Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Tweet

[IWS] ILO: EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PERSONNEL: FINAL REPORT on POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE PROMOTION OF DECENT WORK [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
________________________________________________________________________
 
International Labour Organization (ILO)
Sectoral Activities Department
 
ILO Policy Guidelines on the promotion of decent work for early childhood education personnel
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---sector/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_236528.pdf
[full-text, 47 pages]
 
 
DRAFT ILO POLICY GUIDELINES ON THE PROMOTION OF DECENT WORK FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PERSONNEL (12-15 November 2013)
[full-text, 41 pages]
Referring to the above, see--
FINAL REPORT: Meeting of Experts on Policy Guidelines on the Promotion of Decent Work for Early Childhood Education Personnel (Geneva, 12–15 November 2013)[April 2014]
[full-text, 41 pages]
 
ILO Policy Guidelines on the Promotion of Decent Work for Early Childhood Education Personnel
 
Many countries around the world are investing heavily in early childhood education (ECE) in view of evidence which has shown that early learning – when children’s minds are rapidly developing – can have an important positive influence on a child’s health, learning ability, and future job prospects. According to UNESCO, the worldwide gross enrolment ratio in pre-primary education increased from 33 per cent in 1999 to 50 per cent in 2011.
Yet, while everyone seems to recognize the importance of early-childhood education, the working conditions of early-childhood educators too often go ignored. Usually paid less than other educators, they often receive little or no training and have less room to grow professionally. At the same time, they often have longer working hours and less time to prepare activities or perform administrative tasks. Add to that the strain of frequent heavy lifting, exposure to communicable diseases from the seasonal flu to measles, and the psychological stress of working with small children. The often poor working conditions for ECE teachers have helped perpetuate a gender gap in the profession, which is predominantly occupied by women. As a result, ECE services often fail to provide positive male role models for young children.
These are just some of the problems identified in 2012 by an ILO Global Dialogue Forum on Conditions of Personnel in Early Childhood Education. In November 2013, a group of 15 experts representing governments, employers and unions met to address them and drafted a set of Policy Guidelines on the Promotion of Decent Work for Early Childhood Education Personnel.
The first international document of its kind dealing with this topic, the guidelines set out principles for the training, recruitment and professional development of early-childhood education workers, as well as their working conditions. It also lays down principles concerning the obligations of ECE teachers towards children, parents and their employers. Among other things, the guidelines encourage countries to set wages allowing for a decent standard of living, provide teachers adequate time for preparation and training, establish occupational safety and health policies specific to ECE institutions, and set limits on staff-to-child ratios.

The Guidelines are available at: http://www.ilo.org/sector/Resources/codes-of-practice-and-guidelines/WCMS_236528/lang--en/index.htm
 
Contents (of the DRAFT to which the Final Report refers)
Abbreviations and acronyms ............................................................................................................. vii
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Use .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Field of application ......................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 4
2. General roles, rights and responsibilities .................................................................................. 5
2.1. Governments ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Employers and employers’ organizations ....................................................................... 7
2.3. ECE personnel, trade unions and organizations.............................................................. 7
2.4. Non-profit providers ....................................................................................................... 8
2.5. Other ECE stakeholders .................................................................................................. 9
3. ECE objectives and policies ...................................................................................................... 9
3.1. ECE as a public good and fundamental right .................................................................. 9
3.2. ECE content: Curricula and teaching methods ............................................................... 9
3.3. ECE financing as an investment to ensure quality, equity and sustainability ................. 10
4. Preparation for the profession ................................................................................................... 12
4.1. Education and training .................................................................................................... 12
4.2. Education and training for leaders, managers and auxiliary support .............................. 13
4.3. Education and training institutions ................................................................................. 14
4.4. Licensing and accreditation ............................................................................................ 14
5. Recruitment, deployment and retention .................................................................................... 15
5.1. Recruitment strategies ..................................................................................................... 16
5.2. Ensuring diversity ........................................................................................................... 17
5.3. Management of deployment ........................................................................................... 18
5.4. Background checks and vetting ...................................................................................... 18
5.5. Induction ......................................................................................................................... 19
5.6. Mobility .......................................................................................................................... 19
6. Professional and career development ........................................................................................ 20
6.1. Continual professional development ............................................................................... 20
6.2. Reflective practice .......................................................................................................... 21
6.3. Career development ........................................................................................................ 21
6.4. Other retention incentives ............................................................................................... 22
7. Employment terms and conditions ............................................................................................ 22
7.1. Remuneration .................................................................................................................. 22
7.2. Other financial incentives ............................................................................................... 23
7.3. Employment relationships and contracts ........................................................................ 24
7.4. Disciplinary procedures .................................................................................................. 25
7.5. Part-time work ................................................................................................................ 25
7.6. Auxiliary and paraprofessional staff ............................................................................... 26
7.7. ECE leaders ..................................................................................................................... 26
7.8. Leave ............................................................................................................................... 27
7.9. ECE workers with family responsibilities ...................................................................... 27
7.10. ECE personnel with disabilities, and those living with HIV .......................................... 28
8. Learning and teaching conditions ............................................................................................. 28
8.1. Working time .................................................................................................................. 28
8.2. ECE staff–child ratios ..................................................................................................... 29
8.3. Health and safety ............................................................................................................. 30
8.4. Violence-free workplace ................................................................................................. 31
8.5. ECE infrastructure and resources .................................................................................... 31
9. Social security and social protection ......................................................................................... 32
9.1. Social security ................................................................................................................. 32
9.2. Maternity or paternity protection .................................................................................... 32
10. Evaluating ECE personnel to support quality practice .............................................................. 33
10.1. Purpose and forms of evaluation ..................................................................................... 33
10.2. Professional ethics .......................................................................................................... 34
11. ECE governance and social dialogue ........................................................................................ 35
11.1. ECE governance and inter-sectoral coordination ............................................................ 35
11.2. Promoting social dialogue ............................................................................................... 36
12. Monitoring and follow-up of the guidelines.............................................................................. 38
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 39

________________________________________________________________________
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] AFL-CIO: EXECUTIVE PAYWATCH: HIGH-PAID CEOs and THE LOW-WAGE ECONOMY [2014] [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

________________________________________________________________________

 

AFL-CIO

 

EXECUTIVE PAYWATCH: HIGH-PAID CEOs and THE LOW-WAGE ECONOMY [2014] [April 2014]

http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/Paywatch-2014

 

Click on the sections below for direct access

·         Main

·         |

·         100 Highest

·         |

·         Pay by State

·         |

·         Pay by Industry

·         |

·         Mutual Fund Votes

·         |

·         Data Sources

·         |

·         Take Action

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] ITUC: THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND THE ILO: THE LEGAL FOUNDATIONS [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

________________________________________________________________________

 

International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

 

THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND THE ILO: THE LEGAL FOUNDATIONS MARCH 2014 [15 April 2014]

http://www.ituc-csi.org/human-trade-union-rights/reports,162/the-right-to-strike-and-the-ilo

or

http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/ituc_final_brief_on_the_right_to_strike.pdf

[full-text, 122 pages]

 

ABSTRACT

In June 2012, the Employers’ Group brought the Committee on Application of Standards

(CAS) to a sudden, unexpected (and unprecedented) halt. Why? The Employers’ Group,

under new leadership in the CAS, decided to challenge the very existence of an international

right to strike, a right that had been recognised to exist in principle by all ILO constituents

(employers, workers and governments) for many decades. Equally as fundamental, the

Employers’ Group also challenged the competency of the ILO Committee of Experts on the

Application of Conventions and Recommendations (Committee of Experts) to interpret ILO

conventions – attempting to open a door to future challenges to other ILO conventions.

Rather than pursue the judicial options available to it under Article 37 of the ILO

Constitution, the Employers’ Group opted instead to hold hostage the ILO supervisory

system, withholding the consensus necessary to allow it to function, until the Employers’

Group’s demands were met. Such demands included a “disclaimer” to be affixed to the front

cover of the ILO Committee of Experts’ Annual Report and General Survey that would state

that the reports do not reflect the view of the tripartite constituents and therefore enjoy no

legal authority. These demands have not changed since 2012.

 

This brief, written by an expert legal panel, is intended to examine and rebut the central

legal arguments raised by the Employers’ Group in support of their position. It is the

authors’ hope that the arguments will inform the debate on the existence of the right to

strike in all relevant fora, including the ICJ, should that opportunity arise. The conclusion of

the analysis is that there simply is no question but that ILO Convention 87 protects an

international right to strike. Further, the ILO supervisory system, including the Committee of

Experts, has relied upon well-established methods of treaty interpretation to arrive at this

conclusion. Those methods could only lead to that conclusion. In line with its own

jurisprudence, the ICJ should give substantial deference to the observations of the

Committee of Experts. The right to strike is further buttressed by subsequent recognition of

the right to strike in international and regional treaty instruments and by the decisions of

regional and national courts; indeed, it must be concluded that the right to strike is now

recognised under customary international law.

 

If the Employers’ Group wishes to continue with its challenge on the right to strike, it has

two options under the ILO Constitution – to seek a referral of the matter by the ILO

Governing Body to the International Court of Justice for an Advisory Opinion (Article 37.1 of

the ILO Constitution) or agree to the establishment of an internal, independent tribunal to

provide for the expeditious determination of the “dispute or question” relating to the

interpretation of Convention 87 (Article 37.2). Failure on the part of the Employers’ Group

to agree to resolve this matter before an independent judicial body will be viewed as an

acceptance of the authors’ arguments and conclusions as correct. It will also be viewed as

illustrating the thesis of the Workers’ Group, which is that the Employers’ Group’s strategy

is to destabilise the ILO supervisory system and in so doing seek to force the adoption of

debilitating changes to fundamental labour rights.

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION: THE EMPLOYERS’ CHALLENGE TO THE RIGHT TO STRIKE ............................................... 5

A. THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE ................................................................................................ 5

B. WHAT WERE THE EMPLOYERS’ GROUP’S CENTRAL ARGUMENTS? ........................................................................... 6

C. WHY NOW? .................................................................................................................................................. 7

D. 2012-2014 .................................................................................................................................................. 9

E. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ) .................................................................................................... 10

II. THE ICJ AND THE ILO ............................................................................................................................ 111

III. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND THE RIGHT TO STRIKE ........................................................................ 13

A. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION IN THEORY ............................................................................................................. 13

B. THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ........................................................................................... 15

IV. THE ILO AND THE RIGHT TO STRIKE ................................................................................................... 17

A. THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS AND THE CFA FIND THE RIGHT TO STRIKE ENSHRINED IN CONVENTION 87 ...................... 18

1. Committee of Experts .......................................................................................................................... 18

2. The Committee on Freedom of Association......................................................................................... 22

B. THE ILO CONSTITUTION................................................................................................................................. 23

1. CFA History .......................................................................................................................................... 24

2. CFA Jurisprudence ............................................................................................................................... 24

3. Commissions of Inquiry……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………26

C. THE RIGHT TO STRIKE IN SUBSEQUENT ILO INSTRUMENTS ..................................................................................... 27

V. ILO SUPERVISORY MACHINERY AND THE MANDATE TO “INTERPRET” ILO CONVENTIONS .................... 28

A. BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM ........................................................................................... 28

B. MANDATES OF ILO SUPERVISORY BODIES .......................................................................................................... 29

1. Committee of Experts .......................................................................................................................... 30

2. Conference Committee on the Application of Standards .................................................................. 331

3. Relationship Between Mandates ........................................................................................................ 34

C. INTERPRETATION OF CONVENTIONS .................................................................................................................. 35

D. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 39

VI. THE RIGHT TO STRIKE OUTSIDE THE ILO ............................................................................................ 40

A. UNITED NATIONS. ........................................................................................................................................ 40

1. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ....................................................... 40

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ........................................................................... 44

B. EUROPEAN INSTRUMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 45

1. The European Convention on Human Rights ....................................................................................... 45

2. The European Social Charter ............................................................................................................... 53

a) Principles relating to the Right to Strike .......................................................................................................... 54

b) Scope of the Right to Strike ............................................................................................................................. 55

c) The Right to Strike and EU Law ........................................................................................................................ 57

3. The European Union ............................................................................................................................ 58

a) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ........................................................................................................... 58

b) The ECJ/CJEU ................................................................................................................................................... 59

C. THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................ 61

D. AFRICAN COMMISSION .................................................................................................................................. 65

VII. CONVENTION 87, THE RIGHT TO STRIKE AND THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 66

A. THE APPLICABILITY OF THE VCLT AND ITS RULES OF INTERPRETATION ...................................................................... 68

1. Retroactivity ........................................................................................................................................ 68

2. Material Scope .................................................................................................................................... 69

3. Personal Scope .................................................................................................................................... 69

4. VCLT Rules of Interpretation as Customary International Law ........................................................... 70

5. ILO Practice ......................................................................................................................................... 71

B. APPLICATION THE VCLT TO CONVENTION 87 ..................................................................................................... 74

1. Article 31 VCLT - General Rule of Interpretation ................................................................................. 74

a) “ordinary meaning” (Article 31(1) VCLT) ......................................................................................................... 74

b) “context”(Article 31(1) VCLT) .......................................................................................................................... 79

c) “any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the

application of its provisions” (Article 31(3)(a) VCLT) ................................................................................................. 81

d) “any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties

regarding its interpretation (Article 31(3)(b) VCLT) ................................................................................................... 82

e) “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” (Article 31(3)(c)

VCLT) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 83

f) “A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended” (Article 31(4)

VCLT) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 84

g) Further interpretation principles ..................................................................................................................... 85

2. Article 32 VCLT - Supplementary Means of Interpretation .................................................................. 86

a) Does the described meaning of Article 3 of C87 produce contradictory or impossible consequences or leads

to something unreasonable or absurd? .................................................................................................................... 86

b) Would the application of Article 32 VCLT change the situation?..................................................................... 87

3. Inadmissible “Creative interpretation”? .............................................................................................. 88

VIII. THE RIGHT TO STRIKE IS CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW ............................................................ 90

IX. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 96

ANNEX I: CONVENTION 87 ............................................................................................................................. 98

ANNEX II: ILO SUPERVISORY MACHINERY .................................................................................................... 104

ANNEX III: VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES (VCLT) - RELEVANT SECTIONS ........................ 110

ANNEX IV: THE RIGHT TO STRIKE IN CONSITUTIONS OF THE WORLD ........................................................... 111

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] ITIF: THE INDIAN ECONOMY AT A CROSSROADS [21 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

________________________________________________________________________

 

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)

 

THE INDIAN ECONOMY AT A CROSSROADS [21 April 2014]

by STEPHEN EZELL AND ROBERT D. ATKINSON

http://www.itif.org/publications/indian-economy-crossroads-0

or

http://www2.itif.org/2014-indian-economy-at-crossroads.pdf

[full-text, 133 pages]

 

Indian economic growth in 2014 is expected to come in at less than 5 percent—the lowest level in over a decade—potentially signaling the end to 20 years of robust economic development often known as the “Indian Economic Miracle.” While the recent global economic downturn has played a part, a major factor in India’s economic slowdown has been the loss of momentum for continued economic and trade liberalizing reforms. In recent years this has been replaced by an economic development approach that has prioritized expanding domestic manufacturing and import substitution rather than across-the-board productivity growth, which has in part contributed to India’s recent embrace of several trade-distorting “innovation mercantilist” policies.

 

With national elections now underway, this report details the evolution of India’s post-independence economic policies and explains how the liberalizing reforms of the early 1990s spurred two decades of turbocharged growth. It explains how that success is increasingly threatened by innovation mercantilist policies—such as Preferential Market Access (PMA) rules for government procurement of ICT products and compulsory licensing of biopharmaceutical intellectual property—designed to promote selected domestic industries, even at the expense of other Indian industries and Indian consumers. But while such policies may seem beneficial in the short-term, they will ultimately prove counterproductive, by hampering domestic productivity, lessening India’s attractiveness to foreign direct investment (FDI), and potentially leading to retaliatory measures by other nations that would imperil the global trading system.

 

To reverse its slow growth, spur global competitiveness, and restore the Indian Economic Miracle, India should instead embrace a “Modern Economy Path” that aims to spur across-the-board productivity growth across all sectors—based on competitive markets, liberalized trade, and robust innovation policies. This strategy will create strong, innovation-based industries at home that can effectively compete globally, while providing a much more effective strategy to achieve the broad and sustainable income and employment growth India seeks.

 

The report concludes with a series of recommendations designed to create a comprehensive, pro-productivity strategy that can strengthen Indian innovation and spur the development of new industries and high-tech sectors that can generate sustainable growth. Sample recommendations include:

 

-Improve the process of Indian interagency communication and coordination in the development and promulgation of administrative and agency rulemaking, including increased transparency and mechanisms for soliciting stakeholder input.

 

-Bring increased clarity and certainty to India’s regulatory environment across national, state, and regional levels.

 

-Appoint a National Productivity Commission (modeled on Australia’s).

 

-Establish a Best Public Policies Practices Council that identifies effective economic growth policies and practices in India’s states and promotes them at the national level across India.

-Join international negotiations seeking to expand product coverage of the Information Technology Agreement (ITA).

 

-Fully repeal Preferential Market Access (PMA) rules.

 

-Complete a U.S.-India Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement to promote foreign direct investment in India.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] ILO: TRADE UNIONS AND WORKER COOPERATIVES: WHERE ARE WE AT? [1 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

________________________________________________________________________

 

International Labour Organization (ILO)

Bureau for Workers' Activities (ACTRAV)

 

International Journal of Labour Research

 

TRADE UNIONS AND WORKER COOPERATIVES: WHERE ARE WE AT? [1 April 2014]

http://www.ilo.org/actrav/what/pubs/international-journal-labour-research/WCMS_240534/lang--en/index.htm

or

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---actrav/documents/publication/wcms_240534.pdf

[full-text, 116 pages]

 

Last May, ACTRAV and the ILO cooperative branch held a seminar on the topic of relations between trade unions and worker cooperatives. The goal was to re-examine the relationship between the two movements by taking stock of recent initiatives around the world. To be sure, the relationship between trade unions and cooperatives is as long as the history of trade unions. In fact, it is fair to say that the first associations of workers that emerged in Europe looked more like cooperatives than trade unions.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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.

 

 


Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Tweet

[IWS] BLS: COLLEGE ENROLLMENT AND WORK ACTIVITY OF 2013 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES [22 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

________________________________________________________________________

 

COLLEGE ENROLLMENT AND WORK ACTIVITY OF 2013 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES [22 April 2014]

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

or

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

[full-text, 5 pages]

 

In October 2013, 65.9 percent of 2013 high school graduates were enrolled in

colleges or universities, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

Recent high school graduates not enrolled in college in October 2013 were over

twice as likely as enrolled graduates to be working or looking for work--74.2

percent compared with 34.1 percent.

 

Information on school enrollment and work activity is collected monthly in the

Current Population Survey (CPS), a nationwide survey of about 60,000 households that

provides information on employment and unemployment. Each October, a supplement to

the CPS gathers more detailed information about school enrollment, such as full- and

part-time enrollment status. Additional information about the October supplement is

included in the Technical Note.

 

Recent High School Graduates and Dropouts

 

Of the nearly 3.0 million youth age 16 to 24 who graduated from high school between

January and October 2013, about 2.0 million (65.9 percent) were enrolled in college

in October. The college enrollment rate of recent high school graduates in October

2013 was little different from the rate in October 2012 (66.2 percent). For 2013

graduates, the college enrollment rate was 68.4 percent for young women and 63.5

percent for young men. The college enrollment rate of Asians (79.1 percent) was higher

than the rates for recent white (67.1 percent), black (59.3 percent), and Hispanic

(59.9 percent) graduates. (See table 1.)

 

In October 2013, 34.1 percent of recent high school graduates who were enrolled in

college participated in the labor force--that is, they were working or looking for

work. The participation rates for male and female graduates enrolled in college

were 33.7 percent and 34.5 percent, respectively.

 

Among recent high school graduates enrolled in college in October 2013, 92.8

percent were full-time students. The labor force participation rate was 31.0

percent for full-time students, much lower than the rate of 73.8 percent for

part-time students.

 

About 6 in 10 recent high school graduates enrolled in college attended 4-year

institutions. Of these students, 27.8 percent participated in the labor force,

compared with 45.2 percent of recent graduates enrolled in 2-year colleges.

 

Recent high school graduates not enrolled in college in the fall of 2013 were

more likely than enrolled graduates to be in the labor force (74.2 percent

compared with 34.1 percent). The unemployment rate for high school graduates

not enrolled in college was 30.9 percent, compared with 20.2 percent for

graduates enrolled in college.

 

Between October 2012 and October 2013, 529,000 young people dropped out of high

school. The labor force participation rate for recent dropouts (42.9 percent)

was much lower than the rate for recent high school graduates not enrolled in

college (74.2 percent). The jobless rate for recent high school dropouts was

27.9 percent, compared with 30.9 percent for recent high school graduates not

enrolled in college. 

 

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] CECC: [CHINA] COUNTY GOVERNMENT THREATENS SELF-IMMOLATION COMMUNITIES WITH COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT [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

________________________________________________________________________

 

Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC)

Commission Analysis: Special Report

 

County Government Threatens Self-Immolation Communities With Collective Punishment [14 April 2014]

http://www.cecc.gov/publications/commission-analysis/county-government-threatens-self-immolation-communities-with

or

http://www.cecc.gov/sites/chinacommission.house.gov/files/County%20Gov%20Threatens%20Collective%20Punishment_14apr14.pdf

[full-text, 13 pages]

 

April 14, 2014

In April 2013, a county-level government in an autonomous Tibetan area of Sichuan province

announced interim provisions intended to deter Tibetans from self-immolating. The provisions

could place at risk the access to housing, livelihood, or financial security of a family, community,

village, or monastic institution if a member of that group committed self-immolation or was

deemed to be associated with one. Such collective punishment is inconsistent with international

standards, even international humanitarian law as applicable during wartime.

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] CECC: UNDERSTANDING CHINA'S CRACKDOWN ON RIGHTS ADVOCATES: PERSONAL ACCOUNTS AND PERSPECTIVES [8 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-Executive Commission on China (CECC)

HEARING

 

Understanding China’s Crackdown on Rights Advocates: Personal Accounts and Perspectives [8 April 2014]

http://www.cecc.gov/events/hearings/understanding-china%E2%80%99s-crackdown-on-rights-advocates-personal-accounts-and

 

Chinese officials have cracked down on independent rights advocacy, detaining large numbers of individuals for peacefully advocating on issues ranging from combating official corruption and protecting the rights of ethnic minorities to ensuring educational equality for migrant children and seeking greater freedom of the press.  Those detained include Ilham Tohti, a scholar and an advocate for the Uyghur ethnic minority, who sought to build bridges between Uyghurs and the majority Han population. They also include individuals from the New Citizens’ Movement, who have called for social justice, rule of law, and citizen rights.  The detentions are occurring against the backdrop of the Chinese government’s own anti-corruption campaign and stated push for legal reforms.  Witnesses will discuss, among other things, personal accounts of the crackdown as well as its significance for China’s human rights and rule of law development.

 

Opening Statements

Senator Sherrod Brown, Chairman

[Full text of statement]

 

Statements Submitted for the Record

Representative Christopher Smith, Cochairman

[Full text of statement]

Witnesses

Jewher Ilham, Daughter of detained Uyghur scholar Ilham Tohti

[Full text of statement]

Teng Biao, Human rights lawyer and scholar

[Full text of statement]

Donald Clarke, David A. Weaver Research Professor of Law, George Washington University School of Law

[Full text of statement]

Dr. Sophie Richardson, China Director, Human Rights Watch

[Full text of statement]

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] ADB: ASIAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW vol.31, no. 1 [22 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

________________________________________________________________________

 

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

 

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW vol.31, no. 1 [22 April 2014]

http://www.adb.org/publications/asian-development-review-volume-31-number-1

or

http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2014/asian-development-review-vol31-no1-2014.pdf

[full-text, 221 pages]

 

Description

 

The Asian Development Review (ADR) is a professional journal for disseminating the results of economic and development research relevant to Asia and the Pacific.

 

In this issue a wide range of topics related to economic and social development and finance in the region are discussed. These include poverty in India, foreign direct investment and domestic private firms in Viet Nam, price differences and inequality in the housing market in the People's Republic of China, effects of monetary policy shocks on the exchange rate in the Republic of Korea, inclusive growth, globalization and the quality of jobs, and measuring the connectedness of the financial system as related to risk management.

 

Internationally renowned scholars are welcome to submit articles for publication. Papers are intended for economists and social scientists in government, the private sector, academia, and international organizations. ADR is published twice a year, in March and September, by MIT Press under the editorship of ADBI Dean Masahiro Kawai.

 

Contents

• A Comprehensive Analysis of Poverty in India - Arvind Panagariya and Megha Mukim

 

• Foreign Direct Investment and the Survival of Domestic Private Firms in Viet Nam - Ari Kokko and Tran Toan Thang

 

• Spatial Price Differences and Inequality in the People’s Republic of China: Housing Market Evidence - Chao Li and John Gibson

 

• Effects of Monetary Policy Shocks on the Exchange Rate in the Republic of Korea: Capital Flows in Stock and Bond Markets - Soyoung Kim

 

• Inclusive Growth: When May We Expect It? When May We Not? - Kunal Sen

 

• Globalization and the Quality of Asian and Non-Asian Jobs - Robert J. Flanagan and Niny Khor

 

• ADB’s Distinguished Speakers Program Measuring the Connectedness of the Financial System: Implications for Risk Management - Robert C. Merton

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

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] ADB: ASIAN ECONOMIC INTEGRATION MONITOR--APRIL 2014 [22 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

________________________________________________________________________

 

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

 

ASIAN ECONOMIC INTEGRATION MONITOR--APRIL 2014 [22 April 2014]

http://www.adb.org/publications/asian-economic-integration-monitor-april-2014

or

http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2014/aiem-apr-2014.pdf

[full-text, 66 pages]

 

Description

 

The Asian Economic Integration Monitor is a semiannual review of Asia’s regional economic cooperation and integration. It covers the 48 regional members of the Asian Development Bank. The April 2014 issue includes Theme Chapter: Insuring against Asia’s Natural Catastrophes.

 

Highlights

 

This issue of the Asian Economic Integration Monitor includes the following highlights:

• The external environment for developing Asia should improve through 2015 with the United States, Japan, and eurozone all showing signs that economic recovery is finally gaining traction.

• Even as growth in some of the region’s largest economies moderates, developing Asia should see a marginal increase in growth over the next 2 years as improved demand from advanced economies spurs exports and several economies boost investment.

• There are three main downside risks, none of which are new and all have been on policymakers’ radar for some time: (i) an economic shock or reversal in any G3 economy could derail the nascent global recovery; (ii) the People’s Republic of China (PRC) economy moderates too quickly, affecting the rest of developing Asia; and (iii) volatile capital flows affect financial conditions across the region.

• Global and regional supply chains continue to evolve, affecting the nature and dynamics of foreign direct investment and trade integration; this presents an opportunity to further open individual economies and strengthen trade and investment regimes.

• Asia's intraregional trade remains strong, if falling marginally from 54.9% in 2012 to 54.1% in 2013; nonetheless, inter-subregional trade between each subregion and the rest of Asia is rising, except for South Asia; Asia's intraregional trade bias also remains strong but is falling slightly—Southeast Asia has high intra-subregional trade bias and strong links with East Asia and South Asia.

• Financial integration across Asia continues to deepen both in terms of quantity and price measures; intraregional bank credit flows—particularly from Japan and Australia to other Asian economies—have emerged as an important source of external financing.

• Despite the sharp decline in global foreign direct investment in 2012, inflows to Asia decelerated much more slowly—due to a significant increase in intra-Asian foreign direct investment flows, especially from East Asia to ASEAN.

• There are strong trade, finance, investment, and tourism links between the PRC, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, with economic growth among the three becoming more correlated, and the PRC having a greater impact on growth in Japan and the Republic of Korea.

• People traveling within Asia continue to bolster economic and cultural ties, although emerging geopolitical trends may have hurt some tourist flows recently; worker remittances provide households a means to spread risk and mitigate income shocks.

• Deepening economic links imply more significant spillovers and increased contagion during crises; strengthening regional cooperation in surveillance and financial safety nets is imperative.

• As growth moderates in some of the region’s largest economies—and with the potential for increased geopolitical tension—it is critical Asia continues to strive toward broader and more effective regional cooperation.

 

ADB at a Glance

View infographic in higher resolution.

 

Theme Chapter: Insuring against Asia’s Natural Catastrophes

 

The theme chapter of the April 2014 Asian Economic Integration Monitor issue includes the following highlights:

• Over the past 20 years, Asia has borne half the estimated global economic cost of natural disasters—about $53 billion annually; this could potentially wipe out gains from economic growth in many economies.

• The gap between total economic losses and insured losses can be so wide that it may outstrip government’s ability to act as insurer of last resort. Regional cooperation along with better and more effective national policies to offer disaster risk financing instruments is therefore critical.

• Key priorities for developing disaster risk financing markets and strengthening financial resilience should include business continuity planning, enhancing technical and institutional capacities, and coordinating various governmental authorities across all levels.

 

Contents

• Highlights

• Regional Economic Update

• Regional Cooperation and Integration

• Theme Chapter: Insuring against Asia's Natural Catastrophes

• Statistical Appendix: Regional Integration 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.

 

 


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