Friday, April 18, 2014

Tweet

[IWS] WHAT KINDS OF HEALTH INSURANCE DO SMALL BUSINESSES OFFER? RESULTS FROM A SURVEY OF FIVE STATES [14 April 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

 

Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

 

WHAT KINDS OF HEALTH INSURANCE DO SMALL BUSINESSES OFFER? RESULTS FROM A SURVEY OF FIVE STATES [14 April 2014]

by Catherine McLaughlin and Adam Swinburn

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2014/rwjf412363/subassets/rwjf412363_1

[full-text, 6 pages]

 

Mathematica Policy Research conducted the Small Business Health Insurance Survey, an online and telephone survey, to

gain insight into the likely effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on small businesses before some key provisions took

effect. The data provide a baseline against which health insurance offered by small businesses can be compared after these

provisions go into effect. The survey, which was conducted from November 2012 to September 2013, included Alabama,

Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon—5 of the 11 states in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s State Health

Reform Assistance Network.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] CRS: U.S. FOREIGN AID TO ISRAEL [11 April 2014]

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)

 

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel

Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs

April 11, 2014

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

[full-text, 30 pages]

 

Summary

This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance to Israel. It includes a review of past

aid programs, data on annual assistance, and an analysis of current issues. For general

information on Israel, see CRS Report RL33476, Israel: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jim

Zanotti.

 

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date,

the United States has provided Israel $121 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in

bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance,

although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional

support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to any other countries; for

example, Israel can use some U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the

United States and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, U.S. assistance

earmarked for Israel is generally delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year, while most other

recipients normally receive aid in installments, and Israel (as is also the case with Egypt) is

permitted to use cash flow financing for its U.S. arms purchases. In addition to receiving U.S.

State Department-administered foreign assistance, Israel also receives funds from annual defense

appropriations bills for rocket and missile defense programs. Israel pursues some of those

programs jointly with the United States.

 

In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to a 10-year, $30 billion

military aid package for the period from FY2009 to FY2018. During his March 2013 visit to

Israel, President Obama pledged that the United States would continue to provide Israel with

multi-year commitments of military aid subject to the approval of Congress.

The FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-76) provides the President’s full $3.1

billion request in FMF for Israel. In addition, it provides another $504 million in funding for

research, development, and production of Israel’s Iron Dome anti-rocket system ($235 million)

and of the joint U.S.-Israel missile defense systems David’s Sling ($149.7 million), the Arrow

improvement program (or Arrow II, $44.3 million), and Arrow III ($74.7 million).

For FY2015, the Administration is requesting $3.1 billion in FMF to Israel and $10 million in

Migration and Refugee Assistance. The Missile Defense Agency’s FY2015 request for joint U.S.-

Israeli programs is $96.8 million. The Administration also is requesting $175.9 million for Iron

Dome.

 

Contents

Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 1

The United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act (H.R. 938, S. 462) ........................................... 1

Sequestration and U.S. Aid to Israel ................................................................................................ 2

Qualitative Military Edge (QME) .................................................................................................... 2

U.S. Bilateral Military Aid to Israel ................................................................................................. 4

The 10-Year Military Aid Agreement ........................................................................................ 4

Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and Arms Sales .................................................................. 5

Cash Flow Financing ........................................................................................................... 6

Early Transfer and Interest Bearing Account ...................................................................... 6

FMF for In-Country Purchase ............................................................................................. 6

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter...................................................................................................... 7

Excess Defense Articles ............................................................................................................ 8

Defense Budget Appropriations for U.S.-Israeli Missile Defense Programs ................................... 8

Multi-Tiered Missile and Rocket Defense ................................................................................. 9

Iron Dome ........................................................................................................................... 9

David’s Sling ....................................................................................................................... 9

The Arrow and Arrow II .................................................................................................... 10

High Altitude Missile Defense System (Arrow III) .......................................................... 11

X-Band Radar .................................................................................................................... 11

Emergency U.S. Stockpile in Israel ......................................................................................... 12

Aid Restrictions and Possible Violations ....................................................................................... 13

Israeli Arms Transfers to Third Parties .................................................................................... 14

Other Ongoing Assistance and Cooperative Programs .................................................................. 16

Migration & Refugee Assistance ............................................................................................. 16

Loan Guarantees ...................................................................................................................... 17

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 17

Loan Guarantees for Economic Recovery......................................................................... 17

American Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program (ASHA) ................................................... 19

U.S.-Israeli Scientific & Business Cooperation ...................................................................... 20

U.S.-Israeli Energy Cooperation ....................................................................................... 21

 

Tables

Table 1. U.S. Contributions to the Arrow Program (Arrow, Arrow II, and Arrow III) .................. 10

Table 2. Defense Budget Appropriations for U.S.-Israeli Missile Defense: FY2006-FY2014 Request .......................................... 12

Table 3. Migration and Refugee Assistance Funding Levels ......................................................... 16

Table 4. U.S. Loan Guarantees to Israel: FY2003-FY2013 ........................................................... 18

Table 5. ASHA Program Grants from Israel Account, FY2000-FY2012 ...................................... 19

Table B-1. Recent U.S. Bilateral Aid to Israel ............................................................................... 26

Table B-2. U.S. Assistance to Israel, FY1949-FY1996 ................................................................. 27

Table B-3. U.S. Assistance to Israel, FY1949-FY1996 ................................................................. 29

 

Appendixes

Appendix A. Historical Background .............................................................................................. 23

Appendix B. Bilateral Aid to Israel ............................................................................................... 26

 

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 30

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 


Tweet

[IWS] BLS: REGIONAL AND STATE EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- MARCH 2014 [18 April 2014]

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 -- MARCH 2014 [18 April 2014]

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

or

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

[full-text, 19 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

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

 

 

Regional and state unemployment rates were generally little changed in March. Twenty-one

states had unemployment rate decreases, 17 states and the District of Columbia had

increases, and 12 states had no change, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported

today. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia had unemployment rate decreases

from a year earlier and four states had increases. The national jobless rate was

unchanged from February at 6.7 percent but was 0.8 percentage point lower than in

March 2013.

 

In March 2014, nonfarm payroll employment increased in 34 states, decreased in 16

states, and was unchanged in the District of Columbia. The largest over-the-month

increases in employment occurred in Florida (+22,900), North Carolina (+19,400), and

Georgia (+14,600). The largest over-the-month decrease in employment occurred in

Pennsylvania (-8,400), followed by Virginia (-5,100) and Illinois (-3,200). The

largest over-the-month percentage increases in employment occurred in North Carolina,

North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming (+0.5 percent each). The largest

over-the-month percentage decline in employment occurred in Nebraska (-0.3 percent),

followed by New Mexico and Rhode Island (-0.2 percent each). Over the year, nonfarm

employment increased in 45 states and the District of Columbia and decreased in 5 states.

The largest over-the-year percentage increase occurred in North Dakota (+4.5 percent),

followed by Nevada (+3.8 percent) and Florida (+3.0 percent). The largest over-the-year

percentage decreases in employment occurred in Alaska, Kentucky, and New Mexico (-0.2

percent each).

 

Regional Unemployment (Seasonally Adjusted)

 

In March, the West continued to have the highest regional unemployment rate, 7.2 percent,

while the South again had the lowest rate, 6.0 percent. Over the month, only the Midwest

had a statistically significant unemployment rate change (-0.1 percentage point).

Significant over-the-year rate declines occurred in all four regions: the South (-1.2

percentage points), Northeast (-1.1 points), West (-1.0 point), and Midwest (-0.8 point).

(See table 1.)

 

Among the nine geographic divisions, the Pacific continued to have the highest jobless

rate, 7.6 percent in March. The West North Central again had the lowest rate, 5.1 percent.

Two divisions had statistically significant over-the-month unemployment rate changes: the

East North Central and West South Central (-0.2 percentage point each). Eight divisions

had significant rate changes from a year earlier, all of which were decreases. The largest

of these declines occurred in the South Atlantic (-1.5 percentage points) and Middle

Atlantic (-1.4 points).

 

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

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] BLS: THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS OF THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX: A METHODOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY [14 April 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

 

Monthly Labor Review

 

The first hundred years of the Consumer Price Index: a methodological and political history [14 April 2014]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/the-first-hundred-years-of-the-consumer-price-index-1.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/pdf/the-first-hundred-years-of-the-consumer-price-index.pdf

[full-text, 43 pages]

 

From businesses to government agencies to senior citizens, groups with often competing aims and desires use the Consumer Price Index. In attempting to satisfy their disparate needs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics frequently is challenged to produce a statistic that is both timely and accurate. This technical and political history explains both how and why the Bureau has come to produce a family of Consumer Price Indexes to address the challenge.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] OECD: INTERNATIONAL VAT/GST GUIDELINES [18 April 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

 

INTERNATIONAL VAT/GST GUIDELINES [18 April 2014]

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/consumption/international-vat-gst-guidelines.htm

or

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/consumption/international-vat-gst-guidelines.pdf

[full-text, 61 pages]

 

The Guidelines seek to address the problems that arise from national VAT systems being applied in an uncoordinated way. They set standards that should ensure neutrality in cross-border trade and a more coherent taxation of business-to-business (B2B) trade in services.

 

Contents:

 

Chapter 1. Core features of VAT

Chapter 2. Neutrality of VAT in the context of cross-border trade

Chapter 3. Place of taxation for B2B cross-border supplies of services and intangibles

 

Press Release 18 April 2014

Governments endorse new OECD Guidelines on applying VAT across borders
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/governments-endorse-new-oecd-guidelines-on-applying-vat-across-borders.htm

 

18/04/2014 - The governments of 86 countries have taken a key step towards preventing value added tax from weighing on trade while also safeguarding state revenues by endorsing the first internationally agreed framework for applying national VAT rules to cross-border transactions.

 

More than 250 high-level representatives of around 100 countries, jurisdictions and international organisations attending the OECD Global Forum on VAT meeting in Tokyo on 17-18 April endorsed a new set of OECD Guidelines for the application of VAT or GST (Goods and Services Tax) to international trade.

 

These International Guidelines seek to address the problems that arise from national VAT systems being applied in an uncoordinated way in the context of international trade. They set standards aimed at ensuring neutrality in cross-border trade and a more coherent taxation of business-to-business (B2B) trade in services.

 

“The endorsement of these Guidelines is a big step towards reducing double taxation and under-taxation in trade,” OECD Deputy Secretary-General Rintaro Tamaki told the Forum (read full speech here) “The Guidelines are good for the private sector and good for governments as they should boost both trade and tax revenues. I encourage countries to start using them from today.”

 

This year’s Forum also discussed the equity impact of VAT. Countries often implement reduced rates to alleviate the burden on poorer households but discussions at the Forum confirmed that this is a very expensive way of providing support to the poor, particularly when compared to the use of targeted cash transfers. See the Statement of Outcomes here.

 

VAT is a major source of revenue for governments but becomes problematic when the tax is applied to international trade, particularly in services, as different tax jurisdictions often use different rules to determine which of them has the right to tax a transaction. This creates the risk of double taxation, which hurts trade, and under-taxation, which hurts governments.

 

The Guidelines set standards in two key areas: ensuring VAT neutrality and making taxes on B2B trade in services destination-based. The first makes sure VAT targets private consumption and not businesses, so it has a neutral effect on production and levels the playing field for domestic and foreign businesses in cross-border trade. The second should ensure that B2B trade in services is only taxed in the country of the recipient of the service.

 

The OECD is working with all the Global Forum participants to extend its Guidelines to cross-border sales of services to private consumers (B2C), an area that is growing strongly with the rise in online shopping.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Thursday, April 17, 2014

Tweet

[IWS] U.S. Chamber of Commerce: THE BLUE EAGLE HAS LANDED: THE PARADIGM SHIFT FROM MAJORITY RULE TO MEMBERS-ONLY REPRESENTATION [16 April 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Workforce Freedom Initiative (WFI)

 

THE BLUE EAGLE HAS LANDED: THE PARADIGM SHIFT FROM MAJORITY RULE TO MEMBERS-ONLY REPRESENTATION [16 April 2014]

http://www.workforcefreedom.com/publications/new-study-blue-eagle-has-landed-paradigm-shift-majority-rule-members-only-representatio

or

http://www.workforcefreedom.com/sites/default/files/REPORT%20WFI_MembersOnlyUnions_Report_FIN.pdf

[full-text, 42 pages]

 

 

INTRODUCTION: WORKER CENTERS AND THE PROMOTION OF MEMBERS-ONLY UNIONS

 

For nearly a century, the labor relations system of the United States has been premised upon the principles of industrial democracy and majority rule. Under this system, created by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), if a majority of employees in an appropriate unit wishes to be represented by a labor organization, then — assuming the proper steps are followed to objectively establish that majority status — the labor organization becomes the exclusive representative of all employees in the unit and an employer must bargain with that labor organization. The U.S. system differs from that which exists in other parts of the world, most notably in Europe, where employers are regularly required to bargain with unions solely on behalf of their members under a system known as minority, or members-only, unionism. Congress considered such a system during its debates over passage of the NLRA (also known as the Wagner Act) and the Taft-Hartley Act, and it was expressly rejected.

 

Organized labor has seen union density rates fall from roughly 35% of the workforce in the 1950s to 11.3% today. It is not necessary to discuss in this paper the reasons for this decline; of greater interest is labor’s response to what it considers a significant problem. Its efforts have ranged from promoting the failed “card check” legislation to seeking policy changes through the regulatory agencies and utilizing new organizing tactics such as corporate campaigns.

 

One of the most recent efforts embraced by traditional labor unions to reverse their decline has been to promote and embrace so-called worker centers. The worker center model of representation differs significantly from that envisioned under U.S. labor laws. Specifically, worker centers seek to negotiate with employers on behalf of employees whom they may not actually represent. In fact, many of the recent protests promoted by worker centers are conducted with the support of, at most, a handful of employees. There is no evidence that a majority of workers wants these groups to advocate or negotiate for them.

 

Worker centers originated in the American South in the 1970s and 1980s. As mentioned above, however, traditional labor unions have begun to support and finance worker centers, and have actively engaged with them. The AFL-CIO has even attempted to establish its own worker center through its “Working America” initiative, which claims to have 3 million members. What has been missing, though, is a strategy for organized labor to turn its investment in worker centers into actual union members with an accompanying revenue stream. The solution may lie in a significant paradigm shift in labor law toward a members-only union model.

 

At the same time worker centers have become an increasingly important part of the union strategy for renewal, the institutions charged with administering the nation’s labor laws have started to subtly accommodate or even promote members-only representation.

 

The principal actors include the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, or “Board”) and the United States Department of Labor (DOL). These agencies have taken positions and issued decisions that, when viewed as a whole, have advanced a members-only model of representation. For example, the NLRB has issued several decisions that empower small groups of workers and enhance their ability to influence employers. A number of key prosecutorial decisions also appear to favor members-only representation. Similarly, the DOL has taken measures to empower worker centers by funding them with grants and according them a special role as advocates for workers.

 

This shift toward a members-only model could represent the leading edge of a significant change in labor law — with far-reaching effects. Not only would a members-only system empower and embolden groups that have not been selected by a majority of employees to speak on its behalf, but it would also enable traditional labor unions to organize and begin collecting dues from small pockets of workers recruited through worker centers.

 

Such a system would be fundamentally at odds with the principles of workplace democracy as we have known them for decades. It would also undermine the intent of the NLRA, which was to strike a balance between the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, and the free flow of commerce. Unless Congress changes the law to offer an alternative structure, the agencies responsible for administering that law should stay true to that mandate.

 

This article will address this subject in three sections. The first will cover the legal theories behind the viability of members-only representation. The second will address how that theory is inconsistent with the basic principles of U.S. labor laws. The third will survey how organized labor, the NLRB, and the DOL have begun to effectuate the paradigm shift toward members-only representation.

 

- See more at: http://www.workforcefreedom.com/publications/new-study-blue-eagle-has-landed-paradigm-shift-majority-rule-members-only-representatio#sthash.OUJpKyTg.dpuf

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] BJS: NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003-2012 [17 April 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

 

NONFATAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2003-2012 [17 April 2014]

by Rachel E. Morgan, Ph.D., Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4984

or

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf

[full-text, 21 pages]

 

Presents estimates on nonfatal domestic violence from 2003 to 2012. Domestic violence includes victimization committed by current or former intimate partners (spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends), parents, children, siblings, and other relatives. This report focuses on the level and pattern of domestic violence over time, highlighting selected victim and incident characteristics. Incident characteristics include the type of violence, the offender's use of a weapon, victim injury and medical treatment, and whether the incident was reported to police. The report provides estimates of acquaintance and stranger violence for comparison. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to police. The NCVS is a self-report survey administered every six months to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households.

 

Highlights:

 

-In 2003–12, domestic violence accounted for 21% of all violent crime. 

-A greater percentage of domestic violence was committed by intimate partners (15%) than immediate family members (4%) or other relatives (2%).

-Current or former boyfriends or girlfriends committed most domestic violence.

-Females (76%) experienced more domestic violence victimizations than males (24%).

 

Press Release 17 April 2014

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACCOUNTED FOR ABOUT A FIFTH OF ALL VIOLENT VICTIMIZATIONS BETWEEN 2003 AND 2012

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/ndv0312pr.cfm

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 


Tweet

[IWS] CBO: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENT'S 2015 BUDGET [17 April 2014]

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 Budget Office (CBO)

 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENT'S 2015 BUDGET [17 April 2014]

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45230?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=812526&utm_campaign=0

or

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45230-APB_1.pdf

[full-text, 23 pages]

 

[excerpt]

This report by CBO presents an analysis of the proposals in the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2015, as submitted to the Congress on March 4, 2014. The analysis is based on CBO’s economic projections and estimating models (rather than the Administration’s), and it incorporates estimates of the effects of the President’s tax proposals that were prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

 

In conjunction with analyzing the President’s budget, CBO has updated its baseline budget projections, which were previously issued in February 2014. Unlike its estimates of the President’s budget, CBO’s baseline projections largely reflect the assumption that current tax and spending laws will remain unchanged, and therefore the projections provide a benchmark against which potential legislation can be measured. Under that assumption, CBO estimates that the federal deficit would total $492 billion in 2014 and that the cumulative deficit over the 2015–2024 period would amount to $7.6 trillion.

 

How Would the President’s Proposals Affect Federal Deficits and Debt?

 

The President’s budget request specifies spending and revenue policies for the 2015–2024 period and includes initiatives that would have budgetary effects in fiscal year 2014 as well. CBO and JCT estimate that enactment of the President’s proposals would boost deficits from 2014 through 2016 but reduce them (by generally increasing amounts) from 2017 through 2024, relative to projected deficits under CBO’s baseline. In particular, the President’s policies are estimated to have the following consequences for federal deficits and debt:

 

-For 2014 and 2015, the deficit would be about $500 billion, or 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Under the President’s policies, deficits would generally increase in subsequent years through 2024 in nominal dollars, growing to between roughly $700 billion and $800 billion at the end of the period.

 

-Deficits would be smaller than the amounts in CBO’s baseline each year from 2017 through 2024 (see the figure below). Although baseline deficits trend upward, to about 4 percent of GDP in the latter years of the projection period, under the President’s proposals the deficit would remain close to 3 percent of GDP throughout the decade—which is similar to the average deficit of 3.1 percent experienced over the past 40 years. By the end of the 10-year period, the deficit under the President’s budget would be below the projections in CBO’s baseline by nearly 1 percent of GDP.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] NSF: Unemployment among Doctoral Scientists and Engineers Increased but Remained Below the National Average [17 April 2014]

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 Science Foundation (NSF)

 

Unemployment among Doctoral Scientists and Engineers Increased but Remained Below the National Average [17 April 2014]

by Carolina Milesi, Lance A. Selfa, and Lynn M. Milan

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14310/

or

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14310/nsf14310.pdf

[full-text, 6 pages]

 

[excerpt]

In 2010, an estimated 805,500 individuals in the United States held research doctoral degrees in science, engineering, and health (SEH) fields, an increase of 6.2% from 2008.[2] Of these individuals, 709,700 were in the labor force, which includes those employed full time or part time and those actively seeking work (i.e., unemployed). The unemployment rate for SEH doctorate recipients was 2.4% in October 2010, up from 1.7% in October 2008 and similar to the rate in October 2003 (table 1).[3] Moreover, the 2010 unemployment rate of the SEH doctoral labor force was about one-third of the October 2010 unemployment rate for the general population aged 25 years or older (8.2%).[4]

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] NCES: OUT-OF-POCKET NET PRICE FOR COLLEGE [15 April 2014]

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 Education Statistics (NCES)

 

OUT-OF-POCKET NET PRICE FOR COLLEGE [15 April 2014]

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014902

or

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014902.pdf

[full-text, 6 pages]

 

This Data Point uses data from four administrations of the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000, NPSAS:04, NPSAS:08, and NPSAS:12) to briefly present trends in out-of-pocket net price for college, the amount that students and their families must pay to attend college after subtracting grants, loans, work-study, and all other student aid from the total price of attendance. It also presents out-of-pocket net price by income levels for the most recent data available (2011-12). For comparability, findings are presented for undergraduates attending full time for a full year and also trends are presented separately for key institution types (public 2-year, public 4-year, private nonprofit 4-year, and for-profit institutions).

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] BLS: USUAL WEEKLY EARNINGS OF WAGE AND SALARY WORKERS -- FIRST QUARTER 2014 [17 April 2014]

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 -- FIRST QUARTER 2014 [17 April 2014]

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

or

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

[full-text, 10 pages]

 

Median weekly earnings of the nation's 104.3 million full-time wage and salary

workers were $796 in the first quarter of 2014 (not seasonally adjusted), the

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This was 3.0 percent higher

than a year earlier, compared with a gain of 1.4 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 first-quarter data

are:

 

  • Median weekly earnings were $796 in the first quarter of 2014. Women

    who usually worked full time had median weekly earnings of $722, or

    82.8 percent of the $872 median for men. (See table 2.)

 

  • The women's-to-men's earnings ratio varied by race and ethnicity. White

    women earned 82.4 percent as much as their male counterparts, compared

    with black women (85.6 percent), Asian women (83.8 percent), and Hispanic

    women (92.6 percent). (See table 2.)

 

  • Among the major race and ethnicity groups, median weekly earnings for

    black men working at full-time jobs were $708 per week, or 78.8 percent of

    the median for white men ($898). The difference was less among women, as

    black women's median earnings ($606) were 81.9 percent of those for white

    women ($740). Overall, median earnings of Hispanics who worked full time

    ($593) were lower than those of blacks ($646), whites ($819), and Asians

    ($955). (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, $1,021

    and $992, respectively. Usual weekly earnings were highest for women age 35

    to 64: weekly earnings were $787 for women age 35 to 44 and for women age

    45 to 54, and $776 for women age 55 to 64. Workers age 16 to 24 had the

    lowest median weekly earnings, at $465. (See table 3.)

 

  • Among the major occupational groups, persons employed full time in

    management, professional, and related occupations had the highest median

    weekly earnings--$1,347 for men and $975 for women. Men and women employed

    in service jobs earned the least, $581 and $459, respectively. (See table 4.)

 

  • By educational attainment, full-time workers age 25 and over without a high

    school diploma had median weekly earnings of $480, compared with $660 for

    high school graduates (no college) and $1,199 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 $3,834 or more per week, compared with $2,390 or more

    for their female counterparts. (See table 5.)

 

  • Seasonally adjusted median weekly earnings were $791 in the first quarter

    of 2014, little changed from the previous quarter ($782). (See table 1.)

 

 

 

   _______________________________________________________________________________

  |                                                                               |

  |        Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Usual Weekly Earnings Data             |

  |                                                                               |

  |  Seasonally adjusted data for median usual weekly earnings in constant        |

  |  (1982-84) dollars have been updated using revised seasonally adjusted data   |

  |  for the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). (Data are      |

  |  shown in table 1 of the release.) Seasonally adjusted constant (1982-84)     |

  |  dollar estimates back to the first quarter of 2009 were subject to revision. |

  |_______________________________________________________________________________|

 

AND MORE…including TABLES….

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Tweet

[IWS] OECD: AGEING AND EMPLOYMENT POLICIES: NETHERLANDS 2014: WORKING BETTER WITH AGE [16 April 2014]

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

________________________________________________________________________

 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

 

AGEING AND EMPLOYMENT POLICIES: NETHERLANDS 2014: WORKING BETTER WITH AGE [16 April 2014]

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/ageing-and-employment-policies-netherlands-2014_9789264208155-en

or

http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/social-issues-migration-health/ageing-and-employment-policies-netherlands-2014_9789264208155-en#page1

[read online, 142 pages]

 

Given the ageing challenges, there is an increasing pressure in OECD countries to further boost the employability of the working-age population over the coming decades. This report provides an overview of policy iniatives implemented over the past decade in the Netherlands and identifies areas where more should be done, covering both supply-side and demand-side aspects. To give better incentives to carry on working, the report recommends to promote longer contribution periods in the second-pillar pension schemes, and ensure better information and transparency of pension schemes, with a special focus on groups with low financial literacy. On the side of employers, it is important to progress towards more age-neutral hiring decisions and wage-setting procedures with more focus on performance and less on tenure and seniority. To improve the employability of older workers, the focus should be to promote training measures for older unemployed which are directly linked to a specific job. The large diversity in municipal "Work-First"programmes should be utilised in designing mor effective activation policies targetted on those at risk of losing contact with the labour market.

 

Press Release 17 April 2014

The Netherlands must do more to make working at an older age more attractive, says OECD
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/the-netherlands-must-do-more-to-make-working-at-an-older-age-more-attractive.htm

 

16/04/2014 - Encouraging more people to work later in life would help the Netherlands meet its growing challenges of a rapidly ageing population and rising social spending, according to a new OECD report.


Working Better with Age in the Netherlands says that reforms over the past decade, such as raising the pension age, have already had an impact: the share of 55-64 year olds in work has increased significantly to just over 60% in 2013, above the OECD average of 55%.

 

But the Netherlands remains well behind the best OECD achievers, ranking only 16th for the employment rate of 55-64 year olds among the 34 OECD countries.

 

“The main challenges in the Netherlands to encouraging longer working lives are high long-term unemployment and low hiring of older workers along with high disability rates,” said Stefano Scarpetta, OECD Director of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, presenting the report in The Hague. “For example, more than half of over 55s out of work have been jobless for more than a year, above the OECD average of 47%. Further reforms are needed.”

 

The Netherlands ranks even further behind other OECD countries when measured on a full-time equivalent basis, given that the incidence of part-time work is much higher in the Netherlands than in most other OECD countries.

 

Few over-65s work: even though their employment rate has nearly doubled over the past decade, it was still only 13% in 2012, the last year data is available, well below the OECD average of 19%.

 

Among its recommendations, the OECD says the Netherlands should:

 

·         Promote longer contribution periods in second-pillar pension schemes and increase flexibility in withdrawal and combinations of pension and work to encourage longer careers.

·         Reduce the maximum duration of unemployment insurance benefits combined with better activation of all unemployment benefit recipients, including for the unemployed over 60 who are receiving Income Compensation for Older Unemployed (IOW).

·         Keep replacement rates (the ratio of benefits to former earnings) of sickness and disability benefit well below 100%, and give access to wage-compensation already in the sickness benefit period for re-entry to new jobs with a lower wage.

·         Encourage social partners to adjust wage setting procedures by focussing more on performance and less on tenure and seniority.

·         Ensure that new practices among innovative firms in the Sustainable Employability programme are promoted and progressively become national standards. Its goals include prevention of unemployment and illness, as well as, improved productivity levels in the entire working population, regardless of age.

·         Link training measures for older unemployed directly to a specific job.

·         Tighten co-operation between the Public Employment Service and the municipalities to increase re-entry to work for the older unemployed.

·         Mobilise more fully labour resources by supporting initiatives to facilitate working on a full-time basis for part-time workers.

 

See More information about Ageing and Employment Policies here

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?