Why We Can’t ‘Motivate’ Engagement

August 24, 2010

Chief executive officers are concerned about employee engagement — and rightfully so. Senior management teams are investing great time, effort and money in improving their workforce-engagement numbers. They shouldn’t be — at least not until they are prepared to harness the full energy of an engaged workforce. Despite significant effort to improve employee engagement, it remains at an all-time low among the U.S. workforce. This has sparked a surge in valuable guidance on how to transform disengaged workers into engaged employees . Unfortunately, the majority of engagement-improvement initiatives continue to treat employee engagement as an end goal. Employee engagement is a condition — manifested by the inspiration an employee unleashes in his or her work when he or she is deeply connected to a mission, purpose and the values that connect us. What Masquerades as Engagement This problem was illustrated in a recent IBM television commercial , in which a motivational speaker decked out in an “Innovation Man” costume struts in front of a line of office workers standing at attention. Innovation Man singles out one of the professionals and peppers him with repeated taunts and questions as to whether he is “fired up” to innovate. The worker dutifully responds, “Sir! Yes, sir!” Innovation Man then questions the employee’s commitment: “Why are you fired up?!” The befuddled employee pauses before replying, “I don’t have any idea.” We cannot “motivate” engagement (or innovation, growth, or succession for that matter); instead, we must inspire the kind of outcomes we want by rooting ourselves in a set of values, being in the grip of an idea worthy of dedication and commitment, connecting around a meaningful and shared purpose, and aligning around a common, deep and sustainable set of human, societal and environmental values. Why? Because sustainably engaged employees generate ideas, innovation, creativity, processes and other outcomes that deliver long-term competitive advantages, and they also collaborate with others to make progress. How well do you think other companies fare in developing cultures based on thick rule books and other carrots and sticks? Not too well, as I’ve written about before and according to new research. Pay and benefits figure as only one of the four key drivers of job dissatisfaction, according to a recent study by the Conference Board, and compensation barely rates a mention in the study’s engagement-improvement steps. And a 2008 study by Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business examined the relationship between financial performance and senior leadership skills. Inspirational and ethical leaders were most strongly associated with stronger financial performance. The Duke study identifies specific behaviors that exemplify inspirational leadership: “engaging employees in the company’s vision”; “inspiring employees to raise their goal”; and “promoting an environment in which employees have a sense of responsibility for the whole organization, its mission and constituencies.” A Valuable, and Values-Based, Alternative This is the new frontier, where companies work in a systemic manner to ensure alignment of their purpose and mission to their business strategies and vision, and then cascade this inspiration through their core values into specific leadership behaviors. Only when observable leadership behaviors are identified, communicated, measured, tracked, managed and integrated into business processes and talent-management systems can an organization evolve on its cultural journey. Through our work with some of the world’s largest and most progressive organizations, helping them build sustainable cultures infused and inspired by sustainable values, we know firsthand that many business leaders are beginning to understand the need to commence this journey. In one large, global company we partner with, we found that 70 percent of employees agreed that a strong mission and purpose drive their organization. However, we also discovered that the company’s mission and purpose were disconnected from everyday decisions and behaviors: 50 percent of the same employees indicated that personal achievement and success was a more important driver of their behavior than the organization’s purpose and values; and 60 percent of employees thought that supporting a peer who acted within their company values and purpose but in conflict with a policy would result in management disapproval or possible punishment by the organization. Armed with this evidence and other related insights, this Fortune 100 company and its leaders are now working on how they can connect employees to the shared mission and purpose through values, rather than through rules, so that it manifests in more of the behaviors they want, e.g. more engagement and more innovation. This ability to harmonize a company’s values and a company’s policies is an important piece in ensuring a company’s human operating system is functioning for the benefit of the organization — something I hope to write more about in a future column. As leaders, we all should recognize that there is work to be done in encouraging behavior that shifts the focus from governing toward developing leaders who inspire principled performance. (I’ll show what such work looks like and how it operates in my next column.) We still need rules (along with carrots and sticks), but they are no longer sufficient in an era when organizational success, over the long term, depends on out-behaving the competition . Improving employee engagement does not require executives to don their motivational capes and work on improving employee engagement. Instead, the process begins with a simple question about the workforce, a query whose answer leaders should act upon: Are our employees inspired? * This story appeared in, and was written for, Bloomberg BusinessWeek .

Read the full article →

Rob Carmona: New York Times Article Misses Benefits of Job Training Benefits

July 29, 2010

A recent New York Times article: “After Job Training, Still Scrambling for a Job” paints an inaccurate picture of the benefits of job training, and I’d like to illustrate why. STRIVE International , a workforce development non-profit organization, was overjoyed to place 49% of its 2009 New York trainees in jobs during one of the worst recessions in memory. Among our graduates who pursued STRIVE’s vocational skills training, 58% have secured employment and are earning an average wage that is 56% above the minimum wage. In the world of the chronically unemployed, these statistics represent a substantial victory over the cycle of failure and rejection that perpetuates poverty. Our pool of clients is drawn from the hard core unemployed: 30% have been convicted of a felony, 66% are male, and 62% are African-American. Most have no prior employment history. The majority receive some form of public assistance. When the costs to society of sustaining the unemployed are considered, a more accurate picture of the benefits of job training emerges. On average, a year of incarceration costs taxpayers roughly $50,000 per inmate in New York State. A year of TANF cash benefits for a family of 3 is approximately $6,000 – $8,000. When factoring in Medicaid, Food Stamps and housing subsidies, governmental outlays for a family of three can exceed $25,000 per year. STRIVE’s program converts these individuals into economic contributors who will earn starting salaries between $19,000 and $24,000 per year along with medical benefits. Not only will these individuals develop credentials in the workplace and become taxpayers themselves, they will cease to engage in activities that negatively impact our society, while also providing financial security to their families and modeling responsible behavior to their children. We agree that skills training must be closely aligned with available jobs. Hence, STRIVE’s Skill training regimens are drawn from the Department of Labor’s research on growth industries and close collaboration with local companies. Our program is flexible enough to quickly adapt to the requirements of the job market. These are the keys to success that those of us in the workforce development profession follow. An evaluation of job training programs must consider the specific challenges of the population served and the costs to society of not providing vocational training. Further, no program can be evaluated only one year out – STRIVE follows its graduates for a minimum of 2 years and we continue to serve them after that period when they reach out to us for help. A blanket rejection of job training ignores the many examples of success and hope provided by the Workforce Development Community.

Read the full article →

Grant Cardone: Extending Unemployment Benefits Don’t Prepare People for Jobs

July 17, 2010

Extending unemployment benefits will not prepare the unemployed for the workforce anymore than a life preserver teaches someone to swim. While the benefits may provide immediate relief it doesn’t really benefit the same people in the future. Because of what will appears to be a long duration of high unemployment numbers the administration should make mandatory skill enhancement part of the extended unemployment package. Rather than just giving money for extended unemployment let’s make sure those same people are taught new skills so that they become more valuable going forward. This is the 3rd time in 18 months that we have extended unemployment benefits at a cost of 34b, just this round. I don’t have a problem with the cost but I do have a problem with handouts that don’t ensure the recipients are better prepared when the benefits end. Regardless of how long we provide benefits if the unemployed are no more valuable when the benefits end they will not be able to get good jobs in the future. Almost every economist predicts high unemployment numbers extending beyond the 99 weeks of maximum benefits. If the economy is not better by then should the government extend again? More importantly what are we doing as a nation to ensure these people are more valuable to the economy, the workforce and our nation so that we have the best trained people in the world? We make it mandatory for our children to attend schools and invest money in them before they are even employable. Why would we not make it mandatory that to receive unemployment benefits the unemployed would be required to enhance their skill set. This would create new jobs, improve self-esteem and enhance the quality of workers in this country. During times of economic contraction it is critical that individuals and companies rebuild their skills and abilities to prepare for the next expansion. The people are the greatest resource of any nation. While government benefits are necessary to help those in dire straits if it doesn’t make those same people more able in the future it fails the very same group of people. It is shortsighted, impractical and irresponsible to keep throwing a life preserver to someone without finally making it mandatory that they learn how to swim. Grant Cardone, NY Times Best Selling Author

Read the full article →

Why Are Americans Fleeing The Job Market?

July 6, 2010

Are we about to see a wave of Americans giving up on the labor market? The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ June jobs report saw the labor market lose 652,000 workers — a defection so large that it caused the nation’s unemployment rate to drop from 9.7% to 9.5%, not because jobs were created, but because the number of people in the workforce declined.

Read the full article →

Wal-Mart Profit Tops Analysts’ Estimates; U.S. Sales Miss Company Forecast

May 18, 2010

By Chris Burritt May 18 (Bloomberg) — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. , the world’s largest retailer, reported first-quarter earnings that exceeded analysts’ estimates. U.S. sales missed the retailer’s forecast. Earnings for the quarter were 88 cents, topping the 85 cent average of 21 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Sales at U.S. Wal-Mart stores open at least a year declined 1.4 percent after the company projected they would be up or down as much as 1 percent, according to a statement today. Wal-Mart said customers are still concerned about personal finances and unemployment. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer reduced prices on gas grills, lawn mowers and Procter & Gamble Co.’s Crest toothpaste and Bounty paper towels. Wal-Mart gained 20 cents to $52.93 in early trading . The shares had slipped 1.3 percent this year before today on the New York Stock Exchange. Price reductions, called “rollbacks,” are aimed at driving comparable-store sales, Bill Simon , chief operating officer for U.S. stores, told analysts March 10. The U.S. jobless rate rose to 9.9 percent in April from 9.7 percent a month earlier as thousands of jobseekers entered the workforce, according to a May 7 U.S. Labor Department report. (Wal-Mart executives discuss financial results on a recorded call. To listen, call +1-800-778-6902.) To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Burritt in Greensboro, North Carolina, at cburritt@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Wal-Mart Profit Tops Analysts’ Estimates; U.S. Sales Miss Company Forecast

May 18, 2010

By Chris Burritt May 18 (Bloomberg) — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. , the world’s largest retailer, reported first-quarter earnings that exceeded analysts’ estimates. U.S. sales missed the retailer’s forecast. Earnings for the quarter were 88 cents, topping the 85 cent average of 21 analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Sales at U.S. Wal-Mart stores open at least a year declined 1.4 percent after the company projected they would be up or down as much as 1 percent, according to a statement today. Wal-Mart said customers are still concerned about personal finances and unemployment. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer reduced prices on gas grills, lawn mowers and Procter & Gamble Co.’s Crest toothpaste and Bounty paper towels. Wal-Mart gained 20 cents to $52.93 in early trading . The shares had slipped 1.3 percent this year before today on the New York Stock Exchange. Price reductions, called “rollbacks,” are aimed at driving comparable-store sales, Bill Simon , chief operating officer for U.S. stores, told analysts March 10. The U.S. jobless rate rose to 9.9 percent in April from 9.7 percent a month earlier as thousands of jobseekers entered the workforce, according to a May 7 U.S. Labor Department report. (Wal-Mart executives discuss financial results on a recorded call. To listen, call +1-800-778-6902.) To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Burritt in Greensboro, North Carolina, at cburritt@bloomberg.net .

Read the full article →

Unemployment Claims in U.S. Decline for a Fourth Straight Week to 444,000

May 13, 2010

By Timothy R. Homan May 13 (Bloomberg) — The number of Americans filing claims for jobless benefits dropped for a fourth straight week, a sign that employers are retaining more workers as the economy expands. Initial jobless claims fell by 4,000 to 444,000 in the week ended May 8, higher than the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people receiving unemployment insurance increased and those getting extended payments fell. Employers seeing improved sales and profits have added workers to payrolls in each of the last four months, signaling greater confidence in the recovery. Unemployment may take time to retreat as the number of jobseekers entering the workforce exceeds available jobs. “We’re still in the early stages of the labor-market recovery,” Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at Brusuelas Analytics in Stamford, Connecticut, said before the report. “There is some risk that the unemployment rate will remain elevated for an extended period of time.” Jobless claims were projected to drop to 440,000 from 444,000 initially reported for the prior week, according to the median forecast of 51 economists in a Bloomberg survey . Estimates ranged from 425,000 to 450,000. The level of claims is the lowest in six weeks. Stock-index futures were little changed after the report. Futures on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index expiring in June fell 0.1 percent to 1,168.2 at 8:44 a.m. in New York. Import Prices A separate report showed import prices increased 0.9 percent in April. The Labor Department’s figures also showed the costs of imported goods other than petroleum products rose 0.3 percent. The four-week moving average of initial claims, a less volatile measure than the weekly figures, dropped to 450,500 last week from 459,500, today’s report showed. The number of people continuing to receive jobless benefits climbed by 12,000 in the week ended May 1 to 4.63 million. They were forecast to drop to 4.59 million. The continuing claims figure does not include the number of Americans receiving extended benefits under federal programs. Those who’ve used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting emergency and extended payments decreased by about 200,000 to 5.36 million in the week ended April 24. The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate, held at 3.6 percent in the week ended May 1. States, Territories Thirty-six states and territories reported a decrease in claims, while 17 reported an increase. These data are reported with a one-week lag. Initial jobless claims reflect weekly firings and tend to fall as job growth — measured by the monthly non-farm payrolls report — accelerates. Payrolls increased by 290,000 in April, the most in four years, according to figures from the Labor Department last week. Unemployment climbed to 9.9 percent from 9.7 percent as thousands of jobseekers entered the workforce. Some companies are adding staff as sales increase. General Electric Co. , the world’s largest maker of jet engines, power- generation equipment and locomotives, increased the number of jobs it plans to add in Michigan to more than 1,300 with the creation of 220 aerospace manufacturing positions, the Fairfield, Connecticut-based company said last week. Other companies are still eliminating workers. Dean Foods Co. , the biggest U.S. dairy processor, this week said it plans to cut 350 to 400 more jobs this year. The Dallas-based company has already fired 150 staff members this year to rein in costs. To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy R. Homan in Washington at thoman1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Unemployment Claims in U.S. Decline for a Fourth Straight Week to 444,000

May 13, 2010

By Timothy R. Homan May 13 (Bloomberg) — The number of Americans filing claims for jobless benefits dropped for a fourth straight week, a sign that employers are retaining more workers as the economy expands. Initial jobless claims fell by 4,000 to 444,000 in the week ended May 8, higher than the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people receiving unemployment insurance increased and those getting extended payments fell. Employers seeing improved sales and profits have added workers to payrolls in each of the last four months, signaling greater confidence in the recovery. Unemployment may take time to retreat as the number of jobseekers entering the workforce exceeds available jobs. “We’re still in the early stages of the labor-market recovery,” Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at Brusuelas Analytics in Stamford, Connecticut, said before the report. “There is some risk that the unemployment rate will remain elevated for an extended period of time.” Jobless claims were projected to drop to 440,000 from 444,000 initially reported for the prior week, according to the median forecast of 51 economists in a Bloomberg survey . Estimates ranged from 425,000 to 450,000. The level of claims is the lowest in six weeks. Stock-index futures were little changed after the report. Futures on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index expiring in June fell 0.1 percent to 1,168.2 at 8:44 a.m. in New York. Import Prices A separate report showed import prices increased 0.9 percent in April. The Labor Department’s figures also showed the costs of imported goods other than petroleum products rose 0.3 percent. The four-week moving average of initial claims, a less volatile measure than the weekly figures, dropped to 450,500 last week from 459,500, today’s report showed. The number of people continuing to receive jobless benefits climbed by 12,000 in the week ended May 1 to 4.63 million. They were forecast to drop to 4.59 million. The continuing claims figure does not include the number of Americans receiving extended benefits under federal programs. Those who’ve used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting emergency and extended payments decreased by about 200,000 to 5.36 million in the week ended April 24. The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate, held at 3.6 percent in the week ended May 1. States, Territories Thirty-six states and territories reported a decrease in claims, while 17 reported an increase. These data are reported with a one-week lag. Initial jobless claims reflect weekly firings and tend to fall as job growth — measured by the monthly non-farm payrolls report — accelerates. Payrolls increased by 290,000 in April, the most in four years, according to figures from the Labor Department last week. Unemployment climbed to 9.9 percent from 9.7 percent as thousands of jobseekers entered the workforce. Some companies are adding staff as sales increase. General Electric Co. , the world’s largest maker of jet engines, power- generation equipment and locomotives, increased the number of jobs it plans to add in Michigan to more than 1,300 with the creation of 220 aerospace manufacturing positions, the Fairfield, Connecticut-based company said last week. Other companies are still eliminating workers. Dean Foods Co. , the biggest U.S. dairy processor, this week said it plans to cut 350 to 400 more jobs this year. The Dallas-based company has already fired 150 staff members this year to rein in costs. To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy R. Homan in Washington at thoman1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Video: Gilliam Sees Two Years for U.S. to Recover Lost Jobs: Video

May 7, 2010

May 7 (Bloomberg) — Theron Gilliam, head of the North America division at Adecco SA, talks with Bloomberg’s Mark Crumpton and Lori Rothman about today’s report showing payrolls in the U.S. surged by the most in four years and the outlook for the labor market. The 290,000 increase in employment exceeded the median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. The jobless rate rose to 9.9 percent from 9.7 percent as thousands of jobseekers entered the workforce, a Labor Department report in Washington showed today. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Samuel H. Williamson: The Senate Jobs Credit — Not Good Economics

February 16, 2010

From what I can tell, the Senate will vote on two tax credits, one that goes to employers for hiring workers that have been unemployed for two months, and another when they keep a new employee for 52 weeks. I think both these ideas may make some political sense, but they are not good economics. As I have posted in October, just hiring more people is not the answer to lowering unemployment. Every month five million workers more or less join the workforce. That is every month. At the same time an equal, or for the last several months a few thousand more, leave the ranks of workforce. To increase the number employed we need to reverse these two — that is have more people going into the workforce than out. A very important point is of — that five million, less than half were officially unemployed the previous month; more of them were coming from “not in the labor force”. Employers want to hire the best person for the job. When a group of perspective employees show up to interview, those that have been unemployed more that two months may not be the most productive. The most qualified person may have been out of the work force for a year, but they will not qualify, as they were not “officially” unemployed. The two-month rule will be a headache for employers and will reduce the chance that the best person gets the job. If a firm needs a new truck, we would not want to tell them they could only buy trucks that have been on the lot for at least two months. That is sort of what this bill is asking they do for new employees. Subsidizing the wage of new employees kept a year with a $1,000 income-tax credit does make a bit more sense in that new workers are learning the job at first and after a year are probably worth more to the employer. I cannot tell if the proposal is for the credit to go only to those hired who were unemployed for at least two month or any new hire. If it is the first, then I see it as a waste. If it is the later, then it might be justified as a subsidy for training costs. There is a better and simpler credit to increase employment. As I suggested a week ago, Congress should pass a bill that gives employers a credit on a percent of the increase in their FUTA wage base. That base is the first $7,000 paid each employee. The credit could be progressive so as to reward employers who add many workers. For example, $500 credit for the first 10% increase, $1,000 for the next 10%. A firm that has 10 workers earning more that $7,000 each would have a base of $70,000. If the next reporting period it had 11 employees, it would be worth a $500 credit. If they had 12 workers, they would receive a $1,500 credit. Before someone suggests I give up my job for someone unemployed, I want to say I am retired and do not have a salary. And I want to add that I have sympathy for those who have been unemployed for a long time, but I have a friend who is about to declare bankruptcy and is desperate to get a job. She has not been “unemployed” because she has been caring for her dying husband. It is hard to know how to pick the most deserving.

Read the full article →

Sec. Hilda Solis: Top Priority: Good Jobs

February 3, 2010

A year ago–just a month before I was confirmed as Secretary of Labor–it was reported that 3.8 million jobs had been lost since the start of the recession. This dire situation called for immediate action, and President Obama and Congress responded decisively with the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Fast forward to present day, and a great deal of work remains to be done in getting our economy to its full strength. But there is no doubt that the Recovery Act is making a positive difference in people’s lives. There are thousands of recovery-funded projects underway across America. Last quarter alone, some 600,000 jobs were created or saved as a result of recovery investments. And, a full range of recovery-bolstered social safety net programs–from unemployment insurance to Trade Adjustment Assistance and COBRA–are both helping workers access job opportunities in emerging industries and helping families can stay on their feet. At the Department of Labor , where we are charged with ensuring America’s workers are trained to effectively tackle the 21st century workplace, the Recovery Act has also made a tremendous difference. Recovery funding made possible more than half a billion dollars in research and job training grants for green jobs. It has also helped us in our work with states, business and worker organizations as we leverage more than 100,000 training slots. And, in the very near future, it will allow us to invest another $220 million in training workers for jobs in healthcare and other high-growth industries. When I testified in front of the House Education and Labor Committee earlier today, I was pleased to provide an update on these efforts. I underscored that job creation remains a top Administration priority as we seek to spur growth in the U.S. economy, and noted that as the recovery takes hold it is essential we promote the creation of “good jobs.” Here’s what I mean by that: a good job supports a family by increasing incomes, narrowing the wage gap, and allowing workplace flexibility. It is safe and secure, and gives people a voice in the workplace. A good job is also sustainable and innovative (for example a green job), helps rebuild a strong middle class, and provides access to a secure retirement and adequate and affordable health coverage. If it’s not already clear, making good jobs the norm is one of our top goals. In moving towards that end, we are looking to partner with Congress to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). WIA presents a unique opportunity to promote innovation in the public workforce system, build on its strengths, and address challenges. We are also making a concerted effort to further our outreach to the full breath of the stakeholder community. For instance, I have met–and will continue to meet with–labor and business leaders, community organizations, state and local officials, and many others. And my department is committed to either leading–or working tirelessly to broaden the impact of–every initiative that has good jobs as its intended outcome. As I near my one-year mark as Secretary of Labor, therefore, it is encouraging to know so many of us remain focused on doing everything possible to stem job losses, stimulate the economy and make “good jobs for everyone” a reality. There are clear signs of progress in this effort, but we remain well aware that our nation can’t reach its full potential while a single American is unemployed or underemployed. I am confident that we are on the right track, but I am also conscious that we have a long way to go.

Read the full article →

Janice Bryant Howroyd: Are We Ready for a Comeback?

January 20, 2010

By Janice Bryant Howroyd, CEO Act-1 Group, AppleOne Staffing Solutions – Agile•1 Workforce Solutions The deluge of pink slips that washed over the country in 2009 left much despair in its wake. Will the tide turn in 2010? Will business and the U.S. worker be able to forge together to revitalize the job market? I say yes. A comeback is on the horizon. And productivity is the key. In a recent survey of our clients, we found that 90 percent of these businesses don’t plan any more layoffs. Even more encouraging, one-third of these say that they plan to hire new staff in 2010. But, most important, they all say that maximizing productivity is their top priority. Highly productive workers are at the core of any successful business, and American workers have been among the world’s most productive. Today, businesses are asking workers to be even more productive. It is only with greater productivity that companies can return to a growth pattern. The big challenge is how to keep employees motivated and willing to increase productivity in an environment where more than one-half of companies have frozen salaries. Undoubtedly there is a chill in the air from salary freezes but companies can take genuine steps to keep up morale in order to maintain productivity with reduced staffing levels. My 30+ years of experience in staffing has taught me that career growth and development are as valued by many people as money. Now is the time to give more responsibility to those you have kept on to help you rebuild. Meet with key staff to discuss their strengths and where they see themselves in five years. Then help them start on a path to reach their goals. Bestowing more power engenders trust and loyalty from both sides of the relationship, and enables people to gain self-esteem and confidence. This will end up benefiting business growth. It is likely that morale has suffered since staff members have seen their colleagues lose their jobs. Many of these colleagues were perceived as victims of poor management, not necessarily low producers who were easiest to let go. Your employees have lost friends to layoffs and have experienced tremendous uncertainty about their own fates. Communication is your best tool for overcoming anxiety. Let your staff know that no more planned layoffs are imminent. As much as possible, retain benefits. And, if you must cut back on benefits, poll your employees to find out their priorities and make them your own. Look for low cost but highly valued perks. These include showing recognition for a job well done and upgrading job titles. Other perks with a strong payback are surprise pizza parties, gift certificates or an extra paid day off for birthdays. If you can create flexible work hours and virtual work sites, do so! Smart companies planning for growth will start with temporary staffing as the first step. Just-in-time staffing is an important stepping stone to the U.S. employment recovery. Temporary workers are the safest way to handle growth, maintain flexibility and control costs. As the economy stabilizes and companies become more certain about their long-term prospects, they will add full-time staff, and will look first to those who have performed well in temporary capacities. Temporary staffing is growing at all levels of hire, and across industries and skill sets. In the current market, we are recommending that job seekers take temporary jobs. They allow a person to keep income flowing while job searching and building relationships within that company. As companies begin to convert temporary jobs to staff positions, a temporary worker who has displayed good work habits and become an asset will be hired as a full-time employee. If you are in a management position and have to replace an employee, do it quickly. With everyone working at 110 percent, there is simply no slack in an organization. And, every position, whether support or revenue-generating, has a role to play. If you allow a position to remain unfilled, it undermines overall productivity. Tracked by many organizations as their Cost of Vacancy, this results in mounting costs that will continue to escalate for each day a slot remains empty. As you experience turnover or increased demand, it’s vital that you replace or expand your workforce as quickly as possible. The best advice right now is do everything you can to retain your best people. They are the lifeblood of your company. Make sure they are invested in their future with your company, and see that you are invested in theirs. Retaining good people will be a company’s biggest challenge once the economy shows signs of improvement and others begin to try and lure them away.

Read the full article →

Anat Shenker-Osorio: Feminomics: On Botox, Motherhood, and Unemployment

December 23, 2009

From an economic standpoint, will 2010 be the year of the woman? As part of the Roosevelt Institute’s ongoing ‘ Feminomics ‘ series, running on the New Deal 2.0 blog, I was asked to reflect on women’s changing roles in the economy. Here’s my take on why fairness for working women means considering their reproductive roles. The National Organization for Women has landed some brand-new bedfellows, namely anti-tax neocons and defenders of the status quo whose status is decidedly not quotidian. NOW President Terry O’Neill has come out swinging against a proposed 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery saying “[middle-aged women] are going for Botox or going for eye work, because the fact is we live in a society that punishes women for getting older.” This, she goes on to say, is especially troubling in these tough economic times where older women are facing fiercer competition for jobs than ever. So I guess we’ve accepted that inflatable bosoms is an acceptable prerequisite for landing a job? No need to fight to have women evaluated for the range of their abilities rather than for the shape of their asses. No sense challenging the dominant paradigm of beauty that would have women starve, barf, cut, inject and mold themselves in Barbie’s image. We’ll just oppose any attempt to make it cost more to do so. Enter reality, if only for the time it takes to read this post. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons declares that according to their own poll, roughly 60% of patients earn below $90,000. Check out the median wage in most of this country — $90K even for a family looks like a fortune. And did I mention it’s elective surgery? These plastic surgeons, fighting doggedly for the right of every American to nip and tuck no matter their tax bracket, are worried people will take their self-enhancement overseas. Indeed, customers — I mean patients — already are. But basic economics (which, I realize hasn’t proven itself especially useful of late) tells us that if this tax drives buyers out of the market, suppliers will lower their prices until demand rebounds. I can see it now: home-improvement store-style sales pitches that promise, “you’ll lose the wrinkles, we’ll pay the tax!” But what if these surgeons are right? What if people suddenly stop having plastic surgery in huge numbers? Well, it’ll be a shame to lose this tax source but — yippee, that sounds wonderful to me. Lower and middle class women do not have elective surgery. Often, they don’t have medical care at all. If Botox injections become the new college degree, a barrier to entry for decent jobs, it becomes even more impossible for poor women to keep up, never mind get ahead. Add to this a wage gap between women and men that is bad and looks to get worse. This doesn’t even factor in the wealth gap , which is staggering. (The racial disparities are even more shameful but that’s another article or fifty.) In this time of economic tailspin, we can sometimes hear the cry for equalizing the distribution of our nation’s bounty. It is a mere whisper below the drumbeat demanding that we deal with the deficit or allow the super wealthy to create jobs for us (apparently, they excel at this but they just need some more money to do it). It was women’s entry into the workforce that prolonged our current economic reckoning. As Robert Reich has noted , what we failed to get in wage increases for the last 30 to 40 years, we made up for in work increases. And then some. Women entered the workforce largely to boost lagging household income. More recently, when there were simply no more hours to work, debt became the new revenue source for our double-income-no-money generation. Perhaps kicking women out of the workforce will be the proposed solution for curbing unemployment. It will sound better than this, of course. It will be about America, for the children, focusing on the family. This may sound paranoid, but spend a couple minutes learning about Mr. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and his C Street Family , and you may find yourself with me in this dark place. If men are to have dominion over women as he and his Congressional cronies desire, it helps a lot for men to have all the money. And it doesn’t hurt if women can’t decide whether and when they want to become mothers — amazing what barefoot and pregnant can do for docility. Women are different from men, if only in the roles they play in reproduction. For those of you who came of age in the abstinence-only era, here’s a crash course: (most) women can get pregnant, give birth and produce milk; men can’t. This means that for the gestational period and very often long after, women are the primary caretakers for our offspring. Without paid maternity leave and affordable childcare, women most often bear more of the load our dysfunctional economy dumps on its citizens. And we get paid less or nothing to do it. My mother is fond of saying “if women fight for equality, they’re giving up a lot.” Misogyny-humor aside, I don’t think we should seek to become equal to men. This very construct — women are equal to men — presupposes men are the standard to which we aspire. Achieving equal pay for equal work would be a Pyrrhic victory. Until there is some real attention paid to the work of having and raising children, women’s work will never be equal to that of men. It will continue to far exceed it. The Second Shift , Arlie Hochschild’s brilliant description of the work women do once “work” is over, doesn’t pay a dime. In this time of great economic upheaval, let’s upheave our thinking about what is work, what has value and what role women have and will continue to play in our economy and society. Equal pay without maternity leave, health care coverage for dependents and accessible child care is not equal at all. Honestly, “working mother” is just plain redundant. Instead, let’s embrace the fact that there are too many people, male and female, wanting too many hours of work relative to current supply. Let’s champion what several economists have advised and shorten our work hours across the board while also recognizing that child rearing is definitely work. Perhaps the most valuable of all. This post originally appeared on New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Widow Stuck With Bill After Insurer Approved Husband’s Treatment

November 17, 2009

As part of its Bearing Witness 2.0 project, the Huffington Post is rounding up a few of the best local stories of the day. Fanny Gonzalez’s husband died in May after a five-month battle with stomach cancer, and now she’s stuck with the bill, reports the Chicago Tribune’s Jon Yates . Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois approved the treatment and then refused to pay, leaving Gonzalez with a $161,601 bill. Blue Cross called the drug used “experimental” for her husband’s type of cancer. Now Gonzalez is working with the Cancer Treatment Centers of America for help with her debt. ********* In 2006, trucker Kenny Whitey fell 18 feet from the roof of his truck and broke almost every bone in his face. His serious head trauma left him unable to walk or talk. He breathes and eats through a tube, and needs nursing care around the clock. But now the company handling his workers’ compensation is going bankrupt, reports Brandee A Thomas for the Gainesville, GA, Times , and the Whitey family does not know where to turn. The insurance company has directed Whitey’s attorney to his former employer, but the employer has stated that the medical bills — $47,000 per month — would bankrupt the company. “Basically, this leaves [the family] in the cold,” said the attorney. “Their only recourse at this point for their immediate future is to look for help through public assistance programs.” Unfortunately, because Whitey receives a disability check and his wife works, they likely make too much to qualify for public aid but too little to pay for the care themselves. ********* John Goucher, 34, would have died after his heart attack were it not for paramedics. “I died twice in the ambulance,” he told the Pocono Record’s Beth Brelje . “They shocked me twice.” But Goucher is uninsured, and after he and his wife, Aise, were both laid off in 2007, they have been supporting themselves and their two children working part-time. The Grouchers have been borrowing money from family to pay medical bills. They’ve had no success selling their house. This week they found a foreclosure notice on their front door.. “We’re losing everything,” said Aise. “We’re going to lose our house. We have to choose between electric bills and the phone. We’re fighting to keep the car. We can’t pay the bills every month.” ********* Robert Stecker, of McCook, Neb., is fighting with an insurance company after being blinded by cancer and then left with $70,000 in medical debt, reports Mike McKnight of local WOWT . Stecker claims that representatives from World Insurance assured him his radiation treatments would be paid for, but because the process was outpatient, now they are refusing to pay. “This is a shell game and every time we lift up a shell, they move to another spot,” he said. ********* The small town of Owatonna, Minn., has been losing inhabitants as well as jobs in the recession, reports Donny Rowles of local ABC affiliate KAAL . Hundreds of continued layoffs and lack of reliable work has sent many residents packing up to the Twin Cities, where opportunities are more plentiful. “More people are heading to the metro area for the positions,” said Brian Coleman, the manager of the Workforce Development Center. HuffPost readers: Seen a compelling local story? Have a neighbor going to bizarre lengths to get through the recession? Tell us about it! Email jmhattem@gmail.com .

Read the full article →

U.S. Companies Eliminated an Estimated 203,000 Jobs in October, ADP Says

November 4, 2009

By Timothy R. Homan Nov. 4 (Bloomberg) — Companies in the U.S. cut an estimated 203,000 jobs in October, according to a private report based on payroll data. The drop compares with a revised 227,000 decline the prior month, data from ADP Employer Services showed today. The figures were forecast to show a decline of 198,000 jobs, according to the median estimate of 34 economists in a Bloomberg survey. The report signals unemployment will keep climbing even after the economy begins to expand, one reason why Federal Reserve policy makers may pledge to keep interest rates low for a long time after their meeting today. ADP has overstated the Labor Department’s initial estimate of payroll losses by 103,000 per month on average in the five months to September. “While the economy has resumed growing, the labor market is in rough shape,” Joseph Brusuelas , a director at Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said before the report. “Businesses appear hesitant to boost staff until the recovery matures.” Stock-index futures held earlier gains following the report. The contract on the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was up 0.7 percent to 1,049 at 8:32 a.m. in New York. Treasury securities fell, pushing the yield on the 10-year note up to 3.51 percent from 3.47 percent late yesterday. ADP includes only private employment and doesn’t take into account hiring by government agencies. Macroeconomic Advisers LLC in St. Louis produces the report jointly with ADP. Payroll Forecast The report comes two days before a Labor Department release that is forecast to show the unemployment rate rose to 9.9 percent in October, the highest since 1983, while employers cut 175,000 jobs. Another report today showed employers announced the fewest job cuts in 17 months in October. Planned firings fell 51 percent last month to 55,679 from 112,884 in October 2008, a fifth consecutive year-on-year decline and the largest since July 2006, Chicago-based placement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. said. Announcements were down 16 percent from the prior month. The economy already has lost 7.2 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, the most of any economic slump since the Great Depression. Today’s ADP report showed a decrease of 117,000 workers in goods-producing industries including manufacturers and construction companies. Service providers cut 86,000 workers. Employment in construction fell by 51,000, the 33rd straight monthly drop, while manufacturers cut 65,000 workers. Breakdown of Firings Companies employing more than 499 workers shrank their workforce by 53,000 jobs. Medium-sized businesses, with 50 to 499 employees, eliminated 75,000 jobs and small companies also decreased payrolls by 75,000, ADP said. US Airways Group Inc. , the smallest full-fare U.S. airline, was among companies cutting staff last month. The Tempe, Arizona-based carrier, said it will cut 1,000 jobs, or about 3 percent of the workforce, and drop some flight routes. Some companies are adding to their payrolls. Deere & Co. , the world’s largest maker of agricultural equipment, said last week it’s recalling 452 workers, the majority of manufacturing employees laid off earlier this year at a company factory in Iowa. The ADP report is based on data from about 400,000 businesses with 23 million workers on payrolls. ADP began keeping records in January 2001 and started publishing its numbers in 2006. To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy R. Homan in Washington at thoman1@bloomberg.net

Read the full article →

Mark Miller: The Workforce is Aging, but Where Are the Age-Friendly Employers?

September 30, 2009

The Great Recession is pushing older workers to postpone retirement, but will employers accommodate them? Demographics dictate that the workforce will age in the years ahead. By 2016, one-third of the U.S. workforce will be age 50 or older, compared with 28 percent in 2007, according to AARP. But the current brutal jobs climate raises questions about the future prospects of older workers. The jobless rate for adults age 55 to 64 has more than doubled since November 2007, just before the recession began; in July, 7.2 percent of workers age 55 to 64 were out of work. That’s a troubling number, although it’s still about 2.5 percentage points lower than the overall national rate of 9.7 percent in August. Even in a tough economy, older workers are valued in some industries. Technology-oriented companies that depend on experienced scientists and engineers are worried about brain drain as the baby boomer generation retires. Many are scrambling to implement retention programs aimed at keeping these high-value knowledge workers on the job as long as possible. Some offer flexible work arrangements to accommodate the changing lifestyle needs of older employees. Companies say older workers are among their most productive, and that this offsets their higher compensation and benefit expenses. One study several years ago for AARP, for example, attempted to quantify productivity and cost advantages of retaining and hiring older workers by showing that turnover and training costs can exceed 50 percent of a worker’s annual salary, while higher compensation and benefit costs for older workers were only marginally higher than for younger people. At the same time, there’s strong evidence of age discrimination by employers on the hiring and firing side. As I noted here recently, age discrimination claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were at a record high in 2008, and researchers have been able to establish that it’s much harder for older workers to land job interviews. Against that backdrop, it’s instructive to see employers compete for the honor of being age-friendly. AARP conducts an annual contest culminating in the Best Employers for Workers over 50 award; the 2009 winners were announced earlier this month. The AARP award offers a snapshot of the most age-friendly large employers in the country. Employers submit comprehensive applications, answering questions about their human resources practices and policies. The selection criteria include recruiting practices; opportunities for on-the-job training; education and career development; flexible work arrangements; and employee and retiree benefits, such as pensions. One lesson I draw from the winners’ list is that best employment practices for older workers are being implemented in a somewhat narrow range of economic sectors. This year, 40 percent of the top 50 come from education, government and the non-profit sector. The financial service sector was another big winner, grabbing 20 percent of the age-friendly awards. Some of the names popping up at the top of the list include Cornell University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. After that, it’s a potpourri of technology and service companies. What’s the best way to identify prospective employers that are age-friendly? Read the full story at RetirementRevised.com .

Read the full article →

Video: Whirpool Cutting Jobs

August 28, 2009

Whirlpool Cutting 1100 Jobs, 1.6% of Workforce (Bloomberg News)

Read the full article →