IWS Documented News DAILY POSTINGS

[IWS] BLS: Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, 2011 Annual Averages [27 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:24:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, 2011 Annual Averages [27 January 2012]
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

Six alternative measures of labor underutilization have long been available on a monthly basis from the Current Population Survey (CPS) for the United States as a whole. They are published in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly Employment Situation news release. (See table 15.) The official concept of unemployment (as measured in the CPS by U-3 in the U-1 to U-6 range of alternatives) includes all jobless persons who are available to take a job and have actively sought work in the past four weeks. This concept has been thoroughly reviewed and validated since the inception of the CPS in 1940. The other measures are provided to data users and analysts who want more narrowly (U-1 and U-2) or broadly (U-4 through U-6) defined measures.

BLS is committed to updating these data on a 4-quarter moving-average basis. The analysis that follows pertains to the 2011 annual averages. Data are also available for the following prior time periods:

The six state measures are based on the same definitions as those published for the United States:

U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force;
U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate);
U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers;
U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers; and
U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.

Definitions for the economic characteristics underlying the three broader measures of labor underutilization are worth mentioning here. Discouraged workers (U-4, U-5, and U-6 measures) are persons who are not in the labor force, want and are available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They are not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the prior 4 weeks, for the specific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them. The marginally attached (U-5 and U-6 measures) are a group that includes discouraged workers. The criteria for the marginally attached are the same as for discouraged workers, with the exception that any reason could have been cited for the lack of job search in the prior 4 weeks. Persons employed part time for economic reasons (U-6 measure) are those working less than 35 hours per week who want to work full time, are available to do so, and gave an economic reason (their hours had been cut back or they were unable to find a full-time job) for working part time. These individuals are sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers.

Generally, all six measures of labor underutilization move together over time, including across business cycles. Similarly, states that have high unemployment rates tend to have high values for the other five measures; the reverse is true for states with low unemployment rates. Note that, in the table and in the comparisons below, the unemployment rates (U-3) that are shown are derived directly from the CPS, because this is the only source of data for the various components. As a result, these U-3 measures may differ from the official state unemployment rates for the same period. The latter are estimates developed from statistical models that greatly improve the reliability of the top-side labor force and unemployment estimates. Those models, developed by the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program, incorporate CPS estimates, as well as input data from other sources. The model-based estimates are accessible through the LAUS program homepage. The official model-based annual averages for 2011 will be released on February 29, 2012.

Alternative measures of labor underutilization by state, 2011 annual averages (percent)
State	Measure
State	U-1	U-2	U-3	U-4	U-5	U-6
United States	5.3	5.3	8.9	9.5	10.4	15.9
Alabama	6.1	5.4	9.8	10.6	11.6	16.2
Alaska	2.8	4.2	7.6	8.1	9.1	13.5
Arizona	5.9	5.2	9.5	10.1	11.2	18.0
Arkansas	4.4	4.8	8.6	9.2	9.9	14.1
California	7.0	7.0	11.6	12.3	13.4	21.1
Colorado	4.7	5.2	8.4	8.7	9.5	15.1
Connecticut	5.6	5.7	8.9	9.6	10.4	15.4
Delaware	4.4	4.6	7.5	8.1	8.8	13.2
District of Columbia	6.7	5.0	10.4	11.1	12.4	15.8
Florida	6.7	6.2	10.0	10.8	11.6	17.6
Georgia	6.3	5.8	10.1	10.8	11.8	17.1
Hawaii	4.5	4.2	7.3	7.8	9.0	15.1
Idaho	4.4	4.9	8.7	9.1	9.9	16.1
Illinois	6.1	6.2	9.7	10.2	10.9	17.0
Indiana	5.7	5.2	9.0	9.6	10.3	15.7
Iowa	2.6	3.2	5.8	6.1	6.7	11.3
Kansas	3.5	3.9	6.7	7.0	7.8	12.1
Kentucky	5.1	5.7	9.5	10.0	10.7	15.6
Louisiana	4.0	3.5	7.8	8.4	9.5	13.4
Maine	4.1	4.6	8.0	8.5	9.5	15.1
Maryland	4.0	4.2	7.0	7.7	8.6	12.6
Massachusetts	4.3	4.8	7.3	7.8	8.7	14.3
Michigan	6.1	6.0	10.2	11.1	12.3	18.8
Minnesota	3.3	3.6	6.5	6.8	7.6	12.8
Mississippi	6.3	5.9	10.5	11.1	12.0	16.4
Missouri	4.9	4.6	8.4	8.8	9.5	14.4
Montana	3.1	4.6	7.3	7.7	8.6	15.3
Nebraska	2.0	2.3	4.5	4.7	5.2	8.9
Nevada	8.7	8.5	13.1	14.0	15.5	22.7
New Hampshire	2.6	3.2	5.4	5.8	6.5	11.3
New Jersey	6.2	6.4	9.4	10.1	11.0	16.0
New Mexico	4.3	3.6	7.4	7.9	9.6	14.7
New York	5.0	4.9	8.1	9.0	9.9	14.3
North Carolina	6.5	6.4	10.5	11.1	11.8	17.9
North Dakota	1.2	1.5	3.6	3.7	4.2	6.6
Ohio	5.1	5.1	8.7	9.0	9.8	14.7
Oklahoma	2.8	2.9	6.2	6.8	7.8	10.7
Oregon	5.3	5.8	9.4	9.8	10.9	17.5
Pennsylvania	4.2	4.8	7.8	8.2	9.4	13.9
Rhode Island	7.0	6.9	11.1	11.7	12.7	18.6
South Carolina	6.6	6.4	10.5	11.4	12.4	18.2
South Dakota	1.8	2.1	4.9	5.4	6.1	9.3
Tennessee	5.1	5.2	9.2	9.6	10.5	15.5
Texas	3.9	4.1	7.8	8.3	9.1	14.0
Utah	3.2	4.0	7.0	7.3	8.1	13.3
Vermont	2.5	3.6	5.8	6.1	6.8	11.6
Virginia	3.9	3.6	6.5	6.9	7.6	11.8
Washington	5.1	5.4	9.4	9.9	11.2	17.8
West Virginia	4.6	4.1	8.1	8.6	9.3	13.7
Wisconsin	4.2	4.3	7.8	8.2	9.0	14.2
Wyoming	2.4	2.9	5.9	6.2	6.7	10.6
Substate areas
Los Angeles County	7.6	7.2	12.2	12.8	13.8	22.8
New York City	5.8	5.7	9.0	10.0	11.1	15.4

In 2011, Nevada again reported the highest rate for all six alternative measures of labor underutilization. Nevada’s rates ranged from a U-2 of 8.5 percent to a U-6 of 22.7 percent, including a CPS-based unemployment rate, U-3, of 13.1 percent. California had the second highest rate for all six measures, including a U-3 of 11.6 percent. The next highest U-3 rate, 11.1 percent, was recorded in Rhode Island, which also had among the highest rates for each of the other alternative measures.

North Dakota continued to record the lowest rates for all six measures. North Dakota’s rates ranged from a U-1 of 1.2 percent to a U-6 of 6.6 percent, including a U-3 of 3.6 percent. Nebraska and South Dakota had the next lowest U-3 rates, 4.5 and 4.9 percent, respectively, and also ranked among the lowest states for the remaining measures. Four other states had U-3 values of less than 6.0 percent in 2011: New Hampshire, 5.4 percent; Iowa and Vermont, 5.8 percent each; and Wyoming, 5.9 percent. These states also had among the lowest rates for all of the other alternative measures.

In general, the alternative measures in any given state increase from U-1 to U-6, as they normally do at the national level. However, many states continued to have U-1 measures that exceeded their U-2 rates. This was the case in 18 states and the District of Columbia for 2011. The largest of these gaps was noted in the District of Columbia (-1.7 percentage points). As the economic recovery continues, consistent job growth results in declining U-2 rates and a narrowing of the gap between the two measures. At the national level, both U-1 and U-2 were 5.3 percent in 2011, as the gap has narrowed since early 2010.

Nevada, Michigan, New York, and South Carolina had the largest gaps between their U-3 and U-4 rates, +0.9 percentage point each. The conceptual difference between U-3 and U-4 is that the latter includes discouraged workers. Thus, the large gaps for these four states are a reflection of their relatively high degrees of would-be job-seeker discouragement. In contrast, North Dakota had the smallest gap between its U-3 and U-4 rates, +0.1 percentage point, indicating a relatively low incidence of discouragement.

In addition to the marginally attached, who are included in U-5, involuntary part-time workers are included in U-6. The larger the difference between U-5 and U-6, the higher the incidence of this form of "underemployment." California posted the largest gap between its U-5 and U-6 rates, +7.7 percentage points, followed by Nevada, +7.2 points. North Dakota registered the smallest difference between its U-5 and U-6 measures, +2.4 percentage points, indicating a comparatively low degree of underemployment.

The largest range across U-1 and U-6 among states was posted by California, +14.1 percentage points, followed closely by Nevada, +14.0 points. The next largest spreads were reported in Michigan and Washington, +12.7 percentage points each. North Dakota had the smallest range across its alternative measures, +5.4 percentage points. In general, states with lower U-3 rates had narrower ranges across their measures.

Overall, states experienced more declines than increases in the alternative measures relative to the prior 4-quarter average period, reflecting the moderate improvement in the national labor market. Thirty-four states showed improvement in U-1, the measure with the fewest number of declines relative to the prior period; the largest U-1 improvement occurred in Georgia (-0.6 percentage point). The measure with the most states registering decreases was U-6, where 39 states posted declines; the largest of these occurred in Utah (-1.0 percentage point). Utah posted the largest declines in the remaining measures, ranging from 0.5 percentage point in U-2 (tied with Georgia) to 0.9 point in U-5.

The U-1 measure increased in the greatest number of states, 10, plus the District of Columbia; U-4, at the other extreme, increased in only 4 states and the District of Columbia. The largest over-the-quarter increases recorded were: U-1, Arkansas and Hawaii (+0.2 percentage point each); U-2, Rhode Island (+0.2 point); U-3, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, and Rhode Island (+0.2 point each); U-4, the District of Columbia and Indiana (+0.3 point each); U-5, the District of Columbia (+0.4 point); and U-6, Nebraska (+0.5 point).

Declines relative to calendar year 2010 were even more prevalent than declines relative to the prior 4-quarter average period. The measure posting the most decreases was U-2, where 49 states showed improvement over the year. The largest of these declines occurred in Oregon (-2.0 percentage points). U-6 registered the greatest number of increases among measures over the year, with six states and the District of Columbia posting increases. The largest of these increases occurred in the District of Columbia (+1.8 percentage points).

Many states with extreme measures, either high or low, maintained their general place in the rankings of alternative measures over the year. California, Florida, Nevada, Rhode Island, and South Carolina had rates among the 10 highest for each measure in both 2011 and 2010. Similarly, Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had rates among the 10 lowest for each measure in both years.

The alternative measures for states are analyzed on a 4-quarter average basis in order to increase the reliability of the CPS estimates, which are based on relatively small sample sizes at the state level, and to eliminate seasonality. Due to the inclusion of lagged quarters, the state alternative measures may not fully reflect the current status of the labor market.

For additional information on state estimates derived directly from the CPS, see notes on subnational CPS data.

Note: Some state rankings cited above include ties. Data are calculated from quarterly tables in which the components of each measure are rounded to the nearest hundred. As a result, these measures contain slightly more rounding error than that found in typical CPS annual average tabulations (in which rates are calculated based on unrounded data). Due to small state sample sizes, neither monthly nor quarterly state data from the CPS satisfy BLS publication standards.

The next issuance of the alternative measures of labor underutilization for states, covering the four quarters ending in March 2012, is tentatively scheduled for Friday, April 27.

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

[IWS] BLS: TRACKING EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH BENEFITS IN CHANGING TIMES [27 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:19:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Compensation and Working Conditions
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/

TRACKING EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH BENEFITS IN CHANGING TIMES [27 January 2012]

by Brian Mauersberger

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20120125ar01p1.htm

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/print/cm20120125ar01p1.htm

Most Americans obtain their health care coverage through an employment-related plan. The National Compensation Survey (NCS) provides measures of access, participation, and features for those plans This article discusses some of the issues that the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will present for the NCS.

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Towers Watson: High Performing Sales Managers Spend More Time on Sales, Less Time on Administrative Activities [23 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:30:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Towers Watson

Leverage Sales Managers to Create Superior Performance [November 2011]

http://www.towerswatson.com/research/5832

http://www.towerswatson.com/research-and-ideas/deliverpdf.asp?pdf=5832

[full-text, 16 pages --FREE REGISTRATION may be required]

Because their actions and behaviors impact their sales team, sales managers have a powerful multiplier effect, impacting the performance of their teams. Given their pivotal role, organizations are increasingly posing the question: What can we do to improve sales manager effectiveness?

To bring additional insight to this question, Towers Watson conducted research into which factors differentiate high-performing, effective sales managers from others. The research includes input from both sales managers and individual contributor sales roles to address a number of critical questions.

Press Release 23 January 2012

High Performing Sales Managers Spend More Time on Sales, Less Time on Administrative Activities, Towers Watson Research Finds

How Sales Managers Allocate Selling Time Also Impacts their Effectiveness

http://www.towerswatson.com/press/6257

NEW YORK, January 23, 2012 — Corporate America's highest-performing sales managers spend more time on selling activities compared with their lower-performing colleagues. However, a new survey by global professional services company Towers Watson (NYSE, NASDAQ:TW) suggests the difference between successful and unsuccessful sales manager is more a function of how they allocate their selling time among various activities and audiences. Additionally, high-performing sales managers tend to devote less time to administrative activities and avoid non-sales activities.

"At a time when most U.S. companies are focusing on strategies and tactics to drive revenue and profitable growth, having strong, effective sales managers who can lead a sales force is critical," said Joe Clarkson, North America Practice Leader, Sales Effectiveness and Rewards at Towers Watson. "Our research shows there are important differences in how high-performing sales managers spend their time compared to other managers that organizations can learn from to improve their sales manager effectiveness."

According to the survey of 1,500 sales managers and professionals at U.S companies, high-performing sales managers spend 14% more time – 100 extra hours – per year on selling activities compared with low-performing sales managers. Conversely, they spend 6% less time (39 hours) on management activities and 11% less time (61 hours) on non-selling related activities. High-performing sales managers also allocate more of their selling time on activities such as closing sales and servicing accounts compared to other sales managers.

A more significant difference between successful sales managers and their colleagues is a function of with whom they spend their time. According to the survey, the bulk of successful managers' sales time is spent with current customers, either selling new applications or solutions, or personally managing renewals, or with new, nonqualified business leads. On average, successful sales managers spend 104 extra hours each year with these contacts, compared to other sales managers.

The survey also found that high-performing sales managers are almost three times more likely to spread their attention evenly across members of their sales team rather than devoting most of their time to a select few team members.

"This does not mean that sales managers spend their time with each team member similarly. Instead, managers will spend time with lower-performing sales reps to provide extra coaching and guidance, while spending more time with better-performing members on other activities such as co-selling or performance reinforcement," said Craig Ulrich, Towers Watson's U. S. East Division Leader, Sales Effectiveness and Rewards Practice.

Sales professionals were also asked to provide insight into characteristics that make sales managers effective. About one half (51%) who interact with their manager several times a day reported that their manager is effective compared to only 24% who interact with their manager once a day. Additionally, more than three in four sales professionals who believe their immediate manager acts with honesty and fairness, and provides clear work goals for the team, said their manager is effective.

"Ultimately, sales managers succeed because they are leaders. The best-performing managers are externally focused rather than internally focused. They tend to look at the big picture and think strategically, rather than focus on the short term. At the same time, they can essentially make or break the sales force because they are the intermediaries between an organization's senior leadership and frontline salespeople who interact with customers and prospects on a daily basis. Their impact cannot be overestimated," concluded Ulrich.

Find more information about the Towers Watson survey, "Leverage Sales Managers to Create Superior Performance"

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] CRS: INTERNATIONAL TRADE: RULES OF ORIGIN [5 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:00:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

International Trade: Rules of Origin

Vivian C. Jones, Specialist in International Trade and Finance

Michael F. Martin, Analyst in Asian Trade and Finance

January 5, 2012

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/180678.pdf

[full-text, 22 pages]

Summary

Determining the country of origin of a product is important for properly assessing tariffs,

enforcing trade remedies (such as antidumping and countervailing duties) or quantitative

restrictions (tariff quotas), and statistical purposes. Other commercial trade policies are also

linked with origin determinations, such as country of origin labeling and government

procurement regulations.

Rules of origin (ROO) can be very simple, noncontroversial tools of international trade as long as

all of the parts of a product are manufactured and assembled primarily in one country. However,

when a finished product’s component parts originate in many countries—as is often the case in

today’s global trading environment—determining origin can be a very complex, sometimes

subjective, and time-consuming process.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the agency responsible for determining country of

origin using various ROO schemes. Non-preferential rules of origin are used to determine the

origin of goods imported from countries with which the United States has most-favored-nation

(MFN) status. Preferential rules are used to determine the eligibility of imported goods from

certain U.S. free trade agreement (FTA) partners and certain developing country beneficiaries to

receive duty-free or reduced tariff benefits under bilateral or regional FTAs and trade preference

programs. Preferential rules of origin are generally specific to each FTA, or preference, meaning

that they vary from agreement to agreement and preference to preference.

CBP has periodically proposed implementing a more uniform system of ROO as an alternative to

the “substantial transformation” rule that is currently in place. CBP’s last proposal was on July

25, 2008, when it suggested that a system known as the North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) rules system “has proven to be more objective and transparent and provide greater

predictability in determining the country of origin of imported merchandise than the system of

case-by-case adjudication they would replace.” The NAFTA scheme that would be applied hasd

already been used for several years to determine the origin of imports under the NAFTA, and for

most textile and apparel imports (about 40% of U.S. imports). The CBP proposed to apply the

NAFTA rules to all country of origin determinations made by CBP, unless otherwise specified

(e.g., unless the import enters under a preferential ROO scheme already in place). The proposed

rule changes received so many responses from the public that the deadline for public comment

was extended twice, until December 1, 2008. Such changes in rules of origin requirements are

often opposed by some importers due to costs involved in transitioning to new rules, or because

they believe that certain products they import might be at a disadvantage under a new ROO

methodology. According to CBP officials, CBP decided not to implement the proposed rule.

This report deals with ROO in three parts. First, we describe in more detail the reasons that

country of origin rules are important and briefly describe U.S. laws and methods that provide

direction in making these determinations. Second, we discuss briefly some of the more

controversial issues involving rules of origin, including the apparently subjective nature of some

CBP origin determinations, and the effects of the global manufacturing process on ROO. Third,

we conclude with some alternatives and options that Congress could consider that might assist in

simplifying the process.

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Rules of Origin in U.S. Practice ...................................................................................................... 1

Non-Preferential Rules of Origin .............................................................................................. 2

International Agreements on Non-Preferential ROO .......................................................... 3

Preferential Rules of Origin....................................................................................................... 4

“Tariff Shift”........................................................................................................................ 5

Technical Test...................................................................................................................... 5

Local Content or Regional Value Content Test ................................................................... 6

Pros and Cons of U.S. Rules of Origin Methodology...................................................................... 6

Proliferation of Preferential ROO.............................................................................................. 7

Concerns about Inefficiency................................................................................................ 7

Influence of Domestic Industries ........................................................................................ 8

CBP Country of Origin Determinations .................................................................................... 9

Proposed Changes ............................................................................................................. 10

Subsequent Hearing........................................................................................................... 11

Customs Decision.............................................................................................................. 11

2008 CBP Proposal ........................................................................................................... 11

Global Manufacturing and Rules of Origin............................................................................. 12

The Case of the Apple iPod............................................................................................... 13

Effects on Rules of Origin................................................................................................. 14

Counter to U.S. Policy Objectives? ......................................................................................... 14

Quotas ............................................................................................................................... 15

Trade Embargoes............................................................................................................... 15

“Yarn Forward” Rule......................................................................................................... 16

Food Imports ..................................................................................................................... 17

“Buy American” ................................................................................................................ 17

Conclusion and Options for Congress ........................................................................................... 18

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] NCHS: Health and Access to Care Among Employed and Unemployed Adults: United States, 2009–2010 [24 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:51:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 83 ■ January 2012

Health and Access to Care Among Employed and Unemployed Adults: United States, 2009–2010 [24 January 2012]

Anne K. Driscoll, Dr.P.H., and Amy B. Bernstein, Sc.D.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db83.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db83.pdf

[full-text, 8 pages]

KEY FINDINGS

Data from the National Health Interview Survey, 2009–2010

• In 2009–2010, 48.1% of unemployed adults aged 18–64 years had health insurance compared with 81.4% of

employed adults; among the insured, a higher proportion of the unemployed had public

insurance.

• Unemployed adults had poorer mental and physical health than employed adults; this pattern is found for insured

and uninsured adults.

• Unemployed adults were less likely to receive needed medical care due to cost than

the employed in each insurance category.

• The unemployed were less likely to receive needed prescriptions due to cost than

the employed in all insurance categories.

• Uninsured adults were less likely to receive needed medical care and prescription drugs due

to cost than those with public or private insurance, regardless of employment status.

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Call for Papers: "HRM and (SOCIAL) INNOVATION" (ILERA HRM Study Group Meeting 2012, Philadelphia, USA)

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:54:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

The 2012 meeting of the HRM Study Group of the ILERA (http://www.ilo.org/ilera) will be held during the 16th World Congress of the ILERA in Philadelphia, USA, 2–5 July 2012 (http://www.ilera2012.com/).

Please note the following:

Call for Papers "HRM and (Social) Innovation" (ILERA HRM Study Group Meeting 2012, Philadelphia, USA)

http://www.zagelmeyer.com/mediapool/42/420779/data/2012_ILERA_CallforPapers.PDF

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BLS: UNION MEMBERS -- 2011 [27 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:02:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

UNION MEMBERS -- 2011 [27 January 2012]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

[full-text, 12 pages]

In 2011, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who

were members of a union--was 11.8 percent, essentially unchanged from 11.9

percent in 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number

of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.8 million, also showed

little movement over the year. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union

data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were

17.7 million union workers.

The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current Population

Survey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that obtains

information on employment and unemployment among the nation's civilian

noninstitutional population age 16 and over. For more information, see the

Technical Note.

Highlights from the 2011 data:

--Public-sector workers had a union membership rate (37.0 percent) more

than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.9

percent). (See table 3.)

--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the

highest unionization rate, at 36.8 percent, while the lowest rate

occurred in sales and related occupations (3.0 percent). (See

table 3.)

--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white,

Asian, or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

--Among states, New York continued to have the highest union membership

rate (24.1 percent) and North Carolina again had the lowest rate

(2.9 percent). (See table 5.)

Industry and Occupation of Union Members

In 2011, 7.6 million employees in the public sector belonged to a

union, compared with 7.2 million union workers in the private sector.

The union membership rate for public-sector workers (37.0 percent) was

substantially higher than the rate for private-sector workers (6.9

percent). Within the public sector, local government workers had the

highest union membership rate, 43.2 percent. This group includes

workers in heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police

officers, and firefighters. Private-sector industries with high

unionization rates included transportation and utilities (21.1

percent) and construction (14.0 percent), while low unionization rates

occurred in agriculture and related industries (1.4 percent) and in

financial activities (1.6 percent). (See table 3.)

Among occupational groups, education, training, and library

occupations (36.8 percent) and protective service occupations (34.5

percent) had the highest unionization rates in 2011. Sales and related

occupations (3.0 percent) and farming, fishing, and forestry

occupations (3.4 percent) had the lowest unionization rates. (See

table 3.)

Selected Characteristics of Union Members

The union membership rate was higher for men (12.4 percent) than for

women (11.2 percent) in 2011. (See table 1.) The gap between their

rates has narrowed considerably since 1983, when the rate for men was

about 10 percentage points higher than the rate for women. Between

1983 and 2011, the union membership rate for men declined by almost

half (12.3 percentage points), while the rate for women declined by

3.4 percentage points.

In 2011, among major race and ethnicity groups, black workers were

more likely to be union members (13.5 percent) than workers who were

white (11.6 percent), Asian (10.1 percent), or Hispanic (9.7 percent).

Black men had the highest union membership rate (14.6 percent), while

Asian men had the lowest rate (9.1 percent).

By age, the union membership rate was highest among workers 55 to 64

years old (15.7 percent). The lowest union membership rate occurred

among those ages 16 to 24 (4.4 percent).

Full-time workers were about twice as likely as part-time workers to

be union members, 13.1 percent compared with 6.4 percent.

Union Representation

In 2011, 16.3 million wage and salary workers were represented by a

union. This group includes both union members (14.8 million) and

workers who report no union affiliation but whose jobs are covered by

a union contract (1.5 million). (See table 1.) Government employees

comprised about half of the 1.5 million workers who were covered by a

union contract but were not members of a union. (See table 3.)

Earnings

In 2011, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had

median usual weekly earnings of $938, while those who were not union

members had median weekly earnings of $729. In addition to coverage by

a collective bargaining agreement, earnings differences reflect a

variety of influences, including variations in the distributions of

union members and nonunion employees by occupation, industry, firm

size, or geographic region. (See table 2.)

Union Membership by State

In 2011, 29 states and the District of Columbia had union membership

rates below that of the U.S. average, 11.8 percent, while 21 states

had higher rates. All states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific

divisions reported union membership rates above the national average,

while all states in the East South Central and West South Central

divisions had rates below it. Union membership rates declined over the

year in 29 states and the District of Columbia, rose in 19 states, and

were unchanged in 2 states. (See table 5.)

Seven states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2011,

with North Carolina having the lowest rate (2.9 percent). The next

lowest rates were recorded in South Carolina (3.4 percent), Georgia

(3.9 percent), Arkansas (4.2 percent), Louisiana (4.5 percent), and

Tennessee and Virginia (4.6 percent each). Three states had union

membership rates over 20.0 percent in 2011: New York (24.1 percent),

Alaska (22.1 percent), and Hawaii (21.5 percent).

State union membership levels depend on both the overall employment

levels and union membership rates. The largest numbers of union

members lived in California (2.4 million) and New York (1.9 million).

Over half of the 14.8 million union members in the U.S. lived in just

seven states (California, 2.4 million; New York, 1.9 million; Illinois,

0.9 million; Pennsylvania, 0.8 million; Michigan 0.7 million; and New

Jersey and Ohio, 0.6 million each), though these states accounted for

only about one-third of wage and salary employment nationally.

Texas had about one-fourth as many union members as New York, despite

having 2.3 million more wage and salary employees. North Carolina and

Hawaii had comparable numbers of union members (105,000 and 113,000,

respectively), though North Carolina's wage and salary employment

level (3.6 million) was nearly seven times that of Hawaii (525,000).

· Union Members Technical Note

· Table 1. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by selected characteristics

· Table 2. Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union affiliation and selected characteristics

· Table 3. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by occupation and industry

· Table 4. Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by union affiliation, occupation, and industry

· Table 5. Union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by state

· Access to historical data for the tables of the Union Membership News Release

· HTML version of the entire news release

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BEA: Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter and Annual 2011 (advance estimate) [27 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:37:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter and Annual 2011 (advance estimate) [27 January 2012]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp4q11_adv.pdf

[full-text, 14 pages]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/xls/gdp4q11_adv.xls

[spreadsheet]

and

Highlights

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp4q11_adv_fax.pdf

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property

located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011

(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the

Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 1.8 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter advance estimate released today is based on

source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page

4). The "second" estimate for the fourth quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on

February 29, 2012.

The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter reflected positive contributions from private

inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, residential fixed investment,

and nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal

government spending and state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the

calculation of GDP, increased.

The acceleration in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected an upturn in private

inventory investment and accelerations in PCE and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset

by a deceleration in nonresidential fixed investment, a downturn in federal government spending, an

acceleration in imports, and a larger decrease in state and local government spending.

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Census: RACE & ETHNIC GROUPS (by STATE) 2010 DETAIL [updated 26 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:18:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Census

Summary File 2

Detailed 2010 Census information by race and ethnic groups, released on a flow basis in December through May [updated 26 January 2012]

http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/sf2/summary-file-2.html

Which States Are Now Available:
• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• Oklahoma
• Oregon

Background
Tables Shells and SF2 Crosswalk (guide to comparable 2000 SF2 and 2010 SF1 Tables) [Excel]
List of population groups (national) [Excel]
Technical Documentation
FTP site
Table Shells:
• Microsoft Access 2003
• Microsoft Access 2007
U.S. Census Bureau at a Glance [PDF]
2010 Census Data Products: United States -- At A Glance
2010 Census Data Product Descriptions [PDF]
Webinar Slides (March 22, 2011): Race and Hispanic Origin in the 2010 Census [PDF]
New American FactFinder
• Tips on Using FactFinder
• FactFinder Webinar Info

Related Releases
• Summary File 1
• Demographic Profiles
• 2010 Census Briefs
• Redistricting
• Apportionment
• Center of Population

Media Resources
Tip Sheets
Press contacts
U.S. Census Bureau Regional Offices [PDF]

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Executive Order -- Establishing Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing Goals and the Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness [

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:06:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

The White House

19 January 2012

Executive Order -- Establishing Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing Goals and the Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/19/executive-order-establishing-visa-and-foreign-visitor-processing-goals-a

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve visa and foreign visitor processing and travel promotion in order to create jobs and spur economic growth in the United States, while continuing to protect our national security, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The travel and tourism industry is one of our Nation's leading service sectors and sources of exports. However, the U.S. market share of spending by international travelers fell from 17 percent to 11 percent of the global market from 2000 to 2010, more than a 30 percent decrease in our share of the global market. This decrease was due primarily to increased international competition, changing patterns in global development, and, to some degree, more stringent security requirements imposed after 2001. Given the importance of the travel and tourism industry to the U.S. economy and job creation, a coordinated policy, consistent with protecting our national security, is needed to support a prosperous and secure travel and tourism industry in the United States.

Steady progress has been made since 2010, when my Administration launched the National Export Initiative and the Travel Promotion Act was signed into law. While our processes for moving people and goods across our borders are now both more secure and more efficient, new initiatives are needed to enable us to better capitalize on the economic opportunities presented by a dynamic 21st century travel and tourism industry.

Sec. 2. Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing. (a) The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism shall, consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 1 or any successor documents and in coordination with the Assistant to the President and Cabinet Secretary, maintain an interagency process for coordinating the implementation of regulatory improvements and the evaluation of legislative proposals to enhance and expedite travel to and arrival in the United States by foreign nationals, consistent with national security requirements.

(b) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the heads of such agencies as appropriate, shall develop an implementation plan, within 60 days of the date of this order, describing actions to be undertaken, including those that build upon efforts underway, to achieve the following:

(i) increase nonimmigrant visa processing capacity in China and Brazil by 40 percent over the coming year;
(ii) ensure that 80 percent of nonimmigrant visa applicants are interviewed within 3 weeks of receipt of application, recognizing that resource and security considerations and the need to ensure provision of consular services to U.S. citizens may dictate specific exceptions;

(iii) increase efforts to expand the Visa Waiver Program and travel by nationals of Visa Waiver Program participants; and

(iv) expand reciprocal recognition programs for expedited travel, such as the Global Entry program.

This plan should also identify other appropriate measures that will enhance and expedite travel to and arrival in the United States by foreign nationals, consistent with national security requirements, as well as any potential challenges in achieving the stated goals of this subsection.

(c) Within 180 days of the date of this order, and periodically thereafter, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall jointly submit through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism a report to the President describing the progress on achieving the goals set forth in this section (as well as areas of concern or barriers to achieving those goals) to ensure the country remains secure while increasing travel and tourism to the United States.

(d) The Secretary of Commerce shall establish and maintain a publicly available website that provides updated metrics from across the Federal Government to assist industry and travelers in understanding the current status of the industry and its relevance to the economy, statistics on visa processes in key travel and tourism markets, and entry times into the United States.

Sec. 3. Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness. (a) A Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness (Task Force) is hereby established to develop the National Travel and Tourism Strategy described in this section. The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall serve as Co-Chairs of the Task Force. The Task Force shall also include the heads of the following executive departments and agencies (agencies), or senior level officials designated by them:

(i) Department of State;
(ii) Department of the Treasury;
(iii) Department of Agriculture;
(iv) Department of Labor;
(v) Department of Transportation;

(vi) Department of Homeland Security;
(vii) Army Corps of Engineers;
(viii) Office of the United States Trade Representative;
(ix) Export-Import Bank; and
(x) Other agencies invited to participate by the Task Force Co-Chairs.

(b) The Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, shall coordinate the overall work of the Task Force and assist its members in performing the responsibilities described herein.

(c) The Task Force shall develop a National Travel and Tourism Strategy with recommendations for new policies and initiatives to promote domestic and international travel opportunities throughout the United States with the goal of increasing the United States market share of worldwide travel, including obtaining a greater share of long-haul travel from Brazil, China, and India. Such recommendations shall include, among other things, strategies to promote visits to the United States public lands, waters, shores, monuments, and other iconic American destinations, thereby expanding job creation in the United States. The Task Force shall also consider recommendations to promote and expand travel and tourism opportunities in rural communities. In addition, the National Travel and Tourism Strategy shall identify any barriers to increasing the United States market share of worldwide travel, and any other related areas of concern. The Task Force shall deliver the National Travel and Tourism Strategy to the President within 90 days of the date of this order.

(d) The Task Force, through the Secretary of Commerce, shall also coordinate with the Corporation for Travel Promotion (currently doing business as Brand USA, a non-profit corporation established by the Travel Promotion Act of 2009 to promote travel to the United States) and the Tourism Policy Council, established by the United States National Tourism Organization Act of 1996. The Secretary of Commerce shall serve as the liaison between the Task Force and the United States Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board) chartered by the Secretary and shall consider the Board's advice in his or her role with the Task Force.

(e) The Tourism Policy Council coordinates policies concerning travel promotion and ensures consistency and cooperation among agencies, as set forth in the United States National Tourism Organization Act of 1996. The Task Force shall consult with the Tourism Policy Council where appropriate to facilitate the development of the National Travel and Tourism Strategy.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Mercer/WEF: [GLOBAL] TALENT MOBILITY GOOD PRACTICES: COLLABORATION AT THE CORE OF DRIVING ECONOMIC GROWTH [23 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:54:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Mercer/World Economic Forum (WEF) Talent Mobility Report

http://www.mercer.com/globaltalent

Talent Mobility Good Practices: Collaboration at the Core of Driving Economic Growth [23 January 2012]

http://www.mercer.com/WEF-Full-Report

http://www.mercer.com/attachment.dyn?idContent=1445430&filePath=/attachments/English/Mercer_WEF_Talent_Mobility_FINAL_SEC.pdf

[full-text, 110 pages--free registration may be necessary for access]

IN-DEPTH TALENT MOBILITY CASE STUDIES

http://www.mercer.com/WEF-In-Depth-Studies

KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS

http://107.21.200.3/mercer-wef/research-findings.php

GLOBAL TALENT MOBILITY CASE STUDIES

http://www.mercer.com/WEF-Case-Studies

Press Release 23 January 2012

New site features World Economic Forum/Mercer research, plus resources and advice on global mobility

http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/World-Economic-Forum-and-Mercer-research

United Kingdom
London, 23 January 2012

§ Report presents case studies highlighting concrete solutions that successfully advance talent mobility

The World Economic Forum and Mercer have collaborated on extensive global research on how effective talent mobility can spur economic growth. The just-issued report – Talent Mobility Good Practices – Collaboration at the Core of Driving Economic Growth – will be presented this week at the Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland by Patricia A. Milligan, President of Mercer's Talent, Rewards and Communication business.

In conjunction, Mercer has launched a new resources site – http://www.mercer.com/globaltalent – that offers advice and innovative ways to manage global talent and mobility challenges. It features:

§ An animated three-minute video highlighting the key research findings

§ An interactive version of the research report, plus a downloadable PDF of the full report

§ A searchable library of the report's 55 case studies

§ Registration for Mercer's upcoming Davos Debrief webcasts to be held in February

§ An array of Mercer thought leadership to help organizations address their global talent issues

About the research
The World Economic Forum/Mercer research examined talent mobility practices among more than 500 organizations in 45 countries and found that talent mobility is not achieving its full potential. The 55 case studies included in the report reveal that collaboration among stakeholders on all sides of the employment equation – companies, governments, academic institutions, nonprofit entities and employees – is essential to successful talent mobility efforts. The research report outlines concrete actions that stakeholders around the world have implemented – and that others can emulate – to address their talent challenges.

"Our research shows that a variety of solutions for advancing effective talent mobility practices are already being implemented – and successfully," said Ms. Milligan. "Through the report and our new resources site, we can share these good practices and allow others to benefit from it."

Stakeholders with talent mobility good practices featured in the report include: ABB, Adecco, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), BC Hydro, The Boston Consulting Group, the European Commission, HCL Technologies, Infosys, the International Labor Organization (ILO), INSEAD, LVMH, ManpowerGroup, Mercer, NASSCOM, Polish Confederation of Private Employers, PwC, Saudi Aramco, Standard Chartered, Toronto Financial Services Alliance and Wal-mart, among others.

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] SBA: 2011 SMALL BUSINESS PROFILES FOR THE STATES AND TERRITORIES [26 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:31:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Small Business Administration (SBA)

Office of Advocacy

2011 Small Business Profiles for the States and Territories [26 January 2012]

http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/848/41391

The economic condition of small businesses in the United States is captured in the Small Business Profiles. The profile shows that small businesses are key players in the U.S. and state economies, and highlights their performance on employment, business turnover, owner business demographics, finance and income. This annual publication provides information for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. territories and United States.

The value of this publication is the detail it provides about small businesses at the state level. An Excel spreadsheet containing all of the data in the profiles is also available. The state and territory profiles are in Adobe PDF format.

Download the Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF Files or Convert PDF files if necessary. Be sure to read the Adobe Electronic End User License Agreement and any other instructions prior to installing the Adobe Acrobat Reader on your system. Adobe also offers Accessibility Tools for PDF Documents.

Attachments: st_pro_11_postingdata.xlsx pa11.pdf or11.pdf ok11.pdf oh11.pdf ny11.pdf nv11.pdf nm11.pdf nj11.pdf nh11.pdf ne11.pdf nd11.pdf ri11.pdf sc11.pdf sd11.pdf wy11.pdf wv11.pdf wi11.pdf wa11.pdf vt11.pdf va11.pdf ut11.pdf us11.pdf tx11.pdf tn11.pdf terr11.pdf nc11.pdf mt11.pdf hi11.pdf ga11.pdf fl11.pdf de11.pdf dc11.pdf ct11.pdf co11.pdf ca11.pdf az11.pdf ar11.pdf al11.pdf ia11.pdf id11.pdf il11.pdf ms11.pdf mo11.pdf mn11.pdf mi11.pdf me11.pdf md11.pdf ma11.pdf la11.pdf ky11.pdf ks11.pdf in11.pdf ak11.pdf

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] CRS: PROPOSED KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE: LEGAL ISSUES [23 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:22:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline: Legal Issues

Adam Vann, Legislative Attorney

Kristina Alexander, Legislative Attorney

Vanessa K. Burrows, Legislative Attorney

Kenneth R. Thomas,Legislative Attorney

January 23, 2012

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42124.pdf

[full-text, 32 pages]

SUMMARY

In 2008, TransCanada Corp. applied for a presidential permit from the State Department to

construct and operate an oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border in a project known as

Keystone XL. The Keystone XL pipeline would transport oil produced from oil sands in Alberta,

Canada, to Gulf Coast refineries. The permit application was subjected to review by the State

Department pursuant to executive branch authority over cross-border pipeline facilities as

articulated in Executive Order 13337.

After several phases of review, on November 10, 2011, the State Department announced that it

would seek additional information about alternative pipeline routes before it could move forward

with a national interest determination. In response, several pieces of legislation were introduced,

including Title V of the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011. Title V dictated

that President must grant the Keystone XL pipeline permit within 60 days of the law’s enactment,

unless the President determined that the pipeline is not in the national interest. If the President did

not make a national interest determination and took no action to grant the permit, then the law

provided that the permit “shall be in effect by operation of law.” The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut

Continuation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-78), including Title V addressing the Keystone XL permit,

was enacted on December 23, 2011.

Pursuant to the requirements of Title V, on January 18, 2012, the State Department recommended

that “the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline be denied and, that at this

time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest.”

The same day, the President stated his determination that the Keystone XL pipeline project

“would not serve the national interest.”

New legislative activity with respect to the permitting of border-crossing facilities, a subject

previously handled exclusively by the executive branch, has triggered inquiries as to whether this

raises constitutional issues related to the jurisdiction of the two branches over such facilities.

Additionally, as states have begun to contemplate taking action with respect to the pipeline siting,

some have questioned whether state siting of a pipeline is preempted by federal law. Others argue

that states dictating the route of the pipeline violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the

Constitution which, among other things, prohibits one state from acting to protect its own

interests to the detriment of other states.

This report reviews those legal issues. First, it suggests that legislation related to cross-border

facility permitting is unlikely to raise significant constitutional questions, despite the fact that

such permits have traditionally been handled by the executive branch alone pursuant to its

constitutional “foreign affairs” authority. Next, it observes generally that state oversight of

pipeline siting decisions does not appear to violate existing federal law or the Constitution.

Finally, the report suggests that State Department’s implementation of the existing authority to

issue presidential permits appears to allow for judicial review of its National Environmental

Policy Act determinations.

A companion report from CRS focusing on policy issues associated with the proposal, CRS

Report R41668, Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues, by Paul W. Parfomak et al., is also

available.

Contents

Background...................................................................................................................................... 1

Authority to Issue Permits for Border Crossing Facilities: Balancing Executive and

Legislative Roles .......................................................................................................................... 4

Source of Presidential Authority to Regulate Foreign Commerce ............................................ 4

Source of Executive/State Department Permitting Authority.................................................... 4

Source of Congressional Authority to Regulate Foreign Commerce ........................................ 6

Reconciling the Executive and Legislative Roles Related to Foreign Commerce and

Border Crossing Facilities ...................................................................................................... 7

Executive Branch Deference to Congress on Cross-Border Facilities................................ 7

Congressional Action Related to Foreign Commerce ....................................................... 10

Judicial Interpretations of the Executive and Legislative Authorities to Regulate

Foreign Commerce......................................................................................................... 10

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 12

Constitutional Concerns Related to Potential Action by States ..................................................... 12

The Dormant Commerce Clause ............................................................................................. 13

Legal Background ............................................................................................................. 13

State Authority for Energy Facility Siting......................................................................... 14

Application of the Dormant Commerce Clause to State Action Related to

Oil Pipeline Siting.......................................................................................................... 14

Federal Preemption of State Pipeline Legislation ................................................................... 17

Background ....................................................................................................................... 17

How Preemption Is Evaluated........................................................................................... 17

Conflict Preemption of State Action Related to the

Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline..................................................................................... 22

Field Preemption of State Action Related to the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline ........... 24

Judicial Review of the NEPA Process for Permitting Under Executive Order 13337................... 24

Executive Order 13337............................................................................................................ 24

Keystone XL NEPA Background ............................................................................................ 25

State Department NEPA Regulations ................................................................................ 25

Judicial Review ....................................................................................................................... 25

District Court Holdings Related to Executive Order 13337.............................................. 26

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 29

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] CRS: BORDER SECURITY: IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY [6 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:15:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Border Security: Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry

Marc R. Rosenblum, Specialist in Immigration Policy

January 6, 2012

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/180681.pdf

[full-text, 46 pages

Summary

Border enforcement is a core element of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) effort

to control illegal migration, with the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) within the Bureau of Customs

and Border Protection (CBP) as the lead agency along most of the border. Border enforcement

has been an ongoing subject of congressional interest since the 1970s, when illegal immigration

to the United States first registered as a serious national problem; and border security has

received additional attention in the decade following the terrorist attacks of 2001.

Since the 1990s, migration control at the border has been guided by a strategy of “prevention

through deterrence”—the idea that the concentration of personnel, infrastructure, and surveillance

technology along heavily trafficked regions of the border will discourage unauthorized aliens

from attempting to enter the United States. Since 2005, CBP has attempted to discourage repeat

entries and disrupt migrant smuggling networks by imposing tougher penalties against certain

unauthorized aliens, a set of policies known as “enforcement with consequences.”

Twenty-five years after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA, P.L. 99-603)

marked the beginning of the modern era in border enforcement, this report reviews recent

enforcement efforts, takes stock of the current state of border security, and considers lessons that

may be learned about a quarter century of enhanced migration control efforts at U.S. borders.

IRCA authorized a 50% increase in the size of the USBP, and at least 10 additional laws since

then have included provisions related to migration enforcement and/or border security.

Appropriations for the USBP have increased about 750% since 1989—a number which excludes

many other programs related to border enforcement.

On one hand, robust investments at the border have been associated with a sharp drop in the

number of aliens apprehended, especially in the sectors first targeted for enhanced enforcement.

The number and proportion of people apprehended more than once (recidivists) and those with

serious criminal records are also at the lowest levels ever recorded. On the other hand, overall

illegal inflows continued to increase in the 20 years after 1986, with the estimated unauthorized

population more than tripling, even after almost 3 million aliens were granted amnesty as part of

IRCA. The only significant decrease in unauthorized migration appears to have occurred since

2007, and it is unclear how much of the drop-off is due to increased enforcement and how much

is a result of the U.S. economic downturn and other systemic factors.

At the same time, enhanced border enforcement may have contributed to a number of secondary

costs and benefits. To the extent that border enforcement successfully deters illegal entries—an

effect that is also difficult to measure since deterrence ultimately involves decisions made in

towns and villages far away from U.S. borders—such enforcement may reduce border-area

violence and migrant deaths, protect fragile border ecosystems, and improve the quality of life in

border communities. But to the extent that aliens are not deterred, the concentration of

enforcement resources on the border may increase border area violence and migrant deaths,

encourage unauthorized migrants to find new ways to enter illegally and to remain in the United

States for longer periods of time, damage border ecosystems, harm border-area businesses and the

quality of life in border communities, and strain U.S. relations with Mexico and Canada.

Thus, this report concludes by raising additional questions about future investments at the border,

how to weigh such investments against other enforcement strategies, and the relationship between

border enforcement and the broader debate about U.S. immigration policy.

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Background...................................................................................................................................... 3

Border Control Strategy................................................................................................................... 4

National Strategic Plan .............................................................................................................. 4

National Border Patrol Strategy ................................................................................................ 6

Secure Border Initiative............................................................................................................. 7

Enforcement with Consequences............................................................................................... 8

2012 National Border Patrol Strategy...................................................................................... 12

Budget and Resources.................................................................................................................... 12

Border Patrol Appropriations .................................................................................................. 12

Border Patrol Personnel........................................................................................................... 14

Fencing and Tactical Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 16

Surveillance Assets.................................................................................................................. 18

Enforcement Outcomes.................................................................................................................. 19

Alien Apprehensions ............................................................................................................... 20

Southwest Border Apprehensions by Sector ..................................................................... 21

The Limits of Apprehensions Data.................................................................................... 22

Operational Control of the Border........................................................................................... 22

Additional Measures of Border Enforcement.......................................................................... 24

Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) System......................................... 24

Successful Illegal Entries .................................................................................................. 26

Smuggling Fees................................................................................................................. 27

Probability of Apprehension.............................................................................................. 29

Unintended and Secondary Consequences of Border Enforcement .............................................. 30

Border-Area Crime and Migrant Deaths ................................................................................. 30

Migration Flows: “Caging” Effects and Alternative Modes of Entry ..................................... 33

Environmental Impact and Effects on Border Communities................................................... 35

Effects on Regional Relations ................................................................................................. 36

Legislative Issues........................................................................................................................... 37

Border Patrol Personnel........................................................................................................... 37

Surveillance Assets.................................................................................................................. 38

Fencing and Tactical Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 38

Access to Federal Lands.......................................................................................................... 39

Conclusion: Understanding the Costs and Benefits of Border Enforcement Between Ports

of Entry....................................................................................................................................... 40

Figures

Figure 1. Enforcement with Consequences, Selected Indicators, FY1999-FY2010...................... 11

Figure 2. U.S. Border Patrol Appropriations, FY1989-FY2012.................................................... 13

Figure 3. U.S. Border Patrol Agents, Total and by Region, FY1980-FY2011............................... 15

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Challenger: RELOCATION FALLS TO NEAR RECORD LOW--JUST 7.5% OF JOB SEEKERS MOVE FOR NEW POSITIONS IN SECOND HALF OF 2011 [26 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:04:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

CONTACTS

James K. Pedderson, Director of Public Relations

Office: 312-422-5078
Mobile: 847-567-1463
jamespedderson@challengergray.com

Colleen Madden, Media Relations Manager

Office: 312-422-5074
colleenmadden@challengergray.com

Download the report here: http://www.challengergray.com/press/press.aspx

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Relocation Falls To Near Record Low

JUST 7.5% OF JOB SEEKERS MOVE FOR NEW POSITIONS IN SECOND HALF OF 2011

CHICAGO, January 26, 2012 – After rising to its highest level in nearly two years during the first half of 2011, the percentage of job seekers relocating for new positions dropped to a near record low to finish out the year. The latest data provides further evidence that one of the biggest obstacles to economic recovery could be the lack of mobility among the nation’s unemployed.

Over the last two quarters of 2011, an average of just 7.5 percent of job seekers finding employment relocated for their new positions. That is down nearly two points from an average relocation rate of 9.4 percent in the first two quarters of the year. It was slightly lower than the same period in 2010, when 7.7 percent of job seekers relocated for new positions.

The relocation data released Thursday by global outplacement and executive coaching consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. is based on a quarterly survey of approximately 3,000 job seekers, many of whom are managers and executives, from a wide range of industries and occupations nationwide.

“It appeared that relocation was beginning to bounce back after plunging in the wake of the housing market collapse and the deep recession that followed. However, the latest numbers indicate that picking up stakes remains a last resort for the majority of job seekers, many of whom are unwilling to take a loss on the sale of a home for a position that may or may not last,” said John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

The percentage of job seekers relocating plunged in the wake of the housing collapse. Since the fourth quarter of 2009, the quarterly relocation rate has averaged just 7.9 percent. In contrast, an average of 15.7 percent of job seekers relocated for new positions each quarter in the pre-recession period from 2005 through 2007. Even during the onset and throughout most of the recession, from 2008 through the third quarter of 2009, the relocation rate averaged 13.2 percent.

“The largest factor behind the low relocation figures is, of course, the still-struggling housing market, which has shown no signs of improvement outside of a handful of markets. Home prices are still falling and millions of homes are approaching foreclosure, which will saturate the market with even more low-priced inventory. Unfortunately, once home values begin to rebound, it could take years before homeowners are back above water,” said Challenger.

According to the latest S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index, which measures home prices in 20 major U.S. cities, October prices declined by 1.1 percent from September and were down 3.4 percent from October 2010. It was the 13^th consecutive year-over-year decline recorded by the index.

“Most of the relief programs being proposed are designed to target those nearing foreclosure. However, there are millions of homeowners that have been able to avoid falling behind on their mortgages, but whose home value remains underwater. These families are unable to get help getting out from under their mortgages, so they are unable to move for new job opportunities. This is unfortunate, because many areas are seeing significant improvements in their job markets,” said Challenger.

The latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in December 25 states saw nonfarm payroll employment increase, with the biggest gains coming in Texas, Indiana, and California. As of November, 61 cities had unemployment rates below 6.0 percent. That is up from 42 cities that had sub-6.0 unemployment rates in May.

“The labor markets are not tight enough yet to compel the vast majority of employers to cover the cost of relocation for new hires. Even if some are willing to cover moving costs, most will not cover the shortfall homeowners would incur by selling an underwater home. So, for now, many people are stuck. At the moment, this is not having a major impact on the recovery. Eventually, as the economy continues to improve, employers will exhaust the local talent pool. If job seekers are still unable or unwilling to move at that point, it is likely to stall companies’ expansion plans and ultimately stall economic growth,” said Challenger.

# # #
January 26, 2012

Percentage of Job Seekers Relocating

1986 – 2011

	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	ANN AVG
1986	45.0%	43.0%	40.0%	39.0%	41.8%
1987	37.0%	32.0%	34.0%	35.0%	34.5%
1998	37.0%	36.0%	34.0%	36.0%	35.8%
1989	35.0%	36.0%	31.0%	32.0%	33.5%
1990	30.0%	34.0%	31.0%	27.0%	30.5%
1991	30.0%	28.0%	26.3%	21.0%	26.3%
1992	30.2%	28.3%	28.2%	20.5%	26.8%
1993	36.4%	49.2%	30.5%	25.0%	35.3%
1994	20.5%	21.3%	15.5%	24.7%	20.5%
1995	17.1%	17.2%	20.4%	24.1%	19.7%
1996	19.4%	20.5%	29.1%	24.1%	23.3%
1997	19.8%	21.5%	18.7%	20.1%	20.0%
1998	18.3%	27.1%	23.3%	23.7%	23.1%
1999	25.5%	25.3%	22.4%	25.9%	24.8%
2000	20.4%	21.6%	23.5%	26.2%	22.9%
2001	17.1%	16.6%	17.3%	17.0%	17.0%
2002	14.0%	12.1%	15.8%	15.2%	14.3%
2003	15.1%	14.9%	12.9%	12.7%	13.9%
2004	13.2%	16.5%	14.9%	14.2%	14.7%
2005	16.0%	16.4%	16.2%	15.2%	16.0%
2006	16.4%	18.2%	16.1%	15.4%	16.5%
2007	16.6%	15.4%	15.6%	11.0%	14.7%
2008	8.9%	11.4%	13.4%	12.6%	11.6%
2009	14.4%	18.2%	13.4%	7.3%	13.3%
2010	7.4%	7.7%	6.9%	8.4%	7.6%
2011	9.3%	9.5%	7.8%	7.2%	8.5%

Source: Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] GAO: Capitol Police: Retirement Benefits, Pay, Duties, and Attrition Compared to Other Federal Police Forces. GAO-12-58, January 24.

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:23:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Capitol Police: Retirement Benefits, Pay, Duties, and Attrition Compared to Other Federal Police Forces. GAO-12-58, January 24.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-58

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587909.pdf

[full-text, 70 pages]

What GAO Found

USCP generally has enhanced retirement benefits, a higher minimum starting salary, and a wider variety of protective duties than other federal police forces in the DC metro area that GAO reviewed, but has similar employment requirements. Even though USCP, Park Police, Supreme Court Police, and Secret Service Uniformed Division are federal police forces, they provide enhanced retirement benefits similar to those offered by federal law enforcement agencies that have additional investigative duties. These enhanced benefits allow their officers to retire early and accrue retirement pensions faster than other federal police forces. USCP and these three forces also offered among the highest minimum entry-level salaries—ranging from $52,020 to $55,653—than the other six forces GAO reviewed, which had minimum entry-level salaries ranging from $38,609 to $52,018. USCP reported routinely having a wider variety of duties than most other forces. These duties ranged from routinely protecting members of Congress to protecting buildings. USCP and most of the forces generally have similar employment requirements, such as being in good physical condition.

USCP’s attrition rate is generally lower than the majority of the federal police forces in our review; and USCP and seven of the other nine police forces considered human capital flexibilities to be at least of some importance to recruiting and retaining qualified officers, but use of these flexibilities generally depends on recruiting needs, among other factors. From fiscal years 2005 through 2010, USCP had the fourth lowest attrition rate (6.5 percent) among the 10 police forces GAO reviewed; the attrition rates for the nine other forces ranged from 3.5 percent to just under 14 percent. Officials from USCP and four other forces GAO reviewed stated that, currently, attrition is not a problem because of the challenging economy. For example, officials from USCP and Bureau of Engraving and Printing Police stated that their officers want to retain their jobs in the challenging economy. In addition, USCP and other forces said that when their officers do leave the force, they generally do so either because of personal reasons or for better career advancement opportunities, and officers generally stay for reasons such as good working environment or appreciation for the agency’s mission. The extent to which retirement benefits, pay, and use of human capital flexibilities affect attrition can vary among forces given other factors—such as family issues—that could influence an employee’s decision to leave or remain with his or her employer.

If fully utilized, benefits for USCP officers who retire at the age of 57 under existing provisions generally would be within the range of retirement income targets suggested by some retirement experts. However, the level of benefits depends significantly on the level of employee retirement contributions. In 2010, the USCP Labor Committee presented six proposals that would enhance the current USCP benefit structure. GAO’s analysis shows that five of the six would increase existing costs, GAO’s review found the other proposal, which urges the USCP Board to exercise its current authority to allow officers to voluntarily remain employed until age 60 rather than retire at age 57, as mandated, would have only a minimal impact on USCP costs and could increase officers’ retirement income.

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] ILO: GLOBAL EMPLOYMENT TRENDS 2012: PREVENTING A DEEPER JOBS CRISIS [24 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:04:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

International Labour Organization (ILO)

Global Employment Trends 2012: Preventing a deeper jobs crisis [24 January 2012]

http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/global-employment-trends/WCMS_171571/lang--en/index.htm

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_171571.pdf

[full-text, 121 pages]

The annual Global Employment Trends (GET) reports provide the latest global and regional estimates of employment and unemployment, employment by sector, vulnerable employment, labour productivity and working poverty, while also analysing country-level issues and trends in the labour market.

Based on the most recently available data and taking into account macroeconomic trends and forecasts, the GET reports seek to shed light on current labour market trends and challenges. The reports build on the Key Indicators of the Labour Market and include a consistent set of tables with regional and global estimates of labour market indicators. Each report contains a short-term labour market outlook, focusing on unemployment, vulnerable employment and working poverty.

The Global Employment Trends 2012 takes stock of labour market developments and emerging challenges as the world continues to struggle to forge a sustainable recovery from the global economic and jobs crisis.

The report is downloadable for free. If you wish to order copies, please contact: pubvente@ilo.org

Contains

1. Executive Summary - "Global Employment Trends 2012: Preventing a deeper jobs crisis"

2. Résumé analytique- "Tendances mondiales de l’emploi 2012: Prévenir une aggravation de la crise de l’emploi"

3. Resumen ejecutivo - "Tendencias Mundiales del Empleo 2012: Prevenir una crisis mayor del empleo"

4. Chapter 1: The macroeconomic outlook is deteriorating

5. Chapter 2: Global labour market situation

6. Chapter 3: Regional labour market and economic developments

7. Chapter 4: Policy options for growth with jobs

8. Appendices

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] HHS: 2012 POVERTY GUIDELINES [25 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:07:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Health and Human Resources

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines
[25 January 2012]
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml

The following figures are the 2012 HHS poverty guidelines that are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2012.
(Additional information will be posted after the guidelines are published.)

2012 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family/household	Poverty guideline
1	$11,170
2	15,130
3	19,090
4	23,050
5	27,010
6	30,970
7	34,930
8	38,890
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $3,960 for each additional person.

2012 Poverty Guidelines for Alaska
Persons in family/household	Poverty guideline
1	$13,970
2	18,920
3	23,870
4	28,820
5	33,770
6	38,720
7	43,670
8	48,620
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,950 for each additional person.

2012 Poverty Guidelines for Hawaii
Persons in family/household	Poverty guideline
1	$12,860
2	17,410
3	21,960
4	26,510
5	31,060
6	35,610
7	40,160
8	44,710
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,550 for each additional person.

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Census: Black (African-American) History Month: February 2012 [4 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:37:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Census

Facts for Features

CB12-FF.01 4 January 2012

Black (African-American) History Month: February 2012
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb12-ff01.html

Or
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb12ff-01_blackhistory.pdf

[full-text, 5 pages]

To commemorate and celebrate the contributions to our nation made by people of African descent, American historian Carter G. Woodson established Black History Week. The first celebration occurred on Feb. 12, 1926. For many years, the second week of February was set aside for this celebration to coincide with the birthdays of abolitionist/editor Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. In 1976, as part of the nation’s bicentennial, the week was expanded into Black History Month. Each year, U.S. presidents proclaim February as National African-American History Month.

Note: The reference to the black population in this publication is to single-race blacks (“black alone”) except in the first section on “Population.” There the reference is to black alone or in combination with other races; in other words, a reference to respondents who said they were one race (black) or more than one race (black plus other races).

Population

42 million

The number of people who identified as black, either alone or in combination with one or more other races, in the 2010 Census. They made up 13.6 percent of the total U.S. population. The black population grew by 15.4 percent from 2000 to 2010.
Source: The Black Population: 2010 <http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf>

65.7 million

The projected black population of the United States (including those of more than one race) for July 1, 2050. On that date, according to the projection, blacks would constitute 15 percent of the nation's total population.
Source: Population projections <http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb08-123.html>

3.3 million

The black population in New York, which led all states in 2010. The other nine states in the top 10 were Florida, Texas, Georgia, California, North Carolina, Illinois, Maryland, Virginia and Ohio.
Source: The Black Population <http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf>

38%

Percent of Mississippi's total population that was black in 2010. Mississippi led the nation in this category followed by Louisiana (33 percent), Georgia (32 percent), Maryland (31 percent), South Carolina (29 percent) and Alabama (27 percent).
Source: The Black Population: 2010 <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf>

52%

Percent of the total population in the District of Columbia that was black in 2010.
Source: The Black Population: 2010 <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf>

2.2 million

People who identified as black in New York City, which led all places with populations of 100,000 or more. It was followed by Chicago; Philadelphia; Detroit; Houston; Memphis, Tenn.; Baltimore; Los Angeles; Washington; and Dallas.
Source: The Black Population: 2010 <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf>

84.3%

Percent of the total population in Detroit, who identified as black, which is the highest percentage nationally among places with populations of 100,000 or more. It was followed by Jackson, Miss. (80.1 percent), Miami Gardens, Fla. (77.9 percent), Birmingham, Ala. (74.0 percent), Baltimore, (65.1 percent), Memphis, Tenn. (64.1 percent), New Orleans (61.2 percent), Flint, Mich. (59.5), Montgomery Ala. (57.4 percent) and Savannah, Ga. (56.7 percent).
Source: The Black Population: 2010 <www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf>

Serving Our Nation

2.4 million

Number of black military veterans in the United States in 2010.
Source: 2010 American Community Survey <http://factfinder2.census.gov>

Education

82%

Among blacks 25 and older, the percentage with a high school diploma or higher in 2010.
Source: 2010 American Community Survey <http://factfinder2.census.gov>

18%

Percentage of blacks 25 and older who had a bachelor's degree or higher in 2010.
Source: 2010 American Community Survey <http://factfinder2.census.gov>

1.5 million

Among blacks 25 and older, the number who had an advanced degree in 2010.
Source: 2010 American Community Survey <http://factfinder2.census.gov>

2.9 million

Number of blacks enrolled in college in 2010, a 1.7 million increase since 1990.
Source: 2010 Current Population Survey <http://www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/cps/historical/index.html>

Voting

11.1 million

The number of blacks who voted in the 2010 congressional election, an increase from 11 percent of the total electorate in 2006 to 12 percent in 2010.
Source: Voting and Registration in the Election of 2010 <http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb11-164.html>

55%

Turnout rate in the 2008 presidential election for the 18- to 24-year-old citizen black population, an 8 percentage point increase from 2004. Blacks had the highest turnout rate in this age group.
Source: Voting and Registration in the Election of 2008 <http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb09-110.html>

65%

Turnout rate among black citizens regardless of age in the 2008 presidential election, up about 5 percentage points from 2004. Looking at voter turnout by race and Hispanic origin, non-Hispanic whites and blacks had the highest turnout levels.
Source: Voting and Registration in the Election of 2008 <http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/voting/cb09-110.html>

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance

$32,068

The annual median income of black households in 2010, a decline of 3.2 percent from 2009.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States
<http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html>

27.4%

Poverty rate in 2010 for blacks.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010
<http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf?>

79.2%

Percentage of blacks that were covered by health insurance during all or part of 2010.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States
<http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/health/h01_006.htm>

Families and Children

62.5%

Among households with a black householder, the percentage that contained a family. There were 9.4 million black family households.
Source: 2011 Current Population Survey, Families and Living Arrangements, Table F1 and Table HH-2

44.4%

Among families with black householders, the percentage that were married couples. Source: 2011 Families and Living Arrangements, Table F1

1.3 million

Number of black grandparents who lived with their own grandchildren younger than 18. Of this number, 47.6 percent were also responsible for their care.
Source: 2010 American Community Survey <http://factfinder.census.gov>

Homeownership

44.2%

Nationally, the percentage of households with a householder who was black who lived in owner-occupied homes.
Source: 2010 American Community Survey <http://factfinder.census.gov>

Jobs

28.4%

The percentage of blacks 16 and older who worked in management, business, science and arts occupations.
Source: 2010 American Community Survey <http://factfinder.census.gov>

Businesses

$135.7 billion

Receipts for black-owned businesses in 2007, up 53.1 percent from 2002. The number of black-owned businesses totaled 1.9 million in 2007, up 60.5 percent.
Source: 2007 Survey of Business Owners <http://factfinder2.census.gov>

37.7%

Percentage of black-owned businesses in 2007 in health care and social assistance, repair and maintenance and personal and laundry services.
Source: 2007 Survey of Business Owners <http://factfinder2.census.gov>

10.6%

Percentage of businesses in New York in 2007 that were black-owned, which led all states or state-equivalents. Georgia and Florida followed, at 9.6 percent and 9.4 percent, respectively.
Source: 2007 Survey of Business Owners <http://factfinder2.census.gov>

________________________________________________________________________

BLS: MASS LAYOFFS -- DECEMBER 2011 & ANNUAL TOTALS -- 2011 [25 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:19:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

MASS LAYOFFS -- DECEMBER 2011

ANNUAL TOTALS -- 2011 [25 January 2012]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mmls.nr0.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/mmls.pdf

[full-text, 10 pages]

Employers took 1,384 mass layoff actions in December involving 145,648

workers, seasonally adjusted, as measured by new filings for

unemployment insurance benefits during the month, the U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics reported today. Each mass layoff involved at least 50

workers from a single employer. Mass layoff events in December increased

by 52 from November, and associated initial claims increased by 14,021.

In December, 351 mass layoff events were reported in the manufacturing

sector, seasonally adjusted, resulting in 39,081 initial claims.

(See table 1.)

___________________________________________________________________

| |

| Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Mass Layoff Data |

| |

| Seasonally adjusted mass layoff data have been revised using |

| updated seasonal adjustment factors that incorporate 2011 |

| data. Seasonally adjusted estimates back to January 2007 |

| were subject to revision. Revised seasonally adjusted data |

| from January 2008 forward are shown in table 1. The |

| originally published and revised figures for January 2007- |

| November 2011 will be available at |

| www.bls.gov/mls/mlssarevision.htm, along with additional |

| information about the revisions. |

| |

|__________________________________________________________________|

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] World Bank: GOLDEN GROWTH: RESTORING THE LUSTRE OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC MODEL [24 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:21:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

World Bank

GOLDEN GROWTH: RESTORING THE LUSTRE OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC MODEL [24 January 2012]

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/0,,contentMDK:23069550~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258599,00.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/0,,contentMDK:23074045~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258599,00.html

[FULL-TEXT]

and

INPUT PAPERS

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/0,,contentMDK:23074113~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258599,00.html

and

COUNTRY BENCHMARKS

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/0,,contentMDK:23074114~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258599,00.html

The report documents the impressive achievements of the European growth model over the last 50 years. Accounting for the stresses it is experiencing and assessing the longer-term challenges that Europe will face, the report then evaluates the six principal components of the model: Trade, Finance, Enterprise, Innovation, Labor, and Government. It finds that the European growth model has been a powerful engine for economic convergence, helping developing countries in Europe catch up to their richer neighbors and become high-income economies. But recent changes in and outside Europe necessitate change. The report proposes the adjustments needed to make trade and finance work even better, to encourage enterprise and innovation in parts of Europe which have begun to lag, and address shortcomings in the functioning of labor markets and governments. The changes proposed would restart the European convergence machine, make Europe's enterprises competitive, and help Europeans afford the highest standards of living in the world.

Press Release 24 January 2012]

Build on Strengths of Europe’s Growth Model While Pursuing Reforms, Says World Bank Report

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23094165~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html

BRUSSELS, January 24, 2012 – The European growth model has been an engine for economic convergence during the past few decades and has delivered prosperity to hundreds of millions of people on the continent, says a new World Bank report “Golden Growth: Restoring the Lustre of the European Economic Model”, launched today in Brussels.

AND MUCH MORE....

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Dublin Foundation: CASE STUDIES ON THE IMPACT OF THE RECESSION ON AGE MANAGEMENT POLICIES [24 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:10:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation)

CASE STUDIES ON THE IMPACT OF THE RECESSION ON AGE MANAGEMENT POLICIES [24 January 2012]

· Impact of the recession on age management policies - Case study: BARCO, Belgium en
According to representatives of the company interviewed for this case study, there has been a greater willingness to recruit people aged 50 or more during the economic cycle of the past two to three years, but this is cyclical. Typically, when demand for labour [...]

Impact of the recession on age management policies - Case study: Made in Inox, Belgium en
The experience of Made in Inox shows that micro-businesses are unlikely to have a dedicated human resources policy. Rather, they will have a general approach with informal processes, some specific age-related initiatives, and they will also aim to foster a specific organisational culture. Micro-businesses [...]

Impact of the recession on age management policies - Case study: Media Company, Czech Republic en
According to the head of the HR department, age management is a relatively recent concept in the Czech Republic. However, although the concept is still developing, the majority of HR officers in Czech organisations have already introduced age management measures to some extent into [...]

Impact of the recession on age management policies - Case study: T-Mobile, Czech Republic en
T-Mobile HR manager confirmed that age management is an emerging concept in the Czech Republic in general and in the company’s HR policy in particular. Czech firms have not developed age management measures in greater extent due to the excess of labour force supply [...]

Impact of the recession on age management policies - Case study: MOL Group, Hungary en
MOL faces a number of challenges related to an ageing workforce. As a formerly state-owned company, there is a tradition of lifelong careers that makes MOL attractive for employees. HR policies currently continue to support lifelong employment. The company’s approach is to seek to [...]

Impact of the recession on age management policies - Case study: Magyar Telekom Group, Hungary en
MT age management policies are viewed internally to be in line with trends among similar large companies in Hungary. Large companies, including MT, are generally characterised by a relatively secure position in the market. They are subsequently able to maintain a consistent HR policy [...]

Impact of the recession on age management policies - Case study: Vattenfall Nordic and Vattenfall Services, Sweden en
Vattenfall launched its age management programme in 2001. As an early adopter of such programmes and policies, Vattenfall has been seen as a forerunner in Sweden. It won an Employer of the Year Award in 2006 and received considerable attention in the media for [...]

Impact of the recession on age management policies - Case study: Cambridgeshire County Council, United Kingdom en
Cambridgeshire County Council’s 2006–2010 people strategy sets priorities and limits on age management of employees. It commits the council to encouraging and maintaining diversity in recruitment and promotion, letting of contracts, training, and in publicity for and access to services. To support age diversity [...]

Impact of the recession on age management policies - Case study: BT, United Kingdom en
BT has an ‘age neutral’ approach to promoting diversity and equality among age groups in its workforce. The organisation’s equal opportunities and diversity policy aims to ensure everyone should have the same opportunities for employment and promotion based on their ability, qualifications and suitability [...]

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS FOURTH QUARTER 2011 [24 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 19:02:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS FOURTH QUARTER 2011 [24 January 2012]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

[full-text, 14 pages]

Median weekly earnings of the nation's 101.5 million full-time wage and salary

workers were $764 in the fourth quarter of 2011 (not seasonally adjusted), the

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This was 1.6 percent higher

than a year earlier, compared with a gain of 3.3 percent in the Consumer

Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) over the same period.

Data on usual weekly earnings are collected as part of the Current Population

Survey, a nationwide sample survey of households in which respondents are

asked, among other things, how much each wage and salary worker usually earns.

(See the Technical Note.) Data shown in this release are not seasonally adjusted

unless otherwise specified. Highlights from the fourth-quarter data are:

--Seasonally adjusted median weekly earnings were $762 in the

fourth quarter of 2011, little changed from the previous quarter

($758). (See table 1.)

--On a not seasonally adjusted basis, median weekly earnings were $764

in the fourth quarter of 2011. Women who usually worked full time had

median weekly earnings of $688, or 81.6 percent of the $843 median

for men. (See table 2.)

--The female-to-male earnings ratio varied by race and ethnicity.

White women earned 81.4 percent as much as their male counterparts,

compared with black (91.1 percent), Asian (80.3 percent), and Hispanic

women (90.4 percent). (See table 2.)

--Among the major race and ethnicity groups, median weekly earnings

for black men working at full-time jobs were $660 per week, or 75.8

percent of the median for white men ($871). The difference was less

among women, as black women's median earnings ($601) were 84.8 percent

of those for white women ($709). Overall, median earnings of Hispanics

who worked full time ($537) were lower than those of blacks ($621),

whites ($786), and Asians ($880). (See table 2.)

--Usual weekly earnings of full-time workers varied by age. Among

men, those age 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 had the highest median weekly

earnings--$993 and $1,029, respectively. Usual weekly earnings were

highest for women age 35 to 64; weekly earnings were $737 for women

age 35 to 44, $757 for women age 45 to 54, and $742 for women age 55

to 64. Workers age 16 to 24 had the lowest median weekly earnings, at

$447. (See table 3.)

--Among the major occupational groups, persons employed full time

in management, professional, and related occupations had the highest

median weekly earnings--$1,274 for men and $946 for women. Men and

women employed in service jobs earned the least, $578 and $440,

respectively. (See table 4.)

--By educational attainment, full-time workers age 25 and over

without a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $444,

compared with $641 for high school graduates (no college) and $1,158

for those holding at least a bachelor's degree. Among college

graduates with advanced degrees (professional or master's degree and

above), the highest earning 10 percent of male workers made $3,146 or

more per week, compared with $2,303 or more for their female

counterparts. (See table 5.)

Annual Averages for 2010 and 2011

In addition to the data for the fourth quarter, this release includes

2010 and 2011 annual averages of median weekly earnings for major

demographic and occupational groups, and 2011 annual average data for

educational attainment groups. (See tables 7, 8, and 9.) Annual

average data on median usual weekly earnings for men and women by detailed

occupational categories will be posted online at www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm

when they become available.

------------------------------------------------------------------

| |

| Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Usual Weekly Earnings Data |

| |

| Seasonally adjusted median usual weekly earnings data shown in |

| table 1 of this release have been revised using updated seasonal |

| adjustment factors from the Current Population Survey, a |

| procedure done at the end of each calendar year. The revisions |

| directly affected the number of full-time wage and salary |

| workers and current dollar estimates of median weekly earnings; |

| estimates of constant (1982-84) dollar median weekly earnings |

| were indirectly affected. Seasonally adjusted estimates back to |

| the first quarter of 2007 were subject to revision. |

| |

| The Usual Weekly Earnings news release for the first quarter of |

| 2012, scheduled for release on April 17, 2012, will incorporate |

| revisions to the seasonally adjusted data for the median weekly |

| earnings in constant (1982-84) dollars. Seasonally adjusted |

| constant (1982-84) dollar estimates back to the first quarter of |

| 2007 will be subject to revision due to annual revisions to |

| seasonally adjusted data for the Consumer Price Index for All |

| Urban Consumers (CPI-U). |

| |

------------------------------------------------------------------

AND MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BLS: REGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- DECEMBER 2011 [24 January 2012]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:57:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

REGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- DECEMBER 2011 [24 January 2012]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/laus.pdf

[full-text, 21 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus.supp.toc.htm

Regional and state unemployment rates were slightly lower in December. Thirty-seven

states and the District of Columbia recorded unemployment rate decreases, 3 states posted

rate increases, and 10 states had no rate change, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

reported today. Forty-six states registered unemployment rate decreases from a year earlier,

while four states and the District of Columbia experienced increases. The national jobless

rate, 8.5 percent, continued to trend down in December and was 0.9 percentage point lower

than in December 2010.

In December, nonfarm payroll employment increased in 25 states and the District of Columbia,

decreased in 24 states, and was unchanged in 1 state. The largest over-the-month increase

in employment occurred in Texas (+20,200), followed by Indiana (+15,100) and California

(+10,700). The largest over-the-month decrease in employment occurred in New York (-14,000),

followed by Missouri (-11,800) and Washington (-11,600). South Dakota experienced the

largest over-the-month percentage increase in employment (+1.1 percent), followed by North

Dakota (+0.9 percent) and Indiana, Kentucky, and Utah (+0.5 percent each). Nevada experienced

the largest over-the-month percentage decline in employment (-0.9 percent), followed by

Alaska (-0.5 percent) and Maine, Missouri, and Washington (-0.4 percent each). Over the year,

nonfarm employment increased in 46 states and the District of Columbia and decreased in

4 states. The largest over-the-year percentage increase occurred in North Dakota

(+5.7 percent), followed by Utah (+3.0 percent) and Oklahoma (+2.7 percent). The largest

over-the-year percentage decrease in employment occurred in Delaware (-0.7 percent),

followed by Alaska (-0.5 percent) and Georgia (-0.4 percent).

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

IWS Documented News DAILY POSTINGS

[IWS] BLS: Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, 2011 Annual Averages [27 January 2012]

Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, 2011 Annual Averages [27 January 2012] http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm

[IWS] BLS: TRACKING EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH BENEFITS IN CHANGING TIMES [27 January 2012]

[IWS] Towers Watson: High Performing Sales Managers Spend More Time on Sales, Less Time on Administrative Activities [23 January 2012]

[IWS] CRS: INTERNATIONAL TRADE: RULES OF ORIGIN [5 January 2012]

[IWS] NCHS: Health and Access to Care Among Employed and Unemployed Adults: United States, 2009–2010 [24 January 2012]

[IWS] Call for Papers: "HRM and (SOCIAL) INNOVATION" (ILERA HRM Study Group Meeting 2012, Philadelphia, USA)

[IWS] BLS: UNION MEMBERS -- 2011 [27 January 2012]

[IWS] BEA: Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter and Annual 2011 (advance estimate) [27 January 2012]

[IWS] Census: RACE & ETHNIC GROUPS (by STATE) 2010 DETAIL [updated 26 January 2012]

[IWS] Executive Order -- Establishing Visa and Foreign Visitor Processing Goals and the Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness [

[IWS] Mercer/WEF: [GLOBAL] TALENT MOBILITY GOOD PRACTICES: COLLABORATION AT THE CORE OF DRIVING ECONOMIC GROWTH [23 January 2012]

[IWS] SBA: 2011 SMALL BUSINESS PROFILES FOR THE STATES AND TERRITORIES [26 January 2012]

[IWS] CRS: PROPOSED KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE: LEGAL ISSUES [23 January 2012]

[IWS] CRS: BORDER SECURITY: IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT BETWEEN PORTS OF ENTRY [6 January 2012]

[IWS] Challenger: RELOCATION FALLS TO NEAR RECORD LOW--JUST 7.5% OF JOB SEEKERS MOVE FOR NEW POSITIONS IN SECOND HALF OF 2011 [26 January 2012]

[IWS] GAO: Capitol Police: Retirement Benefits, Pay, Duties, and Attrition Compared to Other Federal Police Forces. GAO-12-58, January 24.

[IWS] ILO: GLOBAL EMPLOYMENT TRENDS 2012: PREVENTING A DEEPER JOBS CRISIS [24 January 2012]

Contains

[IWS] HHS: 2012 POVERTY GUIDELINES [25 January 2012]

[IWS] Census: Black (African-American) History Month: February 2012 [4 January 2012]

BLS: MASS LAYOFFS -- DECEMBER 2011 & ANNUAL TOTALS -- 2011 [25 January 2012]

[IWS] World Bank: GOLDEN GROWTH: RESTORING THE LUSTRE OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC MODEL [24 January 2012]

[IWS] Dublin Foundation: CASE STUDIES ON THE IMPACT OF THE RECESSION ON AGE MANAGEMENT POLICIES [24 January 2012]

[IWS] USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS FOURTH QUARTER 2011 [24 January 2012]

[IWS] BLS: REGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- DECEMBER 2011 [24 January 2012]

Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, 2011 Annual Averages [27 January 2012]
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm