Monday, September 01, 2014

Tweet

[IWS] ILO: LEGOSH (Legislative DATABASE on Occupational Safety and Health) [June 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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

 

International Labour Organizaton (ILO)

 

LEGOSH (Legislative DATABASE on Occupational Safety and Health)

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/legosh/en/f?p=14100:1:0::NO:::

 

Click on the following for more information

About LEGOSH

How to use LEGOSH

Methodology

Browse by country

Compare countries

Search

 

Press Release 6 June 2014

OSH legislation

 

ILO develops global database on national OSH legislation to support the improvement of national systems and programmes

http://www.ilo.org/safework/whatsnew/WCMS_244816/lang--en/index.htm

 

Legislation on occupational safety and health (OSH) is an essential component of national systems and programmes aiming at protecting the health and safety of workers. The ILO, in its efforts to support the development of national OSH systems, has developed and launched LEGOSH, an innovative database to collect, analyse, describe and share essential knowledge on OSH legislation and policy around the world.

 

LEGOSH is the first global source of authoritative information on national OSH legislation. It aims to assist governments, employers' and workers' organizations, OSH agencies and experts, policy-makers and legislators to understand, shape, formulate and adopt sound OSH legislation that can be applied effectively to protect the safety and health of workers. It acts as a free source of trustworthy legal information available to constituents, researchers, and other stakeholders.

 

The database has a user-friendly interface which allows users to:

 

◾Access summaries of OSH legislation in English and authentic legal texts in their original language;

◾Compare the legislation of several countries or regions on a particular subject;

◾Conduct customized searches;

◾Link to national and regional OSH institutions' websites, OSH databases and other relevant sources of OSH legislation, policies and information;

◾Consult the relevant comments of the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR).

                                                                                                                                                                          .

OSH legislation is often described as a complex mosaic of legal provisions found primarily in labour law, public health and industry specific legislation. It specifies a range of rights, obligations and duties applicable to workers and employers; it defines the roles and responsibilities of ministries and institutions; and it establishes technical requirements that are aiming altogether at preventing occupational accidents and diseases. This complexity makes relevant legislation sometimes difficult to locate, access and interpret for making educated decisions.

 

The development of the LEGOSH platform came out of this need and began with formulating a set of descriptors for collecting data on the basis of relevant ILO standards: the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155); the Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161); the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187); and the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81). These instruments are outlining the main provisions expected to be found in OSH legislation.

 

Independent experts in OSH legislation from various countries then reviewed and pilot-tested the template to collect data and provided methodological insights. They later participated in a peer-review meeting with ILO specialists to discuss and adjust the structure and wording of the initial set of descriptors in order to ensure comprehensiveness, coherence and consistency.

 

The second phase of the database development consisted in developing an IT application to enable OSH experts from all over the world to input data remotely, and to provide the ILO with a mechanism to conduct quality control, validation and approval of the collected data. The aim was to ensure its accuracy and offer users a friendly interface allowing for a number of functionalities.

 

Finally, options for participatory data collection, review and update that are building on the ILO worldwide field structure and international networks, as well as on the knowledge of national experts, were tested with the aim of ensuring adequacy and relevancy of content while establishing the conditions for its sustainability. The result is that LEGOSH provides authoritative information on OSH legislation to support policy development and improve national systems and programmes.

________________________________________________________________________

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] WHO/ILO: EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE: OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH [25 August 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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

Joint WHO/ILO briefing note for workers and employers

 

Ebola Virus Disease: Occupational safety and health [25 August 2014]

http://www.ilo.org/safework/info/publications/WCMS_301830/lang--en/index.htm

or

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---safework/documents/briefingnote/wcms_302532.pdf

[full-text, 5 pages]

 

This briefing note is based on the existing WHO and ILO guides and recommendations for Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) at the time of the publication. It will be updated as new information and recommendations become available.

Ebola Virus Disease

  • Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), formerly known as Ebola Haemorrhagic Fever, is a severe illness in humans. It can be fatal without proper treatment and care. EVD outbreaks occur primarily in tropical countries in Central and West Africa.
  • Sudden onset of fever, intense weakness, muscle pain, headache and sore throat are typical signs and symptoms. This is followed by vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, impaired kidney and liver function, and in some cases, both internal and external bleeding.
  • The incubation period, or the time interval from infection to onset of symptoms, is from 2 to 21 days. The patients become contagious once they begin to show symptoms. They are not contagious during the incubation period. EVD infections can only be confirmed through laboratory testing.
  • Other diseases can have similar symptoms, such as malaria, typhoid fever, shigellosis, cholera, leptospirosis, plague, rickettsiosis, relapsing fever, meningitis, hepatitis and other viral haemorrhagic fevers.

Ways of transmission

  • The origin of the virus is unknown but fruit bats are considered the likely natural reservoir. It is transmitted to people from dead or alive wild animals and can spread in the human population through human-to-human transmission.
  • People become infected through direct contact (through broken skin or mucous membranes such as lips, nostrils, mouth, eyes or genitals) with the blood, secretions, or other body fluids of a sick person, a person who has died from the disease or infected animals.
  • People can also become infected from indirect contact by having broken skin or mucous membranes come in contact with materials or utensils contaminated with blood, secretions, or other body fluids from sick people and bodies (for example used gloves, masks, goggles, other medical waste, soiled clothes, bed linen, used needles and medical instruments).
  • Men who have recovered from the illness can still spread the virus to their partner through their semen for up to 7 weeks after recovery.
  • Occupational health and safety risks
  • Health-care workers are at risk of infection when caring for EVD patients if they do not wear adequate personal protection equipment (PPE) and if they do not follow strictly the recommended measures for infection prevention and control.
  • Other risks for workers involved in health care and epidemic response to EVD include psychological distress, stigma, violence, long working hours, heat stress and dehydration from using heavy PPE and ergonomic problems from handling bodies and loads. These require specific measures for psychosocial support, security and work organization.
  • Care for individuals who have symptoms of EVD requires treatment in a hospital or treatment centre staffed by doctors and nurses properly qualified and equipped for this purpose. Care in other settings or at home represents a high risk of Ebola virus infection for family members, home caregivers, traditional healers, and village midwives who have contact with the sick person and his/her environment.
  • Importantly, transmission occurs during funerals and burial rituals that involve direct contact with the body and body fluids of a person who has died of EVD.
  • Animal-to-human transmission through contact with animals infected with Ebola virus is important at the beginning of the outbreak. It may occur during hunting, trading of bush meat, and during forestry and wildlife work.
  • The risk of business travellers becoming infected with Ebola virus during a visit to the affected areas and developing disease after returning is extremely low, even if the visit included travel to the local areas from which primary cases have been reported. Transmission requires direct contact with blood, secretions, or other body fluids of infected living or dead persons or animals, all unlikely exposures for the average traveller.
  • Fellow travellers, crew and workers at airports, ports or ground crossings can be at risk if a person who has been exposed to Ebola virus and developed symptoms boards a commercial flight, or other mode of transport, without informing the transport company of his or her status.

 

Preventing EVD in the workplace

  • In all situations basic infection prevention and control practices can prevent the infection.
  • Health workers at all levels of the health system – hospitals, clinics, laboratories, health posts, laundries, transport – should be briefed on the nature of the disease and how it is transmitted, and strictly follow recommended infection control precautions.
  • All staff handling suspected or confirmed cases of EVD or contaminated specimens and materials should use special personal protective equipment for working with biohazards, and apply hand hygiene measures according to WHO recommendations. If the recommended level of precaution is implemented, transmission of disease should be prevented.
  • Since other infectious diseases may have symptoms compatible with EVD, it is important to apply standard measures of precaution in all health care facilities – such as prevention of needle sticks and sharps injuries, safe phlebotomy, hand hygiene, rational use of personal protective equipment, regular and rigorous environmental cleaning, decontamination of surfaces and equipment, and safe management of soiled linen and healthcare waste.
  • All workers with symptoms of EVD should seek rapid medical attention. WHO does not advise families or communities to care for individuals who may present with symptoms of Ebola virus disease in their homes.
  • Handling of bodies and body fluids of a person who has died of EVD requires trained burial teams, who are equipped to properly bury the dead using heavy duty protective equipment while respecting local customs.
  • In areas where Ebola virus is reported in animals, workers handling animals should wear gloves and other appropriate personal protective equipment and clothing.
  • Returning business travellers from the affected areas, who did not apply the necessary measures for infection prevention and control, should be alerted if they develop symptoms (such as fever, weakness, muscle pain, headache, sore throat, vomiting, diarrhoea, rash, or bleeding) within 21 days after return. If they suspect that they have been exposed to Ebola virus (e.g. volunteers who worked in healthcare settings) in the affected areas, they should seek rapid medical attention and mention their recent travel to the attending physician.
  • Affected countries are requested to conduct exit medical screening of all persons at international airports, seaports and major land crossings, for unexplained febrile illness consistent with potential Ebola infection. Any person with an illness consistent with EVD should not be allowed to travel abroad, unless this travel is part of an appropriate medical evacuation. In the unlikely case that such a person becomes sick on board he or she has to be isolated and special measures should be taken according to the international recommendations to protect the health of staff and fellow travellers.

 

Employers’ duties, workers’ rights and common responsibilities

  • Employers, workers, and their organizations should collaborate with health authorities in the prevention and control of the EVD outbreak.
  • The employers have overall responsibility to ensure that all practicable preventive and protective measures are taken to minimize occupational risks.
  • The employers are responsible for providing adequate information, comprehensive instruction and necessary training on occupational safety and health (OSH); consult workers on OSH aspects related with their work, and notify the labour inspectorate of cases of occupational diseases.
  • Health-care and other workers are responsible for following established OSH procedures, avoid exposing others to health and safety risks and participate in OSH training provided by the employer.
  • Employers are required to provide adequate protective clothing and protective equipment to health-care or other staff caring for suspected or confirmed Ebola patients or handling animals.
  • OSH measures shall not involve any expenditure for the workers.
  • Health care and other workers have the right to remove themselves from a work situation that they have reasonable justification to believe presents an imminent and serious danger to their life or health. When a staff member exercises this right, he or she shall be protected from any undue consequences.
  • EVD and post-traumatic stress disorder, if contracted through occupational exposure, are considered occupational diseases. Workers who suffer from them as a result of work activities have the right to compensation, rehabilitation and curative services.
  • Co-operation between management and workers and/or their representatives within the undertaking shall be an essential element of workplace-related prevention measures (such as through workers’ safety delegates, safety and health committees, and collaboration in providing information and training).


The ILO and the WHO are working together on developing information materials, technical guides and practical recommendations for addressing all occupational health and safety risks in the preparedness and response to the epidemic of EVD.

Further information

General

WHO - Global Alert and Response. Ebola Virus Disease – web portal
WHO - Ebola and Marburg virus disease epidemics: preparedness, alert, control, and evaluation. Interim manual version 1.2
WHO - Occupational Health – web portal
ILO - Occupational Safety and Health web portal

Health Care Settings

WHO - Interim Infection Prevention and Control Guidance for Care of Patients Suspected or Confirmed Filovirus Haemorrhagic Fever in Health-Care Settings, with Focus on Ebola
WHO - Needlestick Injuries
ILO - Health Services Sector
ILO/WHO HealthWISE - Work Improvement in Health Services

Travel and Transport Settings

WHO - Travel and transport risk assessment: Recommendations for public health authorities and transport sector
IATA - guidelines

________________________________________________________________________

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] Towers Watson: Renovating HR for the New World of Health Care [August 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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

Towers Watson

 

Renovating HR for the New World of Health Care [August 2014]

http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/2014/08/renovating-hr-for-the-new-world-of-health-care

or

http://www.towerswatson.com/DownloadMedia.aspx?media={28965320-DBBA-4FA0-BE06-21F1793BE647}

[full-text, 5 pages]

 

At a Glance

 

·         As health care providers adapt to a new reimbursement-based business model — one centered on efficiency, patient experience and health outcomes — they are looking to HR to help drive innovation across their organizations, beginning with the HR function itself.

 

•     According to Towers Watson's 2014 HR Service Delivery and Technology Survey, 52% of health care provider organizations have shifted to a systemwide HR function, and 22% are designing new systemwide approaches for HR this year.

 

 

•     To make HR more effective in the transformed health care provider world, the roles of both centers of expertise and entity HR are beginning to evolve.

 

 

For a variety of reasons, the health care industry has failed to keep pace with the drive for efficiency seen across much of corporate America in the last decade, when most HR functions streamlined processes, eliminated paper and centralized administrative activities. But with historic transformation shaking up the industry, HR is acting fast now to initiate needed change. Towers Watson's 2014 HR Service Delivery and Technology Survey highlights several trends in efficiency and effectiveness taking hold these days: building and expanding employee service center approaches, leveraging self-service and HR portals, as well as the evolving roles of both centers of expertise and entity HR.

 

Thinking about transforming your HR service delivery model can be daunting. The first step is to clearly understand what the function is doing today and what your organization's leadership wants from HR. HR leaders need to be actively engaged with senior management to understand the workforce implications of the transformation within the organization. Once you understand the gaps between the current state and desired future state, you can begin to create a new service delivery model and reset the priorities for both the function and its leadership.

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] Eurostat: INCOME INEQUALITY: NEARLY 40 PER CENT OF TOTAL INCOME GOES TO PEOPLE BELONGING TO HIGHEST (fifth) QUINTILE--Issue Number 12/2014 [7 July 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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

European Commission

Eurostat

 

INCOME INEQUALITY: NEARLY 40 PER CENT OF TOTAL INCOME GOES TO PEOPLE BELONGING TO HIGHEST (fifth) QUINTILE--Issue Number 12/2014 [7 July 2014]

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-SF-14-012

or

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Income_inequality_statistics

 

This article presents data on income inequality, measured by the Gini coefficient, across the EU-28 and three EFTA countries. Income inequality is a complex phenomenon, the result of interaction between several factors. It can be related to employment patterns, income sources, individual characteristics (education level, age, gender, etc.) or household features (number of earners in the household, family size, etc.). Inequality is a broader concept than poverty; while poverty mainly relates to the lowest part of the income distribution, inequality takes into account the living conditions of all people in a society.

The analysis showed that Norway and Slovenia had the lowest level of inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) in Europe in 2012, and that Spain and Latvia had the highest level. Overall, twelve countries had a level of inequality higher than the EU-28 average in 2012. In Europe, nearly 40 % of total equivalised income goes on average to people belonging to the highest (fifth) income quintile, and less than 10 % to people in the first quintile. This distribution of income explains the income discrepancies among people. It should be noted that inequality decreased in 12 EU countries in 2008-12, mainly due to the income losses seen in the upper part of the income distribution during the financial and economic crisis

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Friday, August 29, 2014

Tweet

[IWS] APA: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION SURVEY & LABOR DAY [28 August 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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

American Psychological Association (APA)

 

EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION SURVEY [28 August 2014]

http://www.apaexcellence.org/assets/general/employee-recognition-survey-results.pdf

[full-text, 34 pages]

 

Executive Summary

•Only about half of the U.S. workforce (51 percent) say they feel valued by their employer, more than a third (36 percent) haven’t received any form of recognition in the last year and just 47 percent say recognition is provided fairly.

 

•Although a majority of working Americans (81 percent) reported that their employer provides some type of recognition, less than half (46 percent) said their organization recognizes employees for individual job performance.

 

•Additionally, less than a third (29 percent) said that team or work-unit performance is recognized and even fewer reported that their employer provides recognition for company-wide results (21 percent), or engaging in specific behaviors, such as those consistent with the organization’s values (18 percent).

 

•According to U.S. workers, the most common form of recognition their employer provides is salary increases based on merit (39 percent). Less than a third (31 percent) said that direct supervisors express verbal or written appreciation and only about one in four (24 percent) reported that their organization uses performance-based bonuses or promotions as a form of recognition.

 

•Survey results linked effective recognition practices to both employee and organizational outcomes.

–Employees who said that recognition practices are fair, that direct supervisors provide recognition effectively and that they value the recognition they receive reported a variety of positive outcomes, including higher levels of job satisfaction, a greater likelihood to work harder because of the recognition they receive, stronger motivation to do their best and a greater sense of feeling valued.

–Employees who received recognition more recently also reported higher levels of satisfaction, motivation and work effort.

 

•The survey also explored the relationship between recognition and employee retention.

–Employees were most likely to plan to leave their employer in the next year when they felt less valued, had lower perceptions of fairness regarding the organization’s recognition practices and experienced lower overall job satisfaction.

–Working Americans who reported high levels of supervisor effectiveness in providing employee recognition and valuing the recognition they receive were more likely to say they plan to stay with their current employer three years or longer.

 

•More than a quarter of working adults (28 percent) said that written or verbal appreciation from their direct supervisor is important, but when it comes to the types of recognition that working Americans say are important to them, money tops the list.

–Six out of ten employees (62 percent) cited merit-based salary increases as important, followed by fair monetary compensation (47 percent), performance-based bonuses (43 percent) and promotions or advancement (38 percent).

 

•Men and women reported that recognition in general is equally important to them (87 percent), but men were more likely than women to report being satisfied with their employer’s recognition practices (54 percent vs. 46 percent), to believe that recognition is provided fairly in their organization (52 percent vs. 42 percent) and to say their supervisor provides recognition effectively (56 percent vs. 47 percent).

 

•Although 4 in 10 employees reported working remotely at least sometimes (30 percent sometimes, 5 percent often, 6 percent always), no significant relationships were found between employees working remotely and their satisfaction with recognition or how long they plan to stay with their current employer.

 

ABOUT THE SURVEY: This Employee Recognition Survey was conducted online within the United States by Harris Poll on behalf of the American Psychological Association from August 13-15, 2014 among 882 adults ages 18 and older who are employed either full time or part time. This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

 

Press Release 28 August 2014

Employers: Celebrate Labor Day By Showing That You Value Your Workers

APA survey links employee recognition to satisfaction, motivation and work effort

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/08/labor-day.aspx

 

 

WASHINGTON — Labor Day is a celebration of American workers and the contributions they have made to the well-being of the country. As we mark Labor Day’s 120th year as a federal holiday, only about half of the U.S. workforce (51 percent) say they feel valued by their employer, more than a third (36 percent) haven’t received any form of recognition in the last year and just 47 percent say recognition is provided fairly. These were among the findings of a survey released today by the American Psychological Association’s Center for Organizational Excellence. The survey was conducted on APA’s behalf by Harris Poll on Aug. 13-15, 2014, among 882 adults who are employed either full time or part time.

 

Employee recognition efforts reward employees both individually and collectively for their contributions to the organization. Recognition can take various forms — formal and informal, monetary and nonmonetary. Although a majority of working Americans (81 percent) reported that their employer provides some type of recognition, less than half (46 percent) said their organization recognizes employees for individual job performance. Additionally, less than a third (29 percent) said that team or work-unit performance is recognized and even fewer reported that their employer provides recognition for company-wide results (21 percent), or engaging in specific behaviors, such as those consistent with the organization’s values (18 percent).

 

“Today, business success depends on sustainable workplace practices and a healthy, high-performing workforce,” said Norman B. Anderson, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Psychological Association. “Part of promoting employee well-being is demonstrating how their efforts contribute to the organization’s success and recognizing them for their good work.”

 

According to U.S. workers, the most common form of recognition their employer provides is salary increases based on merit (39 percent). Less than a third (31 percent) said that direct supervisors express verbal or written appreciation and only about 1 in 4 (24 percent) reported that their organization uses performance-based bonuses or promotions as a form of recognition.

 

Survey results linked effective recognition practices to both employee and organizational outcomes. Employees who said that recognition practices are fair, that direct supervisors provide recognition effectively and that they value the recognition they receive reported a variety of positive outcomes. They reported higher levels of job satisfaction, a greater likelihood to work harder because of the recognition they receive, stronger motivation to do their best and a greater sense of feeling valued. In addition, employees who received recognition more recently also reported higher levels of satisfaction, motivation and work effort.1

 

The survey also explored the relationship between recognition and employee retention. Employees were most likely to plan to leave their employer in the next year when they felt less valued, had lower perceptions of fairness regarding the organization’s recognition practices and experienced lower overall job satisfaction. Working Americans who reported high levels of supervisor effectiveness in providing employee recognition and valuing the recognition they receive were more likely to say they plan to stay with their current employer three years or longer.

 

“When an organization makes people feel valued and appreciated, that not only creates a better work environment, it also affects whether employees want to stick around and help the company achieve its goals,” said David W. Ballard, PsyD, MBA, assistant executive director for organizational excellence at APA.

 

Additional findings from the survey include:

More than a quarter of working adults (28 percent) said that written or verbal appreciation from their direct supervisor is important, but when it comes to the types of recognition that working Americans say are important to them, money tops the list. Six out of 10 employees (62 percent) cited merit-based salary increases as important, followed by fair monetary compensation (47 percent), performance-based bonuses (43 percent) and promotions or advancement (38 percent).

Men and women reported that recognition in general is equally important to them (87 percent), but men were more likely than women to report being satisfied with their employer’s recognition practices (54 percent vs. 46 percent), to believe that recognition is provided fairly in their organization (52 percent vs. 42 percent) and to say their supervisor provides recognition effectively (56 percent vs. 47 percent).

Although 4 in 10 employees reported working remotely at least sometimes (30 percent sometimes, 5 percent often, 6 percent always), no significant relationships were found between employees working remotely and their satisfaction with recognition or how long they plan to stay with their current employer.

 

“American workers have contributed immeasurably to the prosperity and quality of life in the United States,” said Ballard. “Labor Day is the perfect time for employers to take a look at whether they are showing employees how important they really are.”

 

About the Survey

 

This employee recognition survey was conducted online within the United States by Harris Poll on behalf of the American Psychological Association from Aug. 13-15, 2014, among 882 adults ages 18 and older who are employed either full time or part time. This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated. More information is available online, including weighting variables and full results of the survey.

 

The American Psychological Association’s Center for Organizational Excellence works to enhance the functioning of individuals, groups, organizations and communities through the application of psychology to a broad range of workplace issues. The center houses the Psychologically Healthy Workplace Program, a public education initiative designed to engage the employer community, raise public awareness about the value psychology brings to the workplace and promote programs and policies that enhance employee well-being and organizational performance.

 

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA's membership includes nearly 130,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] BEA: PERSONAL INCOME AND OUTLAYS: JULY 2014 [29 August 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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

 

PERSONAL INCOME AND OUTLAYS: JULY 2014 [29 August 2014]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinewsrelease.htm

or

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2014/pdf/pi0714.pdf

[full-text, 11 pages]

or

Tables

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2014/xls/pi0714.xls

and

Highlights

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/2014/pdf/pi0714_fax.pdf

 

 

Personal income increased $28.6 billion, or 0.2 percent, and disposable personal income (DPI) increased $17.7 billion,

or 0.1 percent, in July, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Personal consumption expenditures (PCE)

decreased $13.6 billion, or 0.1 percent.  In June, personal income increased $67.1 billion, or 0.5 percent, DPI

increased $62.9 billion, or 0.5 percent, and PCE increased $50.5 billion, or 0.4 percent, based on revised estimates.

 

Real DPI increased 0.1 percent in July, compared with an increase of 0.3 percent in June.  Real PCE decreased

0.2 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.2 percent.

 

                                        2014

                                        Mar.            Apr.            May             June            July

                                                       (Percent change from preceding month)

Personal income, current dollars        0.6             0.4             0.5             0.5             0.2

Disposable personal income:

Current dollars                        0.6             0.5             0.5             0.5             0.1

Chained (2009) dollars                 0.5             0.3             0.3             0.3             0.1

Personal consumption expenditures:

Current dollars                        0.8             0.2             0.3             0.4            -0.1

Chained (2009) dollars                 0.6            -0.1             0.1             0.2            -0.2

 

BOX.______________

This news release presents revised estimates of wages and salaries, personal taxes, and contributions for government

social insurance for January through March 2014 (first quarter).  These estimates reflect the incorporation of the most

recently available first-quarter wage and salary tabulations from the quarterly census of employment and wages from

the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

__________________

 

FOOTNOTE._________

Monthly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise specified. Month-to-month

dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Month-to-month percent changes are calculated from

unrounded data and are not annualized.  Real estimates are in chained (2009) dollars.

 

This news release is available on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov/newsreleases/rels.htm.

__________________

 

                                Wages and salaries

 

Private wages and salaries increased $12.9 billion in July, compared with an increase of $25.6 billion in June.

Goods-producing industries' payrolls increased $0.7 billion, compared with an increase of $8.8 billion; manufacturing

payrolls were unchanged in July and increased $5.1 billion in June.  Services-producing industries' payrolls increased

$12.3 billion in July, compared with an increase of $16.8 billion in June.  Government wages and salaries increased

$1.7 billion, compared with an increase of $1.8 billion.

 

                                Other personal income

 

Supplements to wages and salaries increased $3.7 billion in July, compared with an increase of $4.8 billion in June.

 

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] BEA: U.S. DIRECT INVESTMENT ABROAD (USDIA): PRELIMINARY 2012 DATA [21 August 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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

 

U.S. DIRECT INVESTMENT ABROAD (USDIA): PRELIMINARY 2012 DATA [21 August 2014]

http://www.bea.gov/international/usdia2012p.htm

 

Press Release 27 August 2014

New Statistics on the Activities of U.S. Multinational Enterprises are Now Available

http://blog.bea.gov/2014/08/27/new-statistics-on-the-activities-of-u-s-multinational-enterprises-are-now-available/

 

The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released preliminary 2012 statistics on the outward activities of multinational enterprises (AMNEs). Outward AMNE statistics cover the worldwide activities of U.S. multinational enterprises (MNEs). These statistics provide information on the finance and operations of U.S. MNEs, including balance sheet and income statement details, employment and employee compensation, sales, value added, capital expenditures, trade in goods, and expenditures for research and development (R&D). The statistics can be used to measure the scale of the global business activity of U.S. MNEs as well as their impact on the U.S. economy and foreign host economies.

The worldwide operations of a U.S. MNE can be divided between its domestic operations, represented by the U.S. parent company, and its foreign operations, represented by foreign affiliates. Statistics for foreign affiliates are presented for two categories—all affiliates, which are at least 10 percent owned by their U.S. parents, and majority-owned foreign affiliates (MOFAs), which are more than 50 percent owned by their U.S. parents.

Highlights of the new data include:

·         The value added of U.S. MNEs rose 2.0 percent to $4,667.0 billion in 2012 after rising 9.2 percent in 2011. The increase reflected a 2.7 percent increase in the value added of U.S. parents and a 0.3 percent increase in the value added of their MOFAs.

·         Employment by U.S. MNEs increased 1.1 percent to 35.2 million workers in 2012 after increasing 2.2 percent in 2011. The increase reflected a 0.5 percent increase in the employment of U.S. parents and a 2.2 percent increase in the employment of MOFAs. U.S. parents accounted for one-fifth of the total U.S. private industry employment in 2012.

·         U.S. MNE capital expenditures rose 12.2 percent in 2012, reflecting growth for both U.S. parents (10.7 percent) and MOFAs (16.4 percent).

·         U.S. MNE R&D expenditures rose 3.6 percent in 2012, reflecting growth for U.S. parents (4.4 percent) and a slight decline for MOFAs (–0.2 percent).

·         Fifteen countries—the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Australia, Japan, France, China, Brazil, Mexico, Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Italy—accounted for more than two-thirds of value added by MOFAs in 2012.

The newly released statistics also include revised 2011 statistics on the outward activities of multinational enterprises.

BEA also produces inward AMNE statistics that cover U.S. affiliates of foreign MNEs; these statistics will be released later this year.

Starting with the release of the 2012 preliminary and 2011 revised statistics, BEA has adopted the use of standard international terminology in BEA’s international economic accounts by replacing the term “multinational companies” with “multinational enterprises” and the term “financial and operating (F&O)” statistics with “activities of multinational enterprises (AMNE).” This change in terminology reflects BEA’s effort to conform more closely with international guidelines and does not affect the actual statistics produced.

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] USITC: RECENT TRENDS IN U.S. SERVICES TRADE, 2014 ANNUAL REPORT [28 May 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

________________________________________________________________________

This service is supported, in part, by donations. Please consider making a donation by following the instructions at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/iws/news-bureau/support.html

 

 

U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC)

 

RECENT TRENDS IN U.S. SERVICES TRADE, 2014 ANNUAL REPORT [28 May 2014]

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4463.pdf

[full-text, 138 pages]

 

Press Release 28 May 2014
U.S. SERVICE PROVIDERS REMAIN COMPETITIVE IN GLOBAL SERVICES MARKET, REPORTS USITC

http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2014/er0528mm2.htm

 

The United States is the world's largest services market and was the world's leading exporter and importer of services in 2012, reports the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in its new publication Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade, 2014 Annual Report.

The USITC, an independent, nonpartisan, factfinding federal agency, compiles the report annually. Each year's report presents a qualitative and quantitative overview of U.S. trade in services and highlights some of the service sectors and geographic markets that contribute substantially to recent services trade performance.

This year's report focuses on electronic services and includes chapters on three specific industries: audiovisual services, computer services, and telecommunication services. Each chapter analyzes global market conditions in the industry, examines recent trade performance, and summarizes the industry's outlook.

The report describes trade in services via cross-border transactions through 2012 and via affiliate sales through 2011 (latest available data). Highlights include:

  • In 2012, the value of U.S. commercial services exports was $621 billion (14 percent of global services exports), while imports totaled $411 billion (10 percent of global services imports).
  • From 2011 to 2012, U.S. cross-border services exports rose 5 percent (down from nearly 11 percent in 2011), while U.S. services imports grew 4 percent (down from 7 percent in 2011). Electronic services accounted for 7 percent of exports and 8 percent of imports, yielding a trade surplus of $7.1 billion in this subsector in 2012.
  • Within the services sector, sales by foreign affiliates of U.S. firms -- the leading channel by which many U.S. services are delivered to foreign markets -- rose by a robust 11 percent to $1.3 trillion in 2011. Electronic services accounted for $193 billion, or 15 percent, of the total.
  • The contribution of private sector electronic services to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) was $822.1 billion in 2012, accounting for roughly 6 percent of total U.S. private sector GDP. The output of these services grew by nearly 7 percent in 2012, outpacing total GDP growth in the private sector (3 percent). After slower growth during the previous five years, two industries within electronic services -- computer systems design and related services, and data processing and information services -- had the fastest GDP growth in 2012 (about 13 percent each).
  • In 2012, electronic services accounted for only about 3 percent of total private sector employment, or 3.3 million full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Employment in computer systems design and related services and in broadcasting and telecommunication services together represented 81 percent of this total, whereas employment in information and data processing services, along with motion picture and sound recording services, together accounted for the remaining 19 percent. Electronic services were the most productive U.S. sector in 2012, with an average output per worker of $249,802.
  • A variety of impediments restrict trade in electronic services. Two examples include localization requirements for computer servers and online privacy protection measures that restrict cross-border data flows (such as those in the European Union). In addition, limits on foreign investment and on competition are prominent in several countries' telecommunication sectors, where former monopolies limit access to domestic networks. Noteworthy barriers affecting audiovisual services trade include quotas on imported films in such markets as France and China; Internet piracy of copyrighted intellectual property; and censorship.
  • The USITC hosted its seventh annual services roundtable on November 14, 2013. The discussion, summarized in the report, focused on recent services negotiations and the assessment of services commitments in international trade agreements, as well as middle-income job opportunities for non-degree holders in service industries.

Recent Trends in U.S. Services Trade, 2014 Annual Report (Investigation No. 332-345, USITC publication 4463, April 2014) is available on the USITC's Internet site at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4463.pdf.

# # #

 

________________________________________________________________________

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?